“Wolves figure prominently in the mythology of nearly every Native American tribe. In most Native cultures, Wolf is considered a medicine being associated with courage, strength, loyalty, and success at hunting. Like bears, wolves are considered closely related to humans by many North American tribes, and the origin stories of some Northwest Coast tribes, such as the Quileute and the Kwakiutl, tell of their first ancestors being transformed from wolves into men. In Shoshone mythology, Wolf plays the role of the noble Creator god, while in Anishinabe mythology a wolf character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero. Among the Pueblo tribes, wolves are considered one of the six directional guardians, associated with the east and the color white. The Zunis carve stone wolf fetishes for protection, ascribing to them both healing and hunting powers.” Continue reading Anishinabe mythology a Wolf character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero
Latin, Beyond the powers. The doctrine in the law of corporations that holds that if a corporation enters into a contract that is beyond the scope of its corporate powers, the contract is illegal.
The doctrine of ultra vires played an important role in the development of corporate powers. Though largely obsolete inmodern private corporation law, the doctrine remains in full force for government entities. An ultra vires act is one beyond the purposes or powers of a corporation. The earliest legal view was that such acts were void. Under this approach a corporation was formed only for limited purposes and could do only what it was authorized to do in its corporate charter.
This early view proved unworkable and unfair. It permitted a corporation to accept the benefits of a contract and then refuse to perform its obligations on the ground that the contract was ultra vires. The doctrine also impaired the security of title to property in fully executed transactions in which a corporation participated. Therefore, the courts adopted the view that such acts were Voidable rather than void and that the facts should dictate whether a corporate act should have effect.
Over time a body of principles developed that prevented the application of the ultra vires doctrine. These principles included the ability of shareholders to ratify an ultra vires transaction; the application of the doctrine of Estoppel, which prevented the defense of ultra vires when the transaction was fully performed by one party; and the prohibition against asserting ultravires when both parties had fully performed the contract. The law also held that if an agent of a corporation committed a tort within the scope of the agent’s employment, the corporation could not defend on the ground that the act was ultra vires.
Despite these principles the ultra vires doctrine was applied inconsistently and erratically. Accordingly, modern corporation law has sought to remove the possibility that ultra vires acts may occur. Most importantly, multiple purposes clauses and general clauses that permit corporations to engage in any lawful business are now included in the articles of incorporation. In addition, purposes clauses can now be easily amended if the corporation seeks to do business in new areas. For example,under traditional ultra vires doctrine, a corporation that had as its purpose the manufacturing of shoes could not, under its charter, manufacture motorcycles. Under modern corporate law, the purposes clause would either be so general as to allow the corporation to go into the motorcycle business, or the corporation would amend its purposes clause to reflect the new venture.
State laws in almost every jurisdiction have also sharply reduced the importance of the ultra vires doctrine. For example,section 3.04(a) of the Revised Model Business Corporation Act, drafted in 1984, states that “the validity of corporate action may not be challenged on the ground that the corporation lacks or lacked power to act.” There are three exceptions to this prohibition: it may be asserted by the corporation or its shareholders against the present or former officers or directors of the corporation for exceeding their authority, by the attorney general of the state in a proceeding to dissolve the corporation or to enjoin it from the transaction of unauthorized business, or by shareholders against the corporation to enjoin the commission of an ultra vires act or the ultra vires transfer of real or Personal Property.
Government entities created by a state are public corporations governed by municipal charters and other statutorily imposed grants of power. These grants of authority are analogous to a private corporation’s articles of incorporation. Historically, the ultra vires concept has been used to construe the powers of a government entity narrowly. Failure to observe the statutory limits has been characterized as ultra vires.
In the case of a private business entity, the act of an employee who is not authorized to act on the entity’s behalf may,nevertheless, bind the entity contractually if such an employee would normally be expected to have that authority. With a government entity, however, to prevent a contract from being voided as ultra vires, it is normally necessary to prove that the employee actually had authority to act. Where a government employee exceeds her authority, the government entity may seek to rescind the contract based on an ultra vires claim.
Greenfield, Kent. 2001. “Ultra Vires Lives? A Stakeholder Analysis of Corporate Illegality.” Virginia Law Review 87(November).
Snodgrass, Frank R. 1995. Dealing with Governmental Entities. New York: Practising Law Institute.
Tomonori, Mizushima. 2001. “The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (summer-fall).
(uhl-trah veye-rehz) adj. Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law. Example: Directors of High fliers, Inc. operate a small bank for its employees and friends, which corporate law does not permit without a bank charter, or sells shares of stock to the public before a permit is issued. (See: corporation)
‘beyond the power’. An act is ultra vires if it is beyond the legal powers of the person doing it; thus an act by a company not expressly or impliedly permitted by its memorandum or articles is ultra vires. In the UK, the ultra vires doctrine has been radically changed by the Companies Act 1989 to the extent that persons doing business with companies without notice of the problem have little to fear. The doctrine still applies in relation to other bodies such as local authorities.
- Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. Louis D. Brandeis
- The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Lord Acton
Canada Day celebrations across the country, but CANADA has not paid The Anishinabe Government of Turtle Island the Rent For 150 YEARS!
While Corporate Enterprises are looking at partnering up on Indigenous land, The Turtle Island Government is concerned with the potential for Large Scale Environmental Disasters, specifically in regards to Pipelines, LNG , Land Storage, Proposed LNG Barges, and the increasing in Fracking practices in the industry, to examine projects to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be.
The large-scale natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon – is of great concern to The Government of The Anishinabe Nation, the increase in the potential for man made Natural Gas Environmental Disasters. The AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board ESRD, is looking into the Aliso Canyon Gas Leak.
The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO).
Aliso Canyon gas leak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Aliso Canyon leak site on December 14, 2015
|Duration||October 23, 2015 – February 18, 2016|
|Location||Aliso Canyon Oil Field, Porter Ranch, Los Angeles, California|
|Also known as||Porter Ranch gas leak / blowout|
|Type||Gas leak Blowout (well drilling)|
The Aliso Canyon gas leak (also called Porter Ranch gas leak and Porter Ranch gas blowout) was a massive natural gasleak that was discovered by SoCalGas employees on October 23, 2015. Gas was released from a well within the Aliso Canyon’sunderground storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains near Porter Ranch, Los Angeles. The second-largest gas storage facility of its kind in the United States, it belongs to the Southern California Gas Company, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. On January 6, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown issued a state of emergency. The Aliso gas leak carbon footprint is said to be larger than the Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 11, 2016 the gas company reported that it had the leak under control.
On February 18, 2016, state officials announced that the leak was permanently plugged. An estimated 97,100 tonnes (95,600 long tons; 107,000 short tons) of methane and 7,300 tonnes (7,200 long tons; 8,000 short tons) of ethane was released into the atmosphere, making it the worst natural gas leak in U.S. history in terms of its environmental impact.
By Leanne Betasamosake Simpson
The waning months of 2015 signaled a seemingly dramatic albeit likely superficial shift in Indigenous-state relations in Canada. Continue reading Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls
“I remember being in the dining room having a meal. I got sick and threw up on the floor. Sister Mary Immaculate [Anna Wesley] slapped me many times and made me eat my own vomit. So I did, I ate all of it. And then I threw up again … Sister Mary Immaculate slapped me and told me again to eat my vomit. … I was sick for a few days after that.”
The speaker is the Rev. Andrew Wesley, a survivor of St. Anne’s Indian Residential School in Fort Albany, Ontario, quoted in Charlie Angus’s new bookChildren of the Broken Treaty, which traces the history of Treaty 9 as well as of that the Indian Residential Schools system. Today Andrew Wesley is the Aboriginal Priest for the Anglican Church of Canada’s Archdiocese of Toronto. But in the mid-1950s, he was only one of several children at St. Anne’s whom Anna Wesley forced to eat their own vomit. Though she pled not guilty, Wesley was convicted in 1999 of assault and administering a noxious substance.
St. Anne’s is probably most infamous, however, for having a homemade electric chair that was used to punish children. Edmund Metatawabin, today an author, unfortunately experienced the chair. In a 2013 affidavit to Ontario Superior Court, he wrote, “I cannot describe how intense the pain was. I could not scream. At St. Anne’s, if you were being beaten, you could not scream or cry or the punishment would keep up.”
These were not isolated incidents: Children of the Broken Treaty reports that an OPP investigation nearly a half-century after the abuses took place collected 860 complaints of children being raped, sexually assaulted, tortured, beaten, and otherwise physically abused by 180 identified perpetrators. What took place at St. Anne’s could only be described as a crime against humanity. What kind of people would defend that?
The answer, painfully enough, is the Canadian Department of Justice — in the present day. Under the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) that was created as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Department of Justice is in the strange position of having to defend Canada against these accusations while also having to prepare evidence for the hearings on behalf of the survivors in order to determine their settlements.
The jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-members is governed by Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), which permits tribes to exercise civil jurisdiction over nonmembers engaged in consensual relationships with the tribe or its members on tribal land if there is a nexus between the nonmember’s relationship with the tribe or tribal members and the claims pled. Montana also permits the exercise of jurisdiction over nonmembers with respect to “conduct [that] threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” Continue reading Jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-members