More on land reclamation!!


This article should help explain WHY the reclamation action in Caledonia has had an unhappy result.

The Judge is saying that the RULE OF LAW is being circumvented. However, ANY PARTIES to a lawsuit are entitled to request an end to the action. That's is known as "CUTTING A DEAL" and is part of the legal system. The Judge in the case is setting himself up as a DICTATOR, for his own reasons!! He really has no right to comment on the settlement of the case between the developer, the Province and the Band. This is the natural result of the Harper government refusing to take real responsibility for what is -- in essence -- a TREATY negotiation, not a civil or criminal action. The Judge CLEARLY does not understand THE LAW.

If he is upset by the law enforcement that leads to community breakdown, his comments are nothing but more than an ordinary citizen making remarks. He is not the Judge for criminal proceedings!!! He can complain, like anyone else, but he has no court authorized authority to make remarks as if he, and only he can interpret the law. The OPP and the local police authority can file charges if they so desire -- it's not HIS job to do so.

Talk about unchecked EGO!! I have read that he owned property on the site --- if so, he should have declared himself in a conflict of interest. WHO IS FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW ....?

This is a Federal issue, not a Provincial one ...

And truth to tell, the protestors are every bit as much citizens as the homeowners in Caledonia, the business developers or the Judge ... when will people
WAKE UP!! As Thompson Highway says, wonder how the racists would feel if people were digging up graves in the cemetariews of their ancestors ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060706.CALEDONIA06/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

Rule of law not restored in Caledonia, judge says

JAMES RUSK
CAYUGA -- The continued occupation of a disputed tract of land in Caledonia by aboriginal protesters in the face of an earlier finding that they are in contempt of court means that rule of law has still not been restored in the community, says the judge who issued the order.

And in a democracy, when court orders are not obeyed, "the court is not hurt by it. It is destroyed by it. There will be a return to rule of law," Mr. Justice T. David Marshall of the Ontario Superior Court said at a hearing yesterday as he ordered parties to return to court on July 24.

Judge Marshall, who issued injunctions ordering the occupiers off the disputed property and an adjacent rail and who then issued a contempt order when the occupation did not end, has been trying since the beginning of June to use the power of his court to help end the occupation.

While the two previous hearings -- yesterday's was the third -- have served to nudge the dispute closer to resolution, Judge Marshall's legal ability to influence matters, which was rooted in his previous rulings, is becoming constricted.

On Tuesday, the province completed the purchase of the disputed property from developer Henco Industries Ltd. and Henco's lawyer, Michael Bruder, asked the judge to dissolve the injunctions issued on behalf of his client.

Ontario government lawyer Dennis Brown said that, since the injunction was sought by a previous owner and is legally not attached to the land, it no longer had any force in law, and the province does not intend to seek a new one now.

While Judge Marshall reserved his ruling on the application to end the injunction, the focus of the legal jockeying has shifted to the future of the contempt order, directed against two named aboriginals and other, unnamed protesters.

The judge would like to be able to use the order to help end the occupation and to respond to the needs of the local community, which is extremely frustrated by the continuing occupation, according to C. E. McCarthy, who represented the Haldimand Law Society.

"When the province owns the land, we have to ask ourselves the question why the protesters need to be there. Now it is time for them to leave," Mr. McCarthy said.
While the judge cautioned Mr. McCarthy for making a political speech, he said his strong views reflected the need for rule of law to be restored, and asked the lawyers when it would be appropriate to act on the earlier contempt ruling.

The July 24 hearing will consider a number of procedural issues relating to the contempt order, including the timeliness of any enforcement attempt, but a further hearing would still be required if Judge Marshall proceeds to impose penalties on anyone he has found in contempt.