Notice to Trespassers (Grand Renewable Wind LP – Samsung)

keep-out no trespassingNOTICE TO TRESPASSERS
D.I.A. X15173D-October 25,1784
Trespasser Name: Grand Renewable Wind LP/Grand Renewable Wind GP
Trespasser Address: 55 Standish Court, Mississauga, ON
RE: Trespass Warning
This is to inform you that under the Trespass to Property Act, that you are, not under any circumstances, permitted access to, or be on the premises of:
The Haldimand Proclamation, 1701 Nanfan Treaty Area.
In the event that the above is violated, for any reason, if you set foot on the aforementioned property, the Ontario Provincial Police will be contacted, who will be instructed to charge you under the Trespass to Property Act.
No further warning will be given and you are advised to conduct yourself accordingly.
Sincerely: KARIHWANORON ( William Monture) (Mohawk Turtle)
R.R. 6, Hagersville, 724 Chiefswood Rd., Six Nations of Indians

29 thoughts on “Notice to Trespassers (Grand Renewable Wind LP – Samsung)

    • Hey p,
      The post stunned me for a minute – but,
      I see what you mean.
      Let’s hope!

    • The destruction of the bald eagle’s nest allowed the smoldering embers of truth to erupt into a flame, and that flame is getting stronger every day, and threatening to burn away the lies that the wind industry has cloaked themselves in. They are running scared, and they should be. When all of their lies have been exposed to the general public, and not only the victims in the rural communities, the people’s disbelief will turn to disgust. This scam is hurting us all, and it is doing nothing to help our environment…..on the contrary, the destruction in the name of green energy, is horrifying. We are being forced to pay for garbage we do not want, do not need, and certainly cannot afford. This scam is definitely NOT SUSTAINABLE!!!

      • I LOVE IT! Too bad we can’t all do the same thing, but hey, we’ll support and cheer for anyone who takes a stand.

  1. . This could get very interesting !!! If the past is any indication, the OPP will not do a damned thing…But, we can only hope the trespass charge will stick…

  2. If the OPP won’t stop the trespassing then the people have the right to stop the trespassing there? This is Treaty Land which is the same as two countries/nations that make an agreement?

    • I have a hard time believing that the Six Nations people will allow them to trespass without repercussions. They are a proud people, and will not take kindly to having their laws flaunted in their faces. I believe they will protect their land.

    • The boundaries of Treaty Lands have been set by agreement between two nations and so the Treaty Land is the same as the boundaries of a separate country would be.

  3. See comment under Haldimand Wind Concerns. We’re right there with you Bill, Lester, et. al.

      • Hey 1957chev,
        Look again – I was confused, until it was explained to me.
        ‘[excerpt] Sincerely: KARIHWANORON ( William Monture) (Mohawk Turtle)’
        Bad boy – Montour – [you know the rest]
        ……get it?

  4. The “owners” of this land should also “SEIZE” any structure that was illegally erected there! Now that would underline the words “No Trespassing”!!!

  5. I wonder if the wind companies and provincial government are aware of:
    ‘Free prior and informed consent’ (FPIC), is the principle that a community has the right to give or withhold its consent to proposed projects that may affect the lands they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use. FPIC, for years advanced by FPP, is now a key principle in international law and jurisprudence related to indigenous peoples.That this right also applies to peoples within nation states is made explicitly clear in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Articles 3 and 4.’ to which Canada is a signatory. Although it was primarily driven by forest concerns it is being applied to all extractive activities of which harnessing energy from wind arguably is.
    Too bad this doesn’t apply to non-indigenous peoples.

  6. Hey Andre,
    You say – ‘too bad’.
    You are assuming too much.
    Maybe, the green mayors – are assuming too much as well?

    The U.N. can go to hell!

    • U.N. definition………………..Ugh!
      Quality of Life
      Term Description: notion of human welfare (well-being) measured by social indicators rather than by “quantitative” measures of income and production.

      Note: if you live in a fantasy world.

      • Hey Andre,
        Point me to the ‘spin department’…………..

      • The spin is by the proponents.
        As I said before, the proponents of these schemes have ‘cherry picked’ elements from concepts like sustainable development and various other lofty sounding frameworks usually backed by the UN and under such auspices use them to advance and justify their schemes. They play on the fact that most people are not familiar with them. Yet through reading the same ‘ideals’ it is easy to find concepts within them that identify weakness and errors in the arguments put forth by the proponents. For example, as with many things under the label ‘green’, the’ Green’ Energy Act is is green in name only. But the proponents will cite the UN’s earth summit principals and ‘saving the planet’ as justification for stripping away local decision making and input (which we normally have under the ‘ Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and the ‘Consolidated Hearing Act’ (CHA) but the GEA was exempted from them). Yet, this is in direct violation of a number of the UN’s Rio Principals. (Precautionary Principal and Local decision making et. al.) Highlighting these contradictions discredits the proponents and strips away their ‘stated’ justification. They can’t have it both ways.

        Had the GEA been subject to the EAA, the proponent would have to clearly identify there is a problem, there is a need for their proposal and that they have considered the pros and cons of all other options, including ‘the do nothing option’ not just their preferred option. The GEA never under went this review and would not likely have survived public review or would have involved long delays. It was a simply a fiat ordered by McGuinty.

      • Let’s not forget the others who were involved in the passage of the Green Energy Act. Granted it took the premier to pull this off.

      • Andre,
        You forgot to mention –
        what proponent(s), or let’s call them players – after all,
        we are all being played for fools………………
        you were referring to.

        Nevertheless – you have demonstrated you are a fan of the
        U.N.’s version of the ‘Precautionary Principle’.
        So here it is:
        At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, precaution was enshrined as Principle 15 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”


        Rio Earth Summit is Sustainable Development.
        Let’s not forget – Mr. Harper – called it a ‘communist plan’.

        What part @ the local level do you like best?

      • Andre,
        @ the local level of government
        I’ll give you a hint.
        Let’s go with – ‘Community Safety’
        Till now there has been no evidence of
        ‘best practices’ being applied.

      • FT
        To your first comment, okay proponents was being generically being used, but yes there are definitely players trying to take us for fools. My point is to defeat them at their own game. If they want to argue that IWTs are in the interest of sustainability then take them to task on it. If you lay it all out IWTs don’t meet the test on sustainability. They fail on a economic basis. They are more socially destructive. And from an environmental point of view they are marginal at best. Ironically, at worst IWTs may actually be increasing CO2, which they were supposed to reduce and is the main reason for their push – provided you buy into the global-warming-we-are-all-going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket mantra. Even the main gurus are starting to back away from this one, including James Hanson, given the UK Met’s office report that there has been no significant change in global temperatures since 1997 in spite of the fact that CO2 has continue to increase.

        As to your following post. I referred to a number of principals in general terms without citing specific ones, The Precautionary Principal was simply one of the them, As far as the local decision making try:

        “Principle 10

        Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”

        I think in this situation ‘concerned citizens’ and ‘at the relevant’ level qualifies as local. And yes, we agree community safety is definitely lacking. Local decision making and public participation is something we already had in the province under the EAA and the CHP which preceded the Rio conference by 15 years. They were also much stronger and effective that the Rio principals which is why the GEA was exempted from them.

        Note to Barb: Don’t forget who was behind Mcguinty and put him up to this. The same guy behind Obama, his campaign manager and chief of staff David Axlerod.

      • FT
        1) Read it already among a long list of other linkages between the two..
        2) Please elaborate on the important issues.
        3) Just because I’m familiar with the UN’s frameworks, does not make me a fan.

      • You’re to clever for me Andre – good-bye.

        For citizens interested in the Obama/McGuinty Liberal connection –

        ‘[excerpt] The man at the helm of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was a paid adviser to Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario Liberals.

        David Axelrod, chief political strategist to Obama, and his Chicago consulting firm did election preparation work for McGuinty from 2000 until the end of 2002.

        The Ontario premier quipped that the Illinois senator, whose appeal to U.S. voters’ hopes for change propelled him to victory in the Iowa caucuses and a second-place showing in the New Hampshire primary, is cribbing from his playbook.

        “He owes me big time for that,” McGuinty told reporters last week in Kitchener. “Barack Obama is delivering a message that is based on hope and he’s speaking to what I think is an innate longing and yearning felt in people everywhere.’

Leave a Reply to JOHN E FOREMAN Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *