WHEELER'S WALDEN POND

ABSTRACT George WHEELER Sr. FAMILY'S North WALDEN POND Acers

ABSTRACT

Concord Was a Sovereign Theocratic City-State veiled a Massachusetts Bay Colony and Walden Pond was once its Sacred Baptismal Place. [https://myscientistgod.us/walden-pond-is-sacred]

Now for the rest of the first of the story: Concord's 15 Colonists and their families departed England necessarily with a Royal Crown Grant and King Charles I's good riddance. The Puritans aimed at Reformation of the Church of England. The Puritans believed King Charles I had desecrated the Church with new intolerable rituals and ordinances, especially his new French wife.

" Henrietta Maria (French Henriette-Marie, born Nov. 25, 1609, Paris, died Sept. 10, 1669, Château de Colombes, near Paris], became the new French wife of King Charles I of England and mother of Kings Charles II and James II. By openly practicing Roman Catholicism at court, she alienated many of King Charles I’s subjects. During the first part of the English Civil Wars she displayed courage and determination in mustering support for King Charles I’s cause." But Queen Henrietta Maria soon learned the Religious Wars' seriousness in 1649 when King Charles I was dethroned and beheaded and she retreated to France. [Queen Henrietta Maria, Consort of England's King Charles I, by John S. Morrill, 2021 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.]

King Charles I preferred that the Puritan Reformation happen abroad in New England.

The Concord Massachusetts Bay Colonists purchased the 6-square- mile ‘Musketaquid’ (Concord) with their own money and merchandise (see the Concord Free Public Library Special collections for the details) and the 15 Colonist shareholders incorporated Concord in 1635.

King Charles I had no Concord property ownership, and was not a Concord Corporation stockholder, as described in the rules and regulations of ancient Incorporations. ["The king cannot by his charter alter the law." Anthony Lowe's Case (16io, K. B.) 9 Co. Rep. 122b, 123a. ' In the Middle Ages this principle had been applied to a charter which, it was alleged, had infringed a statute. Select Cases before the Council (s. s.) 6I, 62, 66, 68, 69. "3See Warren's Case (1620, K. B.) Cro. Jac. 540; Grant, Corporations (ed.,850) 22. "Piper v. Dennis (1692, K. B.) Holt, 17o; Grant, op. Ct. 21-2. 1 City of London's Case (I6io, K. B.) 8 Co. Rep. 121b, 126b, citing a record of 32 Edw. III. "Hayward v. Fulcher (1624, K. B.) Palmar, 491, 501, per Whitlock, J. 1T3 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 369-71. YALE LAW JOURNAL] [ENGLISH CORPORATION LAW IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES., W. S. HOLDSWORTH St. John's College, Oxford]

In 1635 George Wheeler Sr. was one of the15 Concord Colonists, Purchasers and Stockholders. "George Wheeler Sr. was obviously an important man in town affairs. His name appears on the Concord town records the first year they were kept and every year thereafter until he died.

'Walcott in his History of Concord asserts that George Wheeler Sr. was one of the few men who were foremost in the town's business, by virtue of their large estates as well as their integrity and good judgement.

"He was a man of education and the owner of a large amount of property, his house-lot alone consisting of eleven acres. He possessed lands in every part of the town, at Brook Meadows, Fairhaven Meadow, the Cranfield, North of Walden Pond , Goose Pond, Flint's Pond, on the White Pond Plain, on the Sudbury line, etc.

George Wheeler Sr. held as many positions of trust and was as active in the direction of the town's affairs as any individual in Concord, serving at various times on substantially every committee of consequence, and leading in all manners of moment, as is evidenced by the fact that nearly every town deed and petition of any importance from either the church or the civic community of that time bears his signature. [The Ancestry of Edward Wales Blake, Edith Bartlett Sumner, 1948, pp. 261-262] [History of the Wheeler Family in America, Albert Gallatin Wheeler, Jr. 1914 pp. 17-20]

King Charles I was engaged in England's Civil War. In 1649 He was dethroned and beheaded. Therefore, when Kingless, Concord functioned as independent Sovereign Theocratic Self-Governed City-State. Concord wrestled with the New Thrones as they ascended and vacillated from self-government to a New England priority until the Revolutionary War 1776, when the United States became the governing authority.

In an Native Indian Treaty, George Wheeler Sr. can be on the 1st or 2nd contractual side with the Native Indians on the opposite side. There is nothing magic about the words Reservation, Plantation, Tribe, Indian, Colonist, Purchaser, Shareholder, 'City on a Hill' and so on. The magic words in an Native Indian Treaty are 'contract', 'agreements' and 'promises'.

[Opinion of the SCIOTUS, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) No. 18–9526 JIMCY MCGIRT, PETITIONER v. OKLAHOMA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA July 9, 2020] : II, 4 MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA Opinion of the Court

"Start with what should be obvious: Congress established a reservation for the Native Creek Indians from the state of Georgia. In a series of treaties, Congress not only “solemnly guarantied” the land but also “establish[ed] boundary lines which will secure a country and permanent home to the whole Creek Nation of Indians.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XIV, 7 Stat. 368; 1833 Treaty, preamble, 7 Stat. 418.

"The government’s promises weren’t made gratuitously. Rather, the 1832 Treaty acknowledged that “[t]he United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove to the country west of the Mississippi” and, in service of that goal, required the Creeks to cede all lands in the East. Arts. I, XII, 7 Stat. 366, 367.

"Nor were the government’s promises meant to be delusory. Congress twice assured the Creeks that “[the] Treaty shall be obligatory on the contracting parties, as soon as the same shall be ratified by the United States.” 1832 Treaty, Art. XV, id., at 368; see 1833 Treaty, Art. IX, 7 Stat. 420 (“agreement shall be binding and obligatory” upon ratification).

"Both Creek Native Indian Treaties were duly ratified and enacted as law. Because the Tribe’s move west was ostensibly voluntary, Congress held out another assurance as well. In the statute that precipitated these negotiations, Congress authorized the President “to assure the tribe . . . that the United States will forever secure and guaranty to them . . . the country so exchanged with them.” Indian Removal Act of 1830, §3, 4 Stat. 412.

“[A]nd if they prefer it,” the bill continued, “the United States will cause a patent or grant to be made and executed to them for the same; Provided always, that such lands shall revert to the United States, if the Indians become extinct, or abandon the same.” Ibid. If agreeable to all sides, a tribe would not only enjoy the government’s solemn treaty promises; Tribe would hold legal title to its lands. It was an offer the Creek accepted. The 1833 Treaty fixed borders for what was to be a “permanent home to the whole Creek nation of Indians.” 1833 Treaty, preamble, 7 Stat. 418.

"The Treaty also established that the “United States will grant a patent, in fee simple, to the Creek nation of Indians for the land assigned said nation by this treaty.” Art. III, id., Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 5 Opinion of the Court at 419.

"That grant came with the caveat that “the right thus guaranteed by the United States shall be continued to said tribe of Indians, so long as they shall exist as a nation, and continue to occupy the country hereby assigned to them.” Ibid. The promised patent formally issued in 1852. See Woodward v. De Graffenried, 238 U. S. 284, 293–294 (1915).

"These early treaties did not refer to the Creek lands as a “reservation”—perhaps because that word had not yet acquired such distinctive significance in federal Indian law. But we have found similar language in treaties from the same era sufficient to create a reservation. See Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U. S. 404, 405 (1968) (grant of land “‘for a home, to be held as Indian lands are held,’” established a reservation). And later Acts of Congress left no room for doubt.

"In 1866, the United States entered yet another treaty with the Creek Nation. This agreement reduced the size of the land set aside for the Creek, compensating the Tribe at a price of 30 cents an acre. Treaty Between the United States and the Creek Nation of Indians, Art. III, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 786. But Congress explicitly restated its commitment that the remaining land would “be forever set apart as a home for said Creek Nation,” which it now referred to as “the reduced Creek reservation.” Arts. III, IX, id., at 786, 788.1"

" “[O]nly Congress can divest a reservation of its land and 8 MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA Opinion of the Court diminish its boundaries.” Solem, 465 U. S., at 470. So it’s no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federal government has already broken. If Congress wishes to break the promise of a reservation, it must say so. History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the will. Sometimes, legislation has provided an “[e]xplicit reference to cession” or an “unconditional commitment . . . to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land.” Ibid.

Other times, Congress has directed that tribal lands shall be “‘restored to the public domain.’” Hagen v. Utah, 510 U. S. 399, 412 (1994) (emphasis deleted). Likewise, Congress might speak of a reservation as being “‘discontinued,’” “‘abolished,’” or “‘vacated.’” Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481, 504, n. 22 (1973). Disestablishment has “never required any particular form of words,” Hagen, 510 U. S., at 411. But it does require that Congress clearly express its intent to do so, “[c]ommon[ly with an] ‘[e]xplicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of all tribal interests.’ ” Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, __–__(2016) (slip op., at 6). "

"State courts generally have no jurisdiction to try Indians for conduct committed in “Indian country.” Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U. S. 99, 102–103 (1993).

"All land within the limits of any Indian reservation are under the jurisdiction of the United States Government,

" To determine whether a tribe continues to hold a reservation, there is only one place we may look: the Acts of Congress. This Court long ago held that the Legislature wields significant constitutional authority when it comes to tribal relations, possessing even the authority to breach its own promises and treaties. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 566–568 (1903).

"But that power, the SCOTUS has cautioned, belongs to U.S. Congress alone. Nor will the SCOTUS lightly infer such a breach once U.S. Congress has established a reservation. Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U. S. 463, 470 (1984).

Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did. A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts U.S. Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the “supreme Law of the Land.” Art. I, §8; Art. VI, cl. 2.

"It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors in the state who might be least inclined to respect them. Likewise, state courts have no proper role in the adjustment of reservation borders. On the other hand, mustering the broad social consensus required to pass new U.S. Congressional legislation is a deliberately hard business under our U.S. Constitution.

"Faced with this daunting task, U.S. Congress sometimes might have wished in the past that an inconvenient troublesome, possibly illegitimate, reservation would simply have disappeared. Short of that, U.S. legislators might seek to pass laws that tiptoe to the edge of disestablishment and hope that SCOTUS judges—facing no possibility of electoral consequences themselves—will deliver the final push. Not all attempted treaties and reservations have been legitimately ratified.

"But wishes don’t make for laws, and saving the political branches the embarrassment of disestablishing a reservation is not one of our Constitutionally assigned prerogatives. “[O]nly U.S. Congress can divest a reservation of its land and 8 MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA Opinion of the Court diminish its boundaries.” Solem, 465 U. S., at 470. So it’s no matter how many other promises to a tribe the federal government has already broken. If U.S. Congress wishes to break the promise of a illegitimate, non-ratified reservation, it must say so. [Opinion of the SCIOTUS, 591 U. S. ____ (2020) No. 18–9526 JIMCY MCGIRT, PETITIONER v. OKLAHOMA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA July 9, 2020]

George Wheeler Sr., a Sovereign Concord Massachusetts Bay Colonist, Purchaser and Stockholder could have been on the -sic- Concord tribal side of the Native Indian Treaty, for example. A tribe is aka family, after all. [JSTOR] The explanatory point is a Native Indian Treaty contract is similar to any other contract. In a Native Indian Treaty contract 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'.

Words describing the agreements and promises of a Native Indian Treaty contract matter; not the names or definitions of party 1 and party 2. 'What words in the contract, agreements and promises are good for party 1, (who might be the goose or gander or Indian Tribe or Colonists), is good for party 2 , (who might be the goose or gander or Indian Tribe or Colonists).

The U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) now, after SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020 decision, should be alerted, informed and not allow one party and side of an Indian Treaty Contract to be treated according to the agreements and promises words and the other party and side not be treated according to the agreements and promises words. An Indian Treaty contract is similar to a divorce contract. Both the husband and wife should be treated according to the agreements and promises of the contracts words. The wife can't get divorced while the husband remains married.

As decided by SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020, the Georgia Creek Indian Tribe was provided an Oklahoma Reservation with all Sovereign Rights as agreed and promised in their 1832 and 1833 Native Indian Treaties, that had not been provided prior to McGirt 2020 and the state of Georgia continued to keep the Creek Indian Tribes’ Georgia land that had been exchanged in the 1832 and 1833 Native Georgia Creek Indian Treaties.

The U.S. Federal Government should not allow the state of Massachusetts to continue their Eminent Domain ‘took’ of George Wheeler Sr.'s Walden Pond 44 acers from the George Wheeler Sr. family and allow the state to continue to dishonor the words of the 1635 Native Indian Treaty contract agreements and promises', that were initiated before the 'took' by the state’s North Walden Pond 44 acres ‘Squatting’ and state’s property sales, while the state continues to honor the 1635 Indian Treaty contract side and the Massachusetts Praying Town Reservations and all the Native Indian's other Treaty agreements and promises. 'What's not good for the goose is not good for the gander.'

Walden Pond Park is frequented by 500,00 national and international visitors. Worldwide communities' recognition of George Wheeler Sr. heirs' and descendant families' 1635 Native Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acers ownership is essential. The George Wheeler Sr. families' and Massachusetts Bay Colonists' and Native Indians' concordance and Christianizations History Restoration, Education and Preservation’ including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ are the owners' endeavors.

Not only was the state not authorized the Eminent Domain of federally authorized and Native Indian Treaty North Walden 44 acre properties ratified 'Supreme Law of the Land' but, in doing so, the state’s actions were doubly egregious, because the state had no legal authority to to alter, revoke, change and/or disestablish an entire Native Indian Treaty, if discovered, and triply egregious when the state failed to notify the Wheeler families about their 'take' and failed to compensate the Wheeler families for their Eminent Domain 'take'. This is U.S. Constitution, U.S. Congress and SCOTUS business, not state business.

The wrong Sovereign the State of Oklahoma convicted Enrolled Seminole Indian Jimmy McGirt that finally SCOTUS 2020 ruled overturned and everyone acknowledged and corrected the mistakes because 'what was good for the goose was not equally as good for the gander'. Only the Native Creek Indian side of the Indian Contract Treaty with the state of Georgia had been disestablished.. [SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020].

The wrong Sovereign the state of Massachusetts allowed our Wheeler families’ original Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres, that in 1664 this reporter’s 9th GGFather George Wheeler Sr. bequeathed to 8th GGFather John Wheeler, that contains The Thoreau Cabin, in succession to be ‘squatted’, sold, transferred without deed and ‘Took’ in 1955 by Eminent Domain without the Wheeler families’ notification and compensation by ‘State of Massachusetts' Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and/or recorded by the state of Massachusetts and no authority ruled overturned, acknowledged and corrected the mistakes because 'what was good for the goose was not equally as good for the gander' Only the Puritan and George Wheeler Sr. side of the Pennecook Indian Treaty Contract had been altered, revoked and disestablished.

George Wheeler Sr. individually purchased and privately owned the North Walden Pond 44 acres within the Sovereign Indian Treaty 6-square-mile 'Musketaquid' (Concord).

George Wheeler Sr.’s Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership began in 1635

after Squaw Sachem and the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation signed the 1635 'Musketaquid' (Concord) Native Indian Treaties.

Squaw Sachem and the Pennacook Indians ceded, (an act of cession), their claims and surrendered all their rights of Sovereignty, (see the second photo above) over their 6-square-mile 'Musketaquid' (Concord), Indian Nation’s Country,

to the Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony and their individual Colonist, Purchaser and Stockholders (-sic- Concord tribal member for example) 1. who settled Concord, (-sic their Sovereign Tribal 'City- on a Hill', symbolically 2.)

The North Walden Pond 44 acres were a significant Concord property acreage privately owned by George Wheeler Sr. 1. [3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property *521–*524., SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020] 2. [Governor Winthrop]

George Wheeler Sr.'s [will was dated January 28, 1684 and presented for probate June 2, 1687. Suffolk Prob. Reg. Vol. X fol. 1]

“George Wheeler Sr.’s sons Thomas and this reporter’s 8th Great-Grandfather John Wheeler were named executors, but Thomas died in 1687 and John was named sole executor. The George Wheeler Sr. will names “the children of his deceased son William, sons Thomas and John, daughters Elizabeth Fletcher, Sarah Dudley, Ruth Hartwell and Hannah Fletcher, and the children of my daughter ‘Fox' (surname)“. [George Wheeler Sr. line, The Wheeler Families of Old Concord, Massachusetts Concord Public Library https://concordlibrary.org/special-collections/wheeler-genealogy#George ]

For example, “Different kinds of individual Indian land ownership are explained in this fact sheet. [Planning for the Passing of Reservation Lands to Future Generations, March 2009 FACT SHEET #3 How reservation land is owned by individuals https://www.montana.edu/indianland/documents/factsheets/factsheet3.pdf]

“The Indian land deed will indicate whether ownership of reservation land is 1. Individually Owned Trust or Restricted Land and/or, 2. Fee Land (also known as Fee Simple Land or Fee Patent Land).”

George Wheeler Sr.’s Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership began in 1635 and just as his other Indian Treaty purchased properties, North Walden Pond 44 acres are his individually owned Fee Land aka Fee Simple Land or Fee Patent Land.”

George Wheeler Sr. account is exactly like the following Example: fee land (fee simple or fee patent) means that an individual owns the property outright and that the land is not held in trust for a tribal member by the United States government. If there are no restrictions on Fee land (fee simple or fee patent), landowners can gift, bequeath or sell their fee land without Bureau of Indian Affairs or any others’ approval.

George Wheeler Sr.’s son and sole executor John Wheeler born in Concord, MA on March 19, 1643/4. [1] [2] [3] was bequeathed the North Walden Pond 44 acres and many other properties.

The only John Wheeler Middlesex County Probate Records were an agreement for settlement of 8th GGF Constable John Wheeler’s estate [Middlesex County Probate Records, Packet #24,290, a settlement of my 8t John Wheeler’s estate while, it appears, strictly guided by widow Sara Larkin Wheeler.

History indicates that Ebenezer Wheeler was busy managing John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ that remained the property of John Wheeler’s widow Sara Larkin Wheeler and at the same time busy managing Native Indian Praying Town Reservations progression, until Ebenezer died prematurely 1748. Grafton MA Minister John Eliot was busy Christianizing the Native Indians as planned and had written the 1st Bible ever published in the United States, the Indian Bible in Algonquin Indian language; truly remarkable historical feats that deserve recognition.

Sole executor Ebenezer Wheeler never executed the division and distribution of John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ as believed was to transpire assisted by widow Sara Wheeler. But, fortunately as time marched-on, John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ in its entirety including the North Walden Pond 44 acres remained in John Wheeler widow’s and the children’s mother’s name, Sara Larkin Wheeler who died in 1725.

There are 156,012 surnamed Wheeler persons in the United States.

As fate or planned, Intestate Succession under the Massachusetts Uniform Probate code (UPC) laws of intestacy, the system, called “per capita at each generation” is said to grant the estate in equal shares to those equally related in the nearest-successive-generation.

Two rules govern this system:

Each surviving share in the nearest-successive-generation is allocated one equal share. If all 9 children survive the deceased single parent each will receive 1/9 of the properties.
If 1 of 9 children does not survive the deceased single parent at the time of Intestate-Succession and that deceased nearest-successive-generation child has 4 children, each of the 4 children in that deceased next-successive-generation will receive 1/4 of the properties of that deceased nearest-successive-generation remaining share

If any in the nextest-successive-generations are deceased the remaining shares will divided in the same manner among the surviving members of the nextest-successive-generations.

This reporter is 8 successive-generations from John Wheeler’s widow or 8th Great-Grandmother Sara Larkin Wheeler's estate.

Resolution of the financial balance sheet between each heir owner and the masqueraded impersonator owners of the Wheeler Family's North Walden Pond 44 acres considering Wheeler Family's loss of income since approximately 1841 Preemption 'Squatter Law' vs taxes and other financial encumbrances remitted timely by the masqueraded impersonator owners is complicated but resolvable.

"Generally speaking state parks are losing propositions. It has become clear in recent years that state park systems, by and large, are struggling. Public funding is not meeting the needs of most systems. A fresh approach to financing parks and open space and new management approaches is needed." [ Paying for State Parks: Evaluating Alternative Approaches for the 21st Century. by Margaret Walls, 2013]

The Puritans were extremely religious. Sara Larkin Wheeler died in 1725 a widow with no spouse and mother of 9 Children and her 9 children inherited every property and everything else she owned. John Wheeler preceded Sara Larkin Wheeler in death thus her entire estate passed without probate to her 9 descendant children.

Think about widow Sara Larkin Wheeler Puritan Scenario from the following perspective:

On the 1st contractual side of the Indian Treaty Contract was the sale of the 1635 Musketaquid (Concord) signed by Squaw Sachem and her Pennacook Native Indians a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation Tribe with agreements and promises relinquishing all their rights within ‘Musketaquid’ (6-mile-square Concord) to the Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony and the 2nd contractual side the 1635 Indian Treaty the Purchase of ‘Musketaquid’ (6-mile-square Concord) to the 15 shareholders and families of Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony in exchange for the provision to Pennacook Native Indians of Sovereign Massachusetts Praying Town Reservations and all other numerous associated benefits, including the subject matter of this History, Sovereign Puritan Theocratic North Walden Pond 44 acres, that was forested with Thoreau’s Natural Resources and Transcendentalism and in some minor ways like the Sioux’s Black Hills both spiritually and monetarily.

A Tribe is a family. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23255961, JSTOR). Imagine a tribe (family) sales the North Walden Pond 44 acres to another tribe (family). Then metaphorically John Wheeler’s ‘Tribe’ owns Walden Pond 44 acres.

The 2 tribes had a binding 'Supreme Law of the Land' Indian Treaty contract. Like a marriage contract, employment contract and a land contract.

Traditionally, the Native Indians were called Tribes and had Reservations and the English settlers were called families and had Plantations. Both tribes and families theoretically equally negotiated the sale, or at least the original contracts' words will be lawfully enforced if required.

The 2 contract parties position becomes more understandable when the reader considers both of the Indian Treaty contract 2 parties as 'Tribes' and land as Reservations.

Both the Indian Tribes' and the Settler Tribes' Reservations, agreements and promises original contract words will be lawfully enforced if required. [SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020]

The distinction is that the authority for all Indian Treaties', with customarily 2 parties, for example Indian Tribes (families) and the Settler Tribes (families), and both their Reservations (Plantations) or Tribal (family) Lands or Tribal (family) Countries and their other agreements and promises are Federal Government and U.S. Congress business, not state business, unlike other routine contracts.

In light of SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020,when the Purchase of North Walden Pond 44 acres is understood were part of the agreements of the 1635 Concord MA-Indian Treaty Contract

and when understood the 1635 Concord Indian Treaty Contract has not been disestablished, revoked or altered by the U.S. Congress.

George Wheeler Sr.'s Families' North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership in 1635 continues to be George Wheeler Sr.'s Families' North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership in 2021.

An Indian Treaty Contract is in The U.S. Congress and Federal Government league of its own and out-of-bounds for States and off-limits For States governmental interference, medaling and trespassing. States are comparatively Little League volunteer umpires compared to the authority of U.S. Congress and Federal Government.

If a state Eminent Domains and 'tooks' or snatches a property from a ‘Law of the Land’ Indian Treaty contract, the Eminent Domaining state can be severely punished for failure to notify the family of its 'took' and failure to compensate the family for the 'took' and unlawful 'took' where states have no authority to 'took' and potentially other irreparable damages.

8th GGF John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ bequeathed form 9th GGF George Wheeler Sr. one of the 15 Concord Colonists, Purchasers and Stockholders 1635 passed directly from his widow Sara Larkin Wheeler to her 9 children, John Wheeler family.

No further probate or deeds transferred any of George Wheeler Sr. and John Wheeler’s considerable moveable Indian Treaty estate. Constable John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ passed directly from his widow Sara Larkin Wheeler to her 9 children, so named in the probate records:

sons Samuel Wheeler, Edward Wheeler, and Ebenezer Wheeler
Wives of sons-in-law William Woodbury, John Meriam, Timothy Wheeler, Samuel Prescott, and Jonas Prescott. [2]
and subsequently the children’s heirs
these family descendant members are easily located

No further probate or deeds transferred any of George Wheeler Sr. and John Wheeler’s considerable moveable Indian Treaty estate. [GGF John Wheeler estate dated October 21, 1713. transcribed from FHL Microfilm 0,432,078]

John Wheeler married Sarah Larkin Wheeler. John Wheeler’s son, 7th Great-Grandfather Ebenezer Wheeler born in Concord, Massachusetts, June 3, 1682 and died there February 36, 1748, was named the sole executor of John Wheeler's estate.

Following the misunderstood and misapplication of 1841 Preemption ('Squatting') Law, which was for Western migration and settlement of unowned and unoccupied Western states' land i.e. Western-Ho land rush stampedes seen in modern Western movies, but not Massachusetts and Colonial land, trespassers began 'squatting Walden Pond 44 acres as detailed in Henry David Thoreau's book 'Walden'.

The following happened: George Wheeler Sr. and his bequeathed and descendant family owned and naturally preserved the Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres from 1635 – 1845.

During the 1841 Preemption ('Squatting') Law misconception: (designed for 'Westward Ho', unowned, unoccupied Western State Territories in which Massachusetts was not included as we have seen in the stampedes in Western movies) unbeknown to the Wheeler family, in 1844 the historic Emerson-Thoreau Cabin (Shanty) 14 acres located in George Wheeler Sr.'s North Walden Pond 44 acres, were dissected from the North Walden Pond 44 acres, like removing a heart form the remainder of the Human torso, and sold by "Squatter" Thomas Wyman or his estate to the good-intentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, apparently from the confusion. Possibly the 2 other North Walden Pond 44 acres adjacent sections that were later donated to the Massachusetts State Park System were likewise sold.

The 1845 deed, pictured below in 3 parts in a post in this report, was recorded in Middlesex County, Massachusetts and was for The South Walden Pond 41 acres that were sold by James Heywood to Abel Moore and John Hosmer who sold the South Walden Pond 41 acres to Ralph Waldo Emerson 1845 deed Book 473, pp. 351-353, Middlesex County, Massachusetts 1845.

That deed was recorded for the legitimate purchase of the South Walden Pond 41 acres.

Emerson-Thoreau Cabin (Shanty) unauthorized and deed-inaccessible Wheeler 14 acres located in George Wheeler Sr.'s North Walden Pond 44 acres and 2 other family sections without deeds pictured were donated to the Massachusetts State Park system in 1922 by the Emerson family’s grandson and others.

This reporter's 9th Great Grandfather George Wheeler Sr.'s son, 8thGreat Grandfather John Wheeler, was bequeathed George Wheeler Sr.'s 1635 Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres Land Patent, 1st Title Deed, (NWP44a) published in both George Wheeler Sr.'s 1684 will and 1687 probate. The Walden Pond 44 acres Land Patent was one of George Wheeler Sr. properties that he purchased with “cessions of all rights” directly during the 1635 Native Indian Treaty and that George Wheeler and John Wheeler’s rightful descendant-heirs peacefully and ‘concordantly’ maintained for ~200 years from 1635 to 1845 without interference. This is a courteous notice. John Wheeler’s rightful descendant-heirs currently own today in 2021. Henry David Thoreau’s authentic Cabin within Ralph Waldo Emerson's NWP44a deedless 13 acres and 80 rods that he purchased from deedless unqualified ‘Adverse Possession’ 'Squatter' Thomas Wyman's estate are different form Emerson's South Walden Pond 41 acres, that he purchased and recorded with deed in 1845 South Middlesex County records. Termination of George Wheeler Sr.'s legacy, the 1635 Indian Treaty NWP44A 1st title Deed Land Patent with sacred shoreline Puritan Baptismal, began with 'Squatter' John Wyman and then son Thomas Wyman's unqualified ‘Adverse Possession’ that was based 1st on an Unconstitutional Civil Property Rights Violation followed by a cavalcade of 3 costly, catastrophic Violations: Squatting on Colonists George Wheeler Sr.'s bequeathed son John Wheeler 's Communal descendant-heirs' 1635 Indian Treaty 1st Title Deed Land Patent was and remains a timeless federal Unconstitutional Civil Property Right Violation. Misinterpretation of 1841 Preemption ('Squatter') Law specifically designed for Western land rush of unowned, unoccupied, unsurveyed, specific dedicated land, not New England Colonies. State of Massachusetts 'Squatter” requirements violations. Executor Cyrus Stow's deedless sale to Ralph Waldo Emerson of Wyman's Squat on George Wheeler's NWP44A later that was inhabited by Thoreau and his Cabin Site. “Evidently, John Wyman having deceased in 1800 his son Thomas Wyman was not continuing in the trade and pottery was no longer made in Walden Wood where the earth was rich in clay. Farther in the woods than others, where the road approaches nearest to the pond, Wyman the potter 'squatted' and furnished townsmen with earthen ware. He left descendants to succeed him. Neither were they rich in worldly goods, holding the land by 'sufferance' while they lived; and there often the sheriff came in vain to collect the taxes, and “attached a chip,” for form’s sake, read in his accounts, there being nothing else he could lay his hands on and read potter’s clay and wheel in Scripture, but never occurred to me that the pots we use were not such as had come down unbroken from those days, or grown on trees like gourds somewhere, and I was pleased so fictile an art was ever practiced in my neighborhood.” [INDEX OF PEOPLE MENTIONED IN WALDEN - Kouroo (PDF) by Grant Volkmann 1991, 46 Pages , Posted April 14, 2020]

North Walden Pond 44 acres and surrounding pond land with adjacent shoreline, the setting of Henry David Thoreau’s ‘Walden’ was donated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1922 (in 3 'Squatter' sections, possibly al purchased from 'Squatter' Thomas Wyman) by the Emerson family 13.50 acres, Forbes family 16.38 acres, and the Hoar family 13.6 acre North of the Pond water. These (43.48 acres) are shareholder George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres stockholds, North of the shoreline and Pond water.

Other1922 donations were by the Heywood family were 7.59 acres East and by the Emerson family 41 acres South of the Walden Pond shoreline and pond water.

The Emerson family 13.50 acres (sometimes labeled14 acres) North of the Pond water and Emerson family 41 acres South of the pond water were not adjacent but separated by location North and South of Pond water. The total North and South Emerson 54.50 acres (55 acres) are often confused with George Wheeler Sr.’s North Walden Pond 44 acres. The diagram above clearly identifies the Middlesex County Emerson family 13.50 acres, Forbes family 16.38 acres, and the Hoar family 13.6 acre North of the Pond water and the South Walden Pond 41 acres with correct acreage, owner and location differences.

John Wheeler's widow Sara Larkin Wheeler’s and deceased husband John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ by law automatically transferred from the Widow Sara Larkin Wheeler to her collective 9 children’s names as detailed in John Wheeler’s probate and listed above without passing through probate court again.

In the final analysis, George Wheeler families' perpetual factual and truthful ownership of the ‘considerable moveable estate’ including Walden Pond 44 acres, Indian Treaty Country, is meant to be a persistent reminder of what happened in 1635.

A Puritan Theocratic Concordant Government made an indelible mark in Massachusetts as a Sovereign ‘City on the Hill’, a peaceful, concordant model for living with Native Indians as preached by Governor Winthrop.

Matthew 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can't be hidden.

See more details below and the following links:

https://myscientistgod.us/mbmsrmd-wheeler-ancestry

https://myscientistgod.us/walden-pond-is-sacred

https://myscientistgod.us/wheelers-walden-pond

When all is said and done, the best we 9th Great-Grandfather George Wheeler Sr. (born 1606 England) and 7th Great-Grandfather John Wheeler (born March 19, 1643 Concord, MA) heirs and descendant families and North Walden Pond 44 acres owners can expect is to

reclaim accurate George Wheeler Sr. and Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony and 1635 Indian Treaty History and reclaim recognition of George Wheeler Sr. Families’ North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership.

The Concord Free Public Library Special Collections have many special collections documenting:

that George Wheeler Sr. was the original owner of the North Walden Pond 44 acres
that was purchased from the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation
and documents maps and diagrams of North Walden Pond 44 acres ‘squatters’
and documents Henry David Thoreau’s publication, ‘Walden’ describes himself and other squatters
Special Collections maps, diagrams document 3 parcels of North Walden Pond 44 acres owners
who donated their 3 parcels of North Walden Pond 44 acres to the state Massachusetts
Special Collections and Middlesex County records reveal no deed transfers to purchasers from the bequeathed and sole executor of George Wheeler Sr.’s Will, John Wheeler and his descendant families

How can anyone justify the squatting, sale and donations of the federally protected Indian Treaty land, ‘The Constitutional Supreme Law of The Land’, the North Walden Pond 44 acres, to state of Massachusetts?

How can anyone justify the ‘took’ by Eminent Domain of the federally protected Indian Treaty land, ‘The Constitutional Supreme Law of The Land’, the North Walden Pond 44 acres, without notice or compensation to John Wheeler descendant families, to whom George Wheeler Sr. bequeathed his North Walden Pond 44 acres, who was sole George Wheeler Sr. will executor?

Eminent Domain is serious, devastating business and should not be executed thoughtlessly without thorough ownership, deed, title and permissible investigations.[SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020].

Members of ‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Restoration, Education and Preservation’ including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ endeavor to reclaim accurate George Wheeler Sr. and Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony and 1635 Indian Treaty History and reclaim recognition of George Wheeler Sr. Families’ North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership.

‘The Society endeavors to Restore, Educate and Continue the Histories and Preservation. Thus far the Walden Pond Reservation State Park has neglected the entire North Walden Pond 44 acres history.

‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ Restoration, Education and Preservation’ endeavor:

the factual and truthful reclamation of the recognition of our (2) John Wheeler family (1 George Wheeler Sr.) family’s North Walden Pond 44 acres, that were acquired in the Native Pennacook Indian Treaty, and bequeathed from his father, George Wheeler Sr. that John Wheeler executed
and institution of educational resources regarding the remarkable Native Pennecook Indian, Wheeler and Colonists families’ concordant history at Walden Pond Reservation State Park
the Walden Pond historical significances and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Preservation.
and The history of this descendant’s 9th Great-Grandfather George Wheeler Sr. and other Concord Puritan’s ‘New World Pioneering Model’, characterized by remarkable Native Indian concordance, peace and Christianization
George Wheeler Sr. grandson, Ebenezer Wheeler, this descendant’s 7th Great- Grandfather, remarkable establishment with 39 other pioneers of Pennacook Indian ‘Praying Town’ Reservations, who also contributed to the history of the Algonquin Indian Bible, first Bible printed in the U.S. in 1661 in the Algonquin Indian language, have thus far not been recognized in the Walden Pond State Park educational systems.
These are some of the most amazing Spiritual Colonial Pioneering and Spiritual Native Indian histories that need to be taught to all age groups.
All need to be taught to the general public and students.
Most importantly the facilitation of visitors quiet, solitary, meditative walks through Walden Pond Woodlands and Nature. The Practice of Nature’s Mindfulness.
‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Restoration, Education and Preservation’ including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ support these endeavors.
Students and readers might consider the lengthy duration of this important and misfortunate history and the importance of our state and federal court systems.

Unconstitutional unauthorized personnel numerical actions and Unconstitutional MA state hostile ‘Seizure’ bulleted actions of George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty ‘Sovereign’ North Walden Pond 44 acres (NWP44A) 1st Title Deed Land Patent, specifically:

1. Wyman’s unauthorized personnel ‘Squatting’ adverse possession
2. followed by 1844 sale of Wyman’s ‘Squat’ to Emerson by estate broker Cyrus Stow
3. then family deedless Quitclaim donations of NWP44A ‘Squat’ to Massachusetts
* and subsequent ‘State of Massachusetts' Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Eminent Domaine NWP44A ‘Seizure’ for 'The Walden Pond Reservation State Park'.

“’Sovereign’ legal title patents over any land requires an act of Cession (Ceded rights), the transfer of Sovereign claim one nation to another. [3 E. Washburn American Law of Real Property*521–*524.]

Therefore, George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty ‘Sovereign’ NWP44A 1st Title Deed Land Patent, purchased and ceded (cessioned) by the Indians, with Henry David Thoreau’s Cabin Site within Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 13 acre 80 rods purchased ‘Squat’, must be Upheld and Enforced as SCOTUS Upheld and Enforced “Oklahoma land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century that remains ‘Indian Treaty Country’ today”. [SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020]

Massachusetts extratextual Loss of owners' LanD

Additionally, not only 17th Century Colonists and Indian Treaty wrongfulness but “Massachusetts Law and Policy also facilitated the Loss of Tribal Indian Lands.”

Many unsuspecting landowners in New England that could be deceived of owned, but unoccupied lands were swindled and defrauded, including European Colonists’, Native Indians’ and Tribes’ lands and Indian Treaty Reservations.

“Native Indian land loss, the policies that enabled it, and the subsequent consequences on Native American tribes in Massachusetts were the subjects of a panel discussion at Suffolk University April, 2014.

“A Hidden History: How Massachusetts Law and Policy Facilitated the Loss of Tribal Lands” convened with a discussion, explaining “how a land-holding Native Indian majority population became a landless minority over the span of just a few centuries [and] was virtually erased from the awareness of local society.”

Since Native people had different concepts of governance and land use, their migration patterns created vacant territories. Cheryl Toney Holley, chief of the Nipmuc Nation and Hassanamisco Band of Nipmuc Indians explained: “We weren’t wanderers and vagrants; it’s just how our traditional way of life was. We knew where to go and at what time to go there. . . . We never had that concept of ownership before.” Even after losing official title to their lands, however, Native people often retained customary rights of access to the areas and returned to places that were culturally significant.

“Despite the fact that they felt completely entitled, legally and religiously, to these lands, 1635 Concord Puritan Colonists and George wheeler Sr. purchased land from Native landholders and sachems.” Ann Marie Plane, an associate professor of history at the University of California-Santa Barbara said, noting how multiple lines of descent and competition for resources complicated the deals.

In contrast, the King of England’s land doctrine and ownership asserted that unoccupied New England lands could be legally claimed, which contributed to Native land loss. [Sanctioned Theft: Tribal Land Loss in Massachusetts, CSQ staff, June 2014, Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine, CSQ Issue: 38-2]

“Attorney General William Wirt, when asked about the matter in 1821, wrote, So long as a tribe exists and remains in possession of its lands, its title and possession are sovereign and exclusive.” Wirt continued, “Tribal governments, “do not hold [title] under the States, nor under the United States; their title is original ownership.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall turned to the subject of Indian land ownership in 1823, writing the majority opinion in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, Marshall again ruled that American Indians had some right to the land, but that this right was something less than full legal ownership. Marshall wrote that the right of discovery gave European nations “ultimate dominion” over North America. This was later concluded wrong.

Marshall’s assertion that, “These English Crown Grants have been understood by all to convey a title to the grantees,” is wrong. But Marshall’s and others statements confused the actual legality and ownership of Native Indian possession of the land.

Marshall concluded, “Conquest gives a title which the Courts of the conqueror cannot deny, whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals may be, respecting the original justice of the claim.” [A Brief History of Land Transfers Between American Indians and the United States Government. Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University]

Later and now, England’s discovery of North America allowed English Crown Grants and English settlers the first right to purchase the land from the original land occupiers and owners, the Native Indians.

“When one European power succeeded a previous Sovereign Power, as when the United States succeeded England after the American Revolution, title or ownership to all lands within the boundaries claimed did not automatically pass to the new Sovereign United States. 72 To the contrary, a successor-in-interest the Sovereign United States merely obtained the right, to the exclusion of other European powers, to purchase or otherwise acquire lands from the Indians. 73 Yet, the doctrine of discovery merely governed the relationships between competing European sovereigns.” 74 68. Id. at 14.

Victorian Principles continued to dominate discourse, id: (1) that Indian peoples had both property rights and Sovereign power of their land; (2) that Indian lands could only be acquired with tribal consent or after a just war against them; and (3) that acquisition of Indian lands was solely a governmental matter, not to be left to individual colonists.

“The Sovereign power is not applied to extinguished titles or other interests against the will of tribal occupants by force of eminent domain." [81. Id. at 562-63 E.g. Treaty with the Creeks (Aug. 7, 1790), 7 Stat. 35]

“All property within the Territory, by whomever held, shall be deemed to have originated in a patent issue pursuant to the Sovereign Authority of the Band and such interests shall be recorded in the Land Office. [Richard Monette, Conference Presentation, Preserving Our Sovereignty (Miami, Fla., Feb. 10-12, 2005) (copy on file with author)].

“The range of tribal individual property rights in contrast to Sovereign eminent domain powers is consistent with the range of divergent laws in a current survey of international law. There are countries in which the government is the sole property owner with no need to exercise eminent domain, 165 and those countries where the power, if exercised, is more constrained than the current United States system. 166 The same diversity of viewpoints would have existed at traditional tribal law.

“Eminent Domain is the power of any Sovereign to take or to authorize the taking of any property within its jurisdiction for public use without the consent of the owner. It is an inherent power and authority which is essential to the existence of all governments. Therefore, the Sovereign Navajo Indian Nation Government has the power and the authority to take by Eminent Domain specific Northeastern Arizona property within the Navajo Nation without the property owner’s consent. Plaintiffs' consent to the granting of a right-of-way is totally 171 unnecessary.

“Eminent domain is usually considered an inherent power of all Sovereigns. If the tribal power is ultimately challenged in federal court, the courts will likely look to various textual sources to determine whether the tribal power has somehow been divested.

“182. Felix S. Cohen noted in the most recent edition of the leading treatise in the field that [p]erhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law, supported by a host of decisions, is that those powers lawfully vested in an Indian nation are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather "inherent powers of a limited Sovereign Indian Nation which has never been extinguished." [Cohen 's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, supra n. 65, at 206 (footnote omitted). See also Robert N. Clinton, Nell Jessup Newton & Monroe E. Price, American Indian Law: Cases and Materials 317-18 (3d ed., Michie 1991) (discussing Cohen's synthesis of the doctrine of inherent sovereignty).]

There have been no panel discussions concerning Concord Massachusetts Bay Colonists’ land loss.

However, it’s a new day. The highest court authority in the United States, the Supreme Court, has spoken: SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020, Leading Case: 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). Only the Supreme Court of the Almighty God is greater.

“On the far end of the Trail of Tears [were] promise[s]. Much of federal Indian law jurisprudence is about whether promises to Indian tribes have been broken or kept. In the past, those promises were often unequally broken piecemeal by Congress or sometimes by judges on federal common law grounds.”

“But last Term, in SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020, Leading Case: 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), the Supreme Court held that one such promise had been kept.

Relying on a textualist methodology (what the contract agreements’ and promises’ words say), the Court rejected extratextual (outside reputable text, uncountable, unreliable text) sources in aid of interpreting statutes and reaffirmed that U.S. Congress is the only entity that can break the promise of a Native Indian Reservation.”

“McGirt’s sole reliance on the text of Statutes and Naïve Indian Treaties is part of a recent trend in the Court’s federal Indian law cases.

This trend might call into question judge-made limitations on tribal authority developed in cases such as Montana v. United States, 7. 450 U.S. 544 (1981). which governs tribal authority to regulate nonmembers on reservations,” [McGirt v. Oklahoma, Nov 10, 2020, 134 Harvard Law Review 600]
and might call into question unconcern, disregard and nonfeasance of the U.S. Government, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian affairs and others this reporter has contacted in preparation of this important research concerning George Wheeler Sr.'s North Walden Pond 44 acres.
For example, the Eastern Regional Director Bureau of Indian Affairs, (545 Marriott Drive Suite 700, Nashville, TN 37214 Telephone: (615) 564-6500 Telefax: (615) 564-6701 eastern.inquiries@bia.gov) replied with "no interest in Walden Pond" a 1635 Concord, MA Indian Treaty property.
Furthermore, the Director did not sign the reply with personnel identification
and added the Tribe (Squaw Sachem and the Pennecook Native Indians, a sub-Tribe {sub-family} of the Nipmuc 1st Nation) was not a 1635 legal Tribe.

This reporter adds, Squaw Sachem was such an import Chieftain after her husband the Chief died, that her history is written in Wikipedia and numerous other references. Words describing the 1635 Native Indian Treaty contract agreements and promises of the Pennecook Native Indians, a sub-Tribe (sub-family) of the Nipmuc 1st Nation mattered to Squaw Sachem. Without knowing modern day SCOTUS decisions, Squaw Sachem was a strict Indian Treaty Textualist. She and others signed below the words of the Native Indian Treaty. Squaw Sachem kept her Native Indian Treaty words. Her Indian Tribe members actually honestly testified in a Court case about the agreements and promises words of the 1635 Native Indian Treaty with the Concord Massachusetts Bay Colonists, Purchasers and Shareholders. Squaw Sachem became a powerful Native Indian textualist leader in Massachusetts history. Squaw Sachem did what her words said and taught her underlings likewise.

Squaw Sachem (b.c. 1590- died c.1650 -1667 [1] was more than a prominent female Chieftain and leader of a ‘Nipmuc’ Tribe who deeded large tracts of land in eastern Massachusetts to early colonial settlers, including Boston and other cities. Squaw Sachem was a remarkable heroine who set an important example for Native Indians. Squaw Sachem was the widow of Nanepashemet, the Sachem (chief) of the Pawtucket Confederation of Indian tribes, who died in 1619.[2] Her given name is unknown and she was known in official deeds as the "Squaw Sachem."[3] Squaw Sachem ruled the Indian lands aggressively and capably after Nanepashmet's death.

“Nanepashmet ruled over a large part of what is now coastal Northeastern Massachusetts. After his death in 1619, his wife, recorded by the English only as Squaw Sachem, and three sons governed the sub-named confederation's territories, during the period of the Great Migration to New England by English Puritans from about 1620 to 1640. By 1633, only the youngest son of the three, Wenepoykin, known to the colonists as "Sagamore George," had survived a major smallpox epidemic that year that decimated the tribes. He took over his brothers' territories as sachem, except for areas that had been ceded to colonists. “By ~ 1607, Nanepashemet controlled the lands from the Charles River of present-day Boston, north to the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth and west to the Concord River. His influence stretched north to the Pennacook tribe, which inhabited the White Mountains region of present-day New Hampshire down to Massachusetts.

“Nanepashemet was respected by his people as a warrior and a leader. His name was translated as 'the Moone God' by Puritan Roger Williams in his A Key Into the Language of America. (1643/reprint 1827).[2] Most historical accounts translate the chief's name as meaning "New Moon" (e.g., see B. B. Thatcher, 1839).[3] Nanepashemet's tribe caught fish in the rivers and sea, dug and harvested shellfish, and raised corn on the Marblehead peninsula. “In 1618, an epidemic of smallpox decimated his band, but Nanepashemet was spared because of his isolation in the fort. By 1619, the Tarrantines discovered his whereabouts, laid siege to the fort and ultimately killed Nanepashemet. Two years later, a party from the Plymouth Colony including Edward Winslow came across his fort and his grave.[4]

“Nanepashmet’s Their three sons are referred to in the colonial records as Sagamore John, Sagamore James, and Sagamore George. “Around 1635 or 1636, along with several other Native Americans, she deeded land in Concord, Massachusetts to Colonists, and by that time she had remarried to a tribal priest, Wompachowet (also known as Webcowit or Webcowet)[4] at that time.[5] [Picture File: Squaw Sachem - Robbins Memorial Flagstaff - Arlington, MA - DSC02798.jpg]

Hopefully some interested person will refer her history to Eastern Regional Director Bureau of Indian Affairs for Massachusetts.

WHEELER FAMILIES' NORTH WALDEN POND 44 ACERS DAMAGES-LOST

George Wheeler Sr.’s will January 28, 1684 and approved probate June 2, 1687 (Suffolk Prob. Reg. Vol. X fol. 1) bequeathed George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty Sovereignly purchased North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent (NWP44A) to son John Wheeler.

Bequeathed son John Wheeler born 1643 and John Wheeler’s deceased 1725 widow Sarah Larkin Wheeler’s 8 children’s ’Whole Communal’ descendant heirs, generation after generation until now, are owners of George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty Sovereign North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent.

Whole Communal’ descendant heirs, generation after generation until now are members of our ‘Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Restoration, Education and Preservation’ including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’

first endeavor the reparation of exactly that history which our title states.
secondly seek reparations and recovery of North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent with shoreline Baptismal ownership interest that the Unconstitutional state actions i.e. ‘Thomas Wyman Squatting’, sale of Thomas Wyman’s Squat to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emerson family and other Squat Deedless Quitclaim donations to the state of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Eminent Domaine, that divested the Whole Communal’ descendant heirs’ holdings and ownership of North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent.
thirdly strive to restore the “better public good” of "North Walden Pond 44 acres, because presently the shoreline Baptismal is not used. Visitors are ushered to a replica Thoreau Cabin Site near the Park entrance rather than the authentic Thoreau Cabin Site lacking the “‘Sacred Geographical Landscape’, magical moments, connections’ mysticism and the described innate ‘Power of Walden Pond’ that physically, psychologically and spiritually moved Human pilgrim visitors' bodies, minds and hearts.” [‘George Wheeler Sr.'s 1635 Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent’, Introduction, https://georgejohnwheelerindiantreatywaldenpond.com/]
Enforce payback and compensation for failed Eminent Domain requirements i.e. failed family notification, just compensation, failed properties’ “better-use”
Walden Pond became a Massachusetts State Park system in 1975 with Judge Rose’s Preservation stipulation before allowing Walden Pond family property donations (that were actually deedless QUITCLAIM donations) to state park system.
Unfortunately, from the numerous reports and scientific studies, Judge David A. Rose’s Preservation stipulation appears to have long since been forgotten and violated. Reports can be verified when internet researched.

Judge David A. Rose’s Preservation stipulation has miserably failed. Please see the pollution and contaminations in this report.

“In 1961, the Middlesex County Commissioners, then managing the 1922 donated land (that were actually deedless QUITCLAIM donations), proposed leveling a significant portion of the preserve for a parking lot and other ‘improvements’. An acre of woodland had been leveled for access to the public beach when the Commissioners were sued to stop the destruction of the existing environment.

“Judge David A Rose, sitting in the Massachusetts Superior Court, ruled that Walden Pond's Donors’ deeds (that were actually deedless QUITCLAIM donations) donating the Wheeler’s NorthWP44A and Emerson’s legitimately owned SouthWP41A property to the Commonwealth required preservation of the land and prohibited further destructive development. Wheeler’s NorthWP44A and Emerson’s legitimately owned SouthWP41A were bundled and thus disguised with the legitimate South 41 acres when North 44 acres were deedlessly Quitclaim donated.

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge David A. Rose ruled the Walden Pond deed donation (North 44 acreswere actually QUITCLAIM deedless donations) to the park system required Preservation of the Walden Pond Land and barred further destructive development. [Sullivan, Ronald (May 5, 1995). "David A. Rose, 89; Massachusetts Judge Headed Rights Panel". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-28.]

There are potentially millions of dollars in damages-lost, beginning easily with $262,500,000, but, when compulsively calculated, will approach the damages-lost by the Sioux Indian Tribe, (DeGallery, Jacob, "Compensation Regarding the Sioux Nation" (2020). Student Writing. 40. https://commons.vccs.edu/student_writing/40)

Enforcing Colonist George Wheeler Sr.’s bequeathed son John (b. 1643) and Sarah Larkin Wheeler’s 8 children’s perpetuitous ‘Whole Communal’ generation-after-generation descendant-heirs’ 1635 Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres with shoreline Sacred Baptismal 1st Title Deed Sovereignly purchased Land Patent Sovereign ownership is the main priority, following Unconstitutional unauthorized adverse possession for (2022 - 1844 =) 178 years.

In the beginning Sovereign North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent with Sacred shoreline Baptismal vulnerability was misinterpreted by the ‘1841 Preemption (Squatting) Law that launched the continued adverse possession damages-lost cavalcade until now at 2022.

7. seek damages-lost for destruction of the existing land and water environmental [‘George Wheeler Sr.'s 1635 Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres 1st Title Deed Land Patent’, Introduction, https://georgejohnwheelerindiantreatywaldenpond.com/]

8. Attorneys must agree in writing to accept legal fees and all other fees from failed execution of Eminent Domain compensations or collections for NWP44A Damages-Lost

What IS AN INDIAN TREATY ?

"An Indian treaty is a binding and legal contract agreement between 2 or more Sovereign Nations.

By the United States signing treaties with Indian Tribes, the United States acknowledged Indian Tribal Sovereign status.
When the architects of the American Government created the U.S. Constitution, they explicitly recognized that Indian Treaties are the 'Supreme Law of the Land' in addition to the U.S. Constitution itself. [SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020]
Constitution Article VI Clause 2 declares that "all Indian Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." These documents, therefore, are legally binding words (texts, dialogues, textualism) between these 2 Sovereigns.
Native Indian Treaties enacted before 1635 Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony signed an Indian Treaty was formed are included and shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.
When the 1635 Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony signed an Indian Treaty with Squaw Sachem and the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation and that 1635 Indian Treaty was included by subsequent United States Government as the 'Supreme Law of the Land', the United States acknowledged the Sovereign status of the 2 Sovereign Nations and their legally binding Indian Treat contracts.
Repeating, "Indian Treaties are legally binding contracts between 2 (usually) Sovereign Nations." [Treaty: Promises between governments, CRITFC, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission https://www.critfc.org/member_tribes_overview/treaty-q-a/]]
Clearly, in 1635 Squaw Sachem and the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation ceded their claims and surrendered all their rights of Sovereignty, an act of cession, (see the second photo above) over their 6-square-mile 'Musketaquid' (Concord) and transferred their Sovereign claim from their Indian Nation to Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1. a Sovereign 'City-Nation on a Hill'. 2.

1. [3 E. Washburn, American Law of Real Property *521–*524., SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020] 2. [Governor Winthrop]

"An Indian Treaty establishes those 2 Sovereign Nations’ political and property relations.
"Article Six of the United States Constitution holds that Indian treaties “are the Supreme Law of the Land.”
"Treaties between Indian tribes and the United States confirm each of the 2 nation’s rights and privileges.
In most Indian treaties, the Indian tribes have ceded title to vast amounts of land to the United States in exchange for protection, services, and in some cases cash payments, but reserved certain lands (reservations) and rights for themselves and their future generations.
Indian treaties have the same force now as on the day they were signed.
Like the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, treaties do not expire with time.
The trust relationship between Indian tribes and the United States government is well established in law.
The reserved rights of the tribes have been litigated many times, even going before the Supreme Court on several occasions beginning in 1905. [Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, https://www.critfc.org/member_tribes_overview/treaty-q-a/]

“It is impossible to augment the past but upholding Pre-Revolutionary War treaties in as many circumstances that allow for Native Americans to return to their ancestry and preserve their heritage as possible, the United States government can right its colonial wrongs.

“The U.S. Federal Government may not have formally signed treaties with Native Americans prior to 1775, but it is the U.S Federal Government's duty to ensure that Colonial and Pre-Revolutionary War treaties and agreements are absorbed by laws executed later and laws sustained for the sake of the Native American people today and the other Sovereign contractual parties involved moving forward.”

"Prior to 1775, the nonexistent U.S. Government did not formally sign treaties with Native Indians, but Articles of Confederation predecessor of the U.S. Constitution gave U.S. Congress the authority over federal Native Indian Treaties and statutes and stipulates that they are the “supreme Law of the Land.” Art. I, §8; Art. VI, cl. 2. It. JI

"The U.S. Federal Government has the authority to regulate, sustain and protect pre-Revolutionary War Treaties and agreements for the sake of the pre-Revolutionary War Native Indian descendants and the pre-Revolutionary War Colonist descendants, who today are moving forward.

"The U.S. Federal Government has the authority to to restrict unlawful land transactions and occupations, regulate commerce and adjudicate crimes and if necessary, compensate descendants for violations.

"The signatories of the Treaty of Middle Plantation, including the Mattaponi, did not have a choice in deciding the laws that went on to rule their lives in 1677 for better or worse. Today, the Mattaponi are optimistic that these centuries old dictates will resolve injustices through the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law.

"They are dependent on articles that severely constricted their rights at inception to be their saving grace at present. It is important to remember that these promises were made in honor. Also, they were, and still are, legally binding upon the U.S. by the 6th Article of the U.S. Constitution.

"Tribes have a unique status in the American system of government. They are neither foreign nations, nor exactly like states. Tribes are distinct political communities, defined in law as “domestic, dependent nations.” In its 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decision, the Supreme Court described the obligation of the United States to tribes as that of a guardian to his wards. Subsequent court decisions have made it clear that the agencies of the federal government are to be held to the most stringent “fiduciary” (trust) standards. With respect to salmon, it cannot be said that federal agencies have always met their trust responsibilities. [Wilkinson, Katie. "Parchment As Power: The Effects of Pre-Revolutionary Treaties on Native Americans from the Colonial Period to Present." The Purdue Historian 8, 1 (2017). http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/puhistorian/vol8/iss1/3]

GEORGE WHEELER SR INDIAN TREATY NORTH WALDEN POND 44 ACRES

DISCUSSION

Walden Pond State Park historians, the general public and students are deprived the rich, remarkable, truthful complete history about George Wheeler Sr. and the other 14 Puritan Concord, Massachusetts Bay Colonists, who Purchased Native Indian Lands during the 1635 Indian Treaty and Incorporated the 6-mile-square 'Musketaquid' that became the town of Concord.

For much of the last century, Charles J. Kappler's ‘Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties’ [1] have served as the primary resource for the final texts of treaties made between American Indian tribes and the United States government.

In that collation, Kappler included, along with other important materials, 366 of the 375 instruments recognized by the Department of State [2].

Constitution Article VI Clause 2 declares that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." These documents, therefore, are legally binding words (texts, dialogues, textualism) between these Sovereigns.

Native Indian Treaties enacted before the United States was formed are included.

Textualism relies on exactly what the. Words say. “(o)nly the written word is law, and all persons are entitled to the laws' benefit.”

“To Justice Gorsuch (and most times a majority of this Court), one must set aside all else), or – more controversially put – what may be the best or most just outcome of a dispute – and decide disputes based solely on the ‘written words’ of the law at issue.” [Early Recognized Treaties With American Indian Nations, , Charles D. Bernholz, Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, Laura Weakly, Zacharia A. Bajaber, Published by University of Nebraska Libraries–Electronic Text Center, Lincoln, Nebraska http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/earlytreaties/ http://] [SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020]

What was a Sovereign? The 6-mile-square Concord Town in New England, before the United States became Sovereign Country, became a Sovereign "City on a Hill'. How readers might ask. Admittedly, King Charles I granted the Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony a Royal Crown Grant, but that was under duress. That wconflicting in the beginning of the English Civil War and was soon dethroned and beheaded in 1649. England was then ruled by Lord Protectorate General Oliver Cromwell, who supported tas the King’s Sovereign act.

But King Charles I was embattled in an English Civil War when the Puritans settled the Puritan Theocratic Incorporated Concord Township. The Puritans established a Theocratic Government limited to church members.

“Governor Winthrop, Dudley, the Rev. John Cotton, and other leaders sought to prevent dissenting religious views, and many were banished because of differing religious beliefs, including Roger Williams of Salem and Anne Hutchinson of Boston, as well as unrepentant Quakers and Anabaptists. By the mid-1640s, Massachusetts Bay Colony had grown to more than 20,000 inhabitants.[The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "Massachusetts Bay Colony". Facts, Map, & Significance. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved September 13, 2018.]

King Charles I became a powerless figurehead. He allowed the Concord Puritans to bring their wealth, unlike other Royal Crown grantees. The 15 Puritans and their families Colonized Concord after their Royal Crown Charter but more definitively Purchased Concord with their own money and Incorporated Concord with their own shareholders and stocks becoming independent from 1649 dethroned and beheaded King Charles I.

Squaw Sachem and her Pennacook Indian Tribe, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation, during 1635 Concord Indian Treaty agreements and promises ceded all their Indian Tribes’ and Nations’ Sovereign 6-square-mile-square 'Mustketaquid' (Concord) ‘Rights’ to the 15 Puritans and their families who named the settlement, Concord.

King Charles I had no Concord property factual and truthful ownership, and was not a stockholder, as described in the rules and regulations of ancient European Incorporations that follow later in this publication. King Charles I was no longer alive and King Charles I was no longer King. ["The king cannot by his charter alter the law." Anthony Lowe's Case (16io, K. B.) 9 Co. Rep. 122b, 123a. ' In the Middle Ages this principle had been applied to a charter which, it was alleged, had infringed a statute. Select Cases before the Council (s. s.) 6I, 62, 66, 68, 69. "3See Warren's Case (1620, K. B.) Cro. Jac. 540; Grant, Corporations (ed.,850) 22. "Piper v. Dennis (1692, K. B.) Holt, 17o; Grant, op. Ct. 21-2. 1 City of London's Case (I6io, K. B.) 8 Co. Rep. 121b, 126b, citing a record of 32 Edw. III. "Hayward v. Fulcher (1624, K. B.) Palmar, 491, 501, per Whitlock, J. 1T3 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 369-71. YALE LAW JOURNAL] [ENGLISH CORPORATION LAW IN THE 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES., W. S. HOLDSWORTH St. John's College, Oxford]

See the ‘words’ about the cession of the Indian Tribes’ Rights on the town historical marker.

Squaw Sachem and Pennacook sub-Tribe of Nipmuc 1st Nation's Cession of All their Sovereign Concord Rights to the Theocratic Puritan Colonists, Purchasers and Incorporators Further Established Sovereign Concord that was Intentionally Designed, Colonized and Sovereignly Characterized.

The 1635 Indian Treaty Concord land Purchasers
+ Concord town Incorporation by the shareholder Puritan Planters
+ the Puritans’ Theocratic Government limited to church members
+ cession of all Rights to the Concord shareholder Puritan Planters
= effectively transferred Sovereignty from the Native Indians to Concord and the Puritan Planter owners and shareholders
rather than impossibly transfer Sovereignty to the deceased, dethroned King Charles I and his defunct Kingdom.
[Indian Treaties as Sovereign Contracts By ROBERT J. MILLER PROFESSOR https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/indianed/tribalsovereignty/middle/wamiddle/wamiddleunit1/pointnopointtribes-lessons/lesson2-materials/indiantreatiesassovereigncontractsbyrobertjmiller.pdf]

England was thereafter ruled by Lord Protectorate General Oliver Cromwell until Cromwell’s son failed to follow his footsteps. Charles II ascended to the throne when the Kingdom of England was reinstated. New England underwent many futile power-struggles and declarations afterwards until the 1776 Revolutionary War and formation of the United States.

Constitution Article VI Clause 2 declares that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States and made beforehand under the authority Native Indian and Colonial authorities shall be included to prevent collateral Native Indian, Colonies’ and property owners conflicts during the 1776 Revolutionary War and formation of the United States and shall be ‘the supreme law of the land’.”

If historians, the general public and students continue to accept Walden Pond State Park's incomplete history after George Wheeler Sr.'s Walden Pond became Eminent Domained by The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), The State of Massachusetts in 1955, the 1635 Indian Treaty Self-Enacted Enfranchisement agreements, promises and acquisitions of many individually selected Indian properties, including George Wheeler Sr.'s Walden Pond's 44 acres that was selected on the North side of the pond water with shoreline, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." ["Tears in rain" aka "C-Beams Speech"[1], death soliloquy ",[6] 42-word monologue, last words of character Roy Batty 1982 Ridley Scott-directed film Blade Runner. Written by David Peoples and altered by Hauer,[2][3][4] and it is commonly viewed as the defining moment of Hauer's acting career.]

The Walden Pond 44 acres State Reservation status was initiated by the 'Squatters' who implemented adverse possession and posed as owners after insufficient squatting and unlawfully sold the Walden Pond 44 acres to well-intentioned byers in 3 separate sections.

Following the misunderstood and misapplication of 1841 Preemption ('Squatting') Law, which was for Western migration and settlement of unowned and unoccupied Western states' land, not Massachusetts and Colonial land, but trespassers began 'squatting Walden Pond 44 acres as detailed in Henry David Thoreau's book 'Walden'.

The following happened: George Wheeler Sr. and his bequeathed and descendant family owned and naturally preserved the Indian Treaty North Walden Pond 44 acres from his purchase in 1635 until the ‘Squatting’ in 1845.

During the 1841 Preemption ('Squatting') Law misconception: (designed for ‘Westward-Ho’ Land Rush, unowned, unoccupied Western State Territories (in which Massachusetts was not included) as we have seen in the stampedes in Western movies) unbeknown to the Wheeler family, in 1844 the historic Emerson-Thoreau Cabin (Shanty) 14 acres located in George Wheeler Sr.'s North Walden Pond 44 acres, were sold by "Squatter" Thomas Wyman or his estate to the good-intentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, apparently from the confusion. Possibly the 2 other sections of the North Walden Pond 44 acres were sold by ‘Squatters’ then, too.

The 1845 deed, pictured below in 3 parts in a post in this report, was recorded in Middlesex County, Massachusetts and was for The South Walden Pond 41 acres that were legitimately sold by James Heywood to Abel Moore and John Hosmer who sold the South Walden Pond 41 acres to Ralph Waldo Emerson [1845 deed Book 473, pp. 351-353, Middlesex County, Massachusetts 1845]. That deed was recorded for the legitimate purchase of the South Walden Pond 41 acres.

The Emerson-Thoreau Cabin (Shanty) unauthorized Wheeler 14 acres without a deed were located within George Wheeler Sr.'s North Walden Pond 44 acres. The 2 other family sections without deeds pictured were donated to the Massachusetts State Park system in 1922 by the Emerson family’s grandson and others.

The 1922 donations by the Heywood family were 7.59 acres East and by the Emerson family 33.1 acres South of the Walden Pond shoreline and pond water.

The Emerson family 13.50 acres North of the Pond water and Emerson family 33.1 acres South of the pond water were not adjacent but separated by location North and South of Pond water. The total N and S Emerson 46.6 acres are often confused with the North George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres. The above diagram identifies the Middlesex County deeds and the South Walden Pond 41 acres with Middlesex Co correct acreage, owner and location differences.

Widow Sara Larkin Wheeler’s and deceased husband John Wheeler’s ‘considerable moveable estate’ by law automatically transferred from the Widow Sara Larkin Wheeler to her collective 9 children’s names as detailed in John Wheeler’s probate and listed above without passing through probate court again.

“George Wheeler Sr. will was dated January 28, 1684 and presented for probate June 2, 1687. [Suffolk Prob. Reg. Vol. X fol. 1] George Wheeler Sr.’s son and sole executor John Wheeler born in Concord, MA on March 19, 1643/4. [1] [2] [3] was bequeathed the North Walden Pond 44 acres and many other properties.

The only John Wheeler Middlesex County Probate Records were an agreement for settlement of 8th GGF Constable John Wheeler’s estate [Middlesex County Probate Records, Packet #24,290], a settlement of my 8th Great-Grandfather John Wheeler’s estate. Probate appears was strictly guided by widow Sara Larkin Wheeler.

There are 156,012 surnamed Wheeler persons in the United States.

Two rules govern this system:

Each surviving share in the nearest-successive-generation is allocated one equal share. If all 9 children survive the deceased single parent each will receive 1/9 of the properties.
If 1 of 9 children does not survive the deceased single parent at the time of Intestate-Succession and that deceased nearest-successive-generation child has 4 children, each of the 4 children in that deceased next-successive-generation will receive 1/4 of the properties of that deceased nearest-successive-generation remaining share

If any in the nextest-successive-generations are deceased the remaining shares will divided in the same manner among the surviving members of the nextest-successive-generations.

This reporter is 8 successive-generations from John Wheeler’s widow or 8th Great-Grandmother Sara Larkin Wheeler's estate.

"Generally speaking state parks are losing propositions. It has become clear in recent years that state park systems, by and large, are struggling. Public funding is not meeting the needs of most systems. A fresh approach to financing parks and open space and new management approaches is needed." [ Paying for State Parks: Evaluating Alternative Approaches for the 21st Century. by Margaret Walls, 2013]

The 3 well intentioned families later charitably donated the historically significant 3 sections of the Walden Pond 44 acres to the state of Massachusetts.

Lastly The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), The State of Massachusetts, in 1955 Unconstitutionally “took” by Eminent Domain without proper notification and compensation of the rightful owners, John Wheeler will-bequeathed descendant families.

The "took" was Unconstitutional because “States may not take tribal land because a "took" by Eminent Domain would require disestablishment of the Indian Treaty .” Only the Federal Government and U.S. Congress can "took". [Professor Joseph William Singer, Harvard Law Education].

While many historians, the general public and students have accepted that state-of-the-art adverse possession "Squatting' process, knowledgeable others might claim it smelled of foul play.

But truthfully the adverse possession process in the case of The North Walden Pond 44 acres, which were originally George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty Land, was more serious The attempted piecemealed process of non-U.S. Government Actors to disestablish and unentangle the Concord Indian Treaty, the Constitutional Law of The Land’ was tragically more sinister.

Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau were iconic historical Concord, Massachusetts figures answering the call for many extraordinarily scholarly disciplines.

But the historically inclined and the general public might be surprised to find that the history of Walden Pond did not begin with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau and Transcendentalism that began in the early 1800’s.

“Transcendentalism became a coherent movement and a sacred organization with the founding of the Transcendental Club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on September 12, 1836, by prominent New England intellectuals, including George Putnam (Unitarian minister),[8] Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Frederic Henry Hedge. Other members of the club included Amos Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson, Theodore Parker, Henry David Thoreau, William Henry Channing, James Freeman Clarke, Christopher Pearse Cranch, Convers Francis, Sylvester Judd, and Jones Very. Female members included Sophia Ripley, Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Peabody, Ellen Sturgis Hooper, and Caroline Sturgis Tappan. From 1840, the group frequently published in their journal ‘The Dial’ along with other venues. [Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism]

When ’squatter’ Thomas Wyman died, Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1844 purchased Wyman’s wood land.

The North Walden Pond 44 acres were originally George Wheeler Sr.’s 1635 Indian Treaty Land. The 44 acres come to a point at the shoreline.
Henry David Thoreau declared [in his book ‘Walden’] he would ‘squat’ there.
1635 Indian Treaty original owner George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres were claimed by 3 so-called (because they were deedless) owners after they purchased their land claims from ‘Squatters’ who did not own the land as follows: Emerson family 13.50 acres, Forbes family 16.38 acres, Hoar family 13.6 acre = (43.48 acres representing 44 acres).
1841 Preemption ‘Squatter’ Act confused and corrupted many who squatted wrongly
George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres Indian Treaty Land were not for Squatting
“Wyman Meadow,” near Thoreau’s Walden Pond cabin (shanty) site was named for the potter Wyman.
Clusters of the soil around Walden Pond were good clay excellent for Wyman’s earthenware.
~ “9,500 years ago, during a warm, dry period, pitch pine replaced jack pine and an oak and pine savanna was established on the dry, sandy soils of what is now Walden Woods. [https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/science/history-of-walden-emerges-from-its-mud.html, Oct. 8, 1991, NY Times] [‘WALDEN’ by Thoreau]
Potter Wyman ‘squatted’ on Wheeler’s Walden Pond 44 acres North of pond water.
“Wyman’s descendants succeeded him “holding Wyman Meadow by ‘sufferance’
“The Sheriff often came in vain to collect Wyman poll tax and found no one home and “attached an unpaid chip” [People Mentioned in ‘Walden’: John Wyman, (1730?-1800) John Wyman, his son Thomas Wyman (1774?-1843), Mar 3, 2014 “Stack of the Artist of Kouroo” Project]
“Emerson in a Letter to his brother William Oct 4, 1844 said: “I paid $8.10/acre for 11-acre nears Walden Pond to 2 or 3 men (with Tommy Wyman) walking in the woods.
“Next day Emerson returned and paid $125.00 for ~ 3 additional acres of pine grove.
· Emerson’s “13 acres 80 rods as surveyed” were a section of George Wheeler Sr.’s original Walden Pond 44 acres of Indian Treaty Land where Thoreau built his cabin
Emerson’s claimed Walden Pond Lot was surveyed by Cyrus Hubbard Dec. 1848,
4 years later after Emerson’s purchase without a Wheeler family deed accompanying the 1848 survey or accompanying his purchase in 1844
because John Wheeler descendant families did not sale the 13 acres 80 rods to Wyman and Wyman never owned the property, because he was adversely possessing the land. [13 acres 80 rods. RWE (Ralph Waldo Emerson) Lot by Walden (surveyed by Cyrus Hubbard Dec 1848, copied Dec ’57), manuscript survey (pencil on paper). No. 31a in CFPL (Concord Free public Library) Thoreau survey collection]

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s claimed Walden Pond Lot surveyed by Cyrus Hubbard Dec. 1848. “To conduct his ‘living experiment’ in 1845 Henry David Thoreau negotiated with Ralph Waldo Emerson for Thoreau’s right to ‘squat’ on the lot that Wyman had squatted-on which was a 13-acre property section that was geographically tethered like an umbilical cord to George Wheeler Sr.'s Walden Pond 44 acres acquired during the 1635 Indian Treaty

U.S. Congress has not altered the terms, disestablished or abolished the 1635 Concord, Massachusetts Indian Treaty affecting the Wheelers’ Walden Pond 44 acres.e Wheeler Sr.’s original Indian Treaty Land Walden Pond 44 acres that he bequeathed to son John Wheeler and John’s descendant families’).
“1922 Emerson’s family transferred the Walden Pond 13 acres 80 rods (14 acres) lot with the Walden Pond 41 acres South of pond water to Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Recorded Middlesex County, MA Book 473, pages 351-353 1845. [https://www.bradleypdean.com/research_writings/Bean_Field_Article.pdf Rediscovery at Walden: The History of Thoreau’s Bean-Field]
Only U.S. Congress can alter the terms, disestablish or abolish an Indian Treaty which affects 2 party’s sides of the Treaty like a contract because both sides are connected Constitutionally and synergistically.
“As with any contract, both parties must fulfill the promised terms or suffer the legal consequences. The United States, then, must fulfill the treaty promises it made to Indian tribes. As one Supreme Court Justice stated in regard Indian treaties: “Great Nations, like great men, should keep their word.” [Indian Treaties as Sovereign Contracts By ROBERT J. MILLER PROFESSOR https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/indianed/tribalsovereignty/middle/wamiddle/wamiddleunit1/pointnopointtribes-lessons/lesson2-materials/indiantreatiesassovereigncontractsbyrobertjmiller.pdf]
Therefore, 1635 Concord Indian Treaty’s agreements and promises ‘written words’ about George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres he purchased from Squaw Sachem and her Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of Nipmuc 1st Nation are like tightly mixed blood flowing through an umbilical cord, similar to ‘Blood Brothers’ sworn loyalty, a blood oath to each other. [Poole, Russell (2005), "Claiming Kin Skaldic-Style", Verbal Encounters: Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse Studies for Roberta Frank, University of Toronto Press, p. 278, ISBN 9780802080110 ]
Wyman squatters’ adverse possession of George Wheeler’s 1635 Indian Treaty Land initiated the Walden Pond 44 acres transferred to ‘Walden Pond State Reservation’.
Wyman ‘Squatting’ was followed by Wyman ‘squatters’ erroneous sale, without a deed for transfer, to unsuspecting, good intentioned persons
followed by good intentioned persons charitable donation to state of Massachusetts
Lastly, The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), The State of Massachusetts, in 1955 “took” George Wheeler Sr’s Walden Pond 44 acres by Eminent Domain without lawful notification-of or compensation-for the rightful owners John Wheeler’s will-bequeathed descendant families.
John Wheeler’s descendant families currently and lawfully own the Walden Pond
44 acres North of the shoreline that includes the Thoreau cabin
but the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Congress powers that be do not know the lawful history of George Wheeler Sr’s Indian Treaty Walden Pond 44 acres

But the times have changed since [SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020] because

The Wrong Sovereign, the State of Oklahoma convicted Seminole Indian Jimmy McGirt, which the SCOTUS overturned in 2020.
The State of Massachusetts ignored Walden Pond squatting, ["Mission Statement". Massachusetts Sheriffs' Association. 24 Mar 2008. Archived from original on 15 May 2018]
and were at odds with the 1841 Federal Preemption ‘Squatting’ Act for Westward Settlements. Settlers “living on federal government-owned land could purchase up to 160 acres for $1.25 per acre of that land before offered for sale to the general public.”
The Preemption Squatting’ Act was for “public land disposal of specific Westward unowned, not surveyed territories. Specific designated states were included. Massachusetts was not one of the designated states.” [Land Actshttps://www.archives.gov] [The Palimpsest 22 (1941), 257-277: https://ir.uiowa.edu/palimpsest/vol22/iss9/2, Johnson, Jack T. "Pioneers and Preemption.”]
And the State of Massachusetts participated in the charitable donation of George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres Indian Treaty Land to itself without documenting without documenting the chain of title and registration of deeds that should have been investigated
and lastly The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), The State of Massachusetts, in 1955 the Unconstitutionally “took” George Wheeler Sr’s Walden Pond 44 acres Indian Treaty Land by Eminent Domain without documenting the chain of title and registration of deeds and they should have discovered they were nonexistent
Eminent Domain is only jurisdictionally the authority of our Sovereign U.S. Federal Government and U.S. Congress
Because The U.S. Congress has not altered the terms, disestablished or abolished the 1635 Concord, Massachusetts Indian Treaty, George Wheeler Sr.’s Walden Pond 44 acres that he bequeathed to his son John Wheeler and his descendant families’ property and are ‘the Supreme Law of the Land’ Then in 1635 and remain Now in 2021 [SCOTUS McGrit v. Oklahoma]
George Wheeler Sr.’s bequeathed son John Wheeler and his descendant families’ continue to own Walden Pond 44 acres

Thomas Wyman died. It was at the settlement of the Wyman estate that Waldo Emerson purchased his plot of woodland with its point touching the shore of Walden Pond, where Henry Thoreau would squat “Wyman Meadow,” near the pond by Thoreau’s shanty, is named for Wyman the potter:

‘WALDEN’: "Farther in the woods than any of these, where the road approaches nearest to the pond, Wyman the potter squatted, and furnished his townsmen with earthen ware, and left descendants to succeed him. Neither were they rich in worldly goods, holding the land by sufferance while they lived; and there often the sheriff came in vain to collect the taxes, and “attached a chip,” for form’s sake, as I have read in his accounts, there being nothing else that he could lay his hands on. One day in midsummer, when I was hoeing, a man who was carrying a load of pottery to market stopped his horse against my field and inquired concerning Wyman the younger."

"He had long ago bought a potter’s wheel of him, and wished to know what had become of him. I had read of the potter’s clay and wheel in Scripture, but it had never occurred to me that the pots we use were not such as had come down unbroken from those days, or grown on trees like gourds somewhere, and I was pleased to hear that so fictile an art was ever practiced in my neighborhood."[People Mentioned in Walden: John Wyman (1730?-1800) and His son Thomas Wyman (1774?-1843), Mar 3, 2014 “Stack of the Artist of Kouroo” Project] [[Rediscovery at Walden: The History of Thoreau’s Bean Field by Bradley P. Dean]

Late September: Late in the month Waldo Emerson paid $8.10 per acre for Thomas Wyman’s farmed-out pasture of “eleven acres more or less” behind the poor farm on the road to Walden Pond. The pasture, which had been logged over but had not been farmed for sixteen years, was overgrown but was more or less level. 3 There wasn’t, of course, a whole lot of shade — the area was relatively open.

According to a letter written by Waldo to his brother William on October 4th, he had paid $8.10 an acre for this 11-acre plot near Walden Pond when he had met some men walking in the woods (I suppose the similarity between the name “Waldo” and the name “Walden” cannot have been overlooked by Waldo, however little he knew about the history of religious dissent on the European subcontinent). The next day he had gone back, he told his brother, with some “well beloved gossips” and they persuaded him to pay $125.00 for about 3 more acres of pine grove to protect his investment by preventing these nearby trees from being logged. This became, of course, the land on which Henry Thoreau built his shanty when he made his agreement to clear the pasture of brambles and turn it into a beanfield, but at the time its owner had other plans for it: 4

Brad Dean indicated that “Sometime later that month Thoreau apparently negotiated with Emerson for the right to squat on the Wyman lot and there conduct his ‘experiment of living.’ Emerson’s permission was apparently attended with two provisos: that the small house Thoreau planned to build would become Emerson’s after Thoreau’s tenancy, and that Thoreau would clear and plant the cultivatable portion of the lot.”

Later, when Emerson wrote a will, he had willed this woodlot to Thoreau, but since Thoreau was already 20 years dead by the time Emerson died, the property was retained in the family. Eventually, in 1922, the family would sign the lot on the pond over to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [Rediscovery at Walden: The History of Thoreau’s Bean Field by Bradley P. Dean]

Abstract: “Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient endurance, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding those doing wrong and betraying those doing right. [Justice Gorsuch penned SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020].

“The Constitution Annotated, Article VI Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [the Constitution Annotated https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-6/clause-2]

Articles VI, Clause 2 Constitution is equivalent to U.S. Congress and is equivalent to Native Indian Treaties; the 3 have the same authority. Native Indian Treaties are superior-to and untouchable-by states because Native Indian Treaties are Federal, Constitutional, U.S. Congressional’ Law of the Land’.

“The Tucker Act waives certain immunities available to the government in certain lawsuits. A landowner may initiate an action under the Tucker Act for compensation when the government illegally takes land not included in its document of taking or takes more land than it has paid compensation. Houser v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 454 (Cl. Ct. 1987).

The doctrine of estoppel and waiver are available as defenses against a landowner. A landowner who has accepted compensation is estopped from challenging the condemnation proceeding. A landowner’s participation in the whole proceedings will waive any procedural defects in the condemnation proceedings.

“The remedies available have to be initiated within the period of limitation provided in the statutes. A proceeding initiated after the period of limitation is not entertained by the courts. The limitation period varies with the nature of the motions moved. A claim will accrue when the affected party knew or should have known of the injury which is the basis of the action. Duke St. Ltd. Pshp. v. Board of County Comm’rs, 112 Md. App. 37 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996).

“The general rules of evidence are applicable in the condemnation or inverse condemnation proceedings. Burden of proof is on the land owner to prove damages to his/her property. A land owner may be awarded a sum as a cost or fee whenever a court judgment is rendered in his/her favor. [https://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/remedies-of-owners USLegal]

Wise attorneys advise “suing the government was the closest thing to self immolation (killed or offered as a sacrifice). “They use your tax dollars to pay lawyers to beat you down. They’re using your own money to crush you.” He was speaking of fighting tax audits but the theory is normally sound.

“But one area that the average citizen can “take on” the government and has a good chance of prevailing is condemnation. Note that a jury trial can often be available and the average citizen is quite conscious of the need to fairly compensate people who suffer the deprivations caused by governmental action. It is a Constitutional right to be fairly compensated and few governments want to be seen as ogres taking property unfairly.

“That said, as with every fight in our legal system, be sure to carefully consider the cost benefit aspects of the litigation and make sure you have set aside a war chest sufficient to demonstrate to the authorities that you fully intend to protect your own rights. Be realistic, be fair, but also be determined. Relief is often available. [Eminent Domain - The Basic Law, Stimmel, Stimmel and Roeser]

There are 156,012 surnamed Wheeler persons in the United States.

Many surnamed Wheeler persons and other Wheeler related persons are members of ‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s, including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’, History Restoration, Education and Preservation’.

States have NO authority to meddle in the commerce and business of Indian Tribes on their Native Nation Lands or their Reservation Treaties’ lands, which are ‘The Constitutional Law of The Land’.

States have NO authority to interfere with Indian Tribes’ governmental rights and jurisdictions on their Native Nation Lands or their Reservation Treaties’ lands. [SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020].

Similarly, unless ‘the Constitutional Law of The Land’ Indian Treaty is disestablished and untangled by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Federal Government or U.S. Federal Courts, States have NO authority to buy, sale or ‘took’ by Eminent Domain, Indian Treaty established property factual and truthful ownership of either the Indian Treaty Native Indian seller or the Indian Treaty buyer.

The Concord Free Public Library Special Collections, carefully administered by Curator Anka Voss, have many special collections documenting:

that George Wheeler Sr. was the original owner of the Walden Pond 44 acres
that was purchased from the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation
and documents maps and diagrams of Walden Pond 44 acres ‘squatters’
and documents Henry David Thoreau’s publication, ‘Walden’ describes himself and other squatters
Special Collections maps, diagrams document 3 parcels of Walden Pond 44 acres owners
who donated their 3 parcels of Walden Pond 44 acres to the state Massachusetts
Special Collections and Middlesex County records reveal no deed transfers to purchasers from the bequeathed and sole executor of George Wheeler Sr.’s Will, John Wheeler and his descendant families
How does anyone justify the squatting, sale and donations of the federally protected Indian Treaty land, ‘The Constitutional Law of The Land’, Walden Pond 44 acres, to state of Massachusetts?
How does anyone justify the ‘took’ by Eminent Domain of the federally protected Indian Treaty land, ‘The Constitutional Law of The Land’, Walden Pond 44 acres, without notice or compensation to John Wheeler descendant families, to whom George Wheeler Sr. bequeathed his Walden Pond 44 acres, who was sole George Wheeler Sr. will executor?
Eminent Domain is serious, devastating business and should not be executed thoughtlessly without thorough owner and permissible investigations.
[SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020].

Members of ‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History, including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature' Restoration, Education and Preservation seek the reclaimation of our 9th Great Grandfather George Wheeler Sr.’s bequeathed son John Wheeler families’ Walden Pond 44 Acres factual and truthful ownership and ‘The Society endeavors to Restore, Educate and Continue the Preservation and Histories. Thus far the Walden Pond Reservation State Park has neglected the entire Walden Pond 44 acres history.

‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History, including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature', Restoration, Education and Preservation’ endeavor:

the recognition of the factual and truthful ownership of our (1) George Wheeler Sr. bequeathed to (2) son and executor John Wheeler family’s Walden Pond 44 acres' that were acquired in the Native Pennacook Indian Treaty, and self-executed Indian Treaty ratification
and institution of educational resources regarding the remarkable Native Pennecook Indian, Wheeler and Colonists families’ concordant history at Walden Pond Reservation State Park
the Walden Pond historical significances and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Preservation.
and The history of this descendant’s 9th Great-Grandfather George Wheeler Sr. and other Concord Puritan’s ‘New World Pioneering Model’, characterized by remarkable Native Indian concordance, peace and Christianization
George Wheeler Sr. grandson, Ebenezer Wheeler, this descendant’s 7th Great- Grandfather, remarkable establishment with 39 other pioneers of Pennacook Indian ‘Praying Town’ Reservations,
who also contributed to the history of the Algonquin Indian Bible, first Bible printed in the U.S. in 1661 in the Algonquin Indian language by Minister John Eliot, have thus far not been sufficiently recognized in the Walden Pond State Park educational systems.
These historiesare some of the most amazing Spiritual Colonial Pioneering and Spiritual Native Indian histories that need to be instructed.
All need to be instructed to the general public and students.
Most importantly the facilitation of quiet, solitary, meditative walks through Walden Pond Woodlands and Nature. The Practice of 'Nature’s Mindfulness'.
‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History, Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’, Restoration, Education and Preservation’ support these endeavors.
Readers might ponder the lengthy duration of this historically important misfortune.

The histories in New England began in 1635. All these woeful, sometimes inaccurate, histories have been developing for 386 years. from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean his treatise began the journey with references from the mother country, England, in the 14th and 15th Centuries, 1621 years ago.

This treatise will cuts straight to the chase, the 1635 Concord Indian Treaty by referencing SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020 and the decision penned by Justice Gorsuch. “The federal government promised the Creek Indian Nation a Reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that Reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised Reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye some might say.

Justice Gorsuch continued, "We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient endurance, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding those doing wrong and betraying those doing right. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is Reversed. [Justice Gorsuch penned SCOTUS McGirt v. Oklahoma 2020].

During this Great American Outdoors Month ‘The Society for Walden Pond, Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ and George Wheeler Sr.’s History Restoration, Education and Preservation’ celebrate Great American Outdoors Month June 2021.

During ‘Great American Ourdoors Month’ ‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s History, Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ Restoration, Education and Preservation’ celebrate our Walden Pond’s History.

I 1635, 15 Concord Massachusetts Bay Colonists aka Purchasers and Concord Incorporators including my 9th Great-Grandfather George Wheeler Sr. and families

officially purchased 6-square-mile ‘Musketaquid’ (Concord)
from Squaw Sachem and her following Native Indian Tribe
the Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation.

a) Squaw Sachem was the widow of recently deceased Sachem Nanepashemet

b) Very powerful Squaw Sachem remarried the tribal priest, Wompachowet

c) These Native Indians’ intriguing histories extend back 12,000 years by all accounts.

Walden Pond 44 acres were one of the properties George Wheeler Sr. purchased
from Squaw Sachem and her Pennacook Indians, a sub-Tribe of the Nipmuc 1st Nation
Walden Pond was a sacred lake for aboriginal and more current Native Indians and a sacred baptismal for Puritans other Massachusetts Colonists and Henry David Thoreau.

Several accurate history books and journals about the history of Concord, MA document that tcost of Concord fo paid in “wampumpeage, hatchets, hoes, knives, cotton cloth, and shirts“ and part in money and coins. Land purchases were lawfully executed and delivered ‘by the book’. Traditionally the purchases were made under an oak called Jethro’s tree in front of the old Middlesex hotel at the southwest end of Concord square. Other purchases were conducted at Minister Peter Buckeley’s home. [History of Concord, Massachusetts Rebecca Beatrice Brooks May 2, 2017, https://historyofmassachusetts.org]

SGeorge Wheeler Sr. paid the Native Indians for his Walden Pond 44 acres. The Walden Pond 44 acres were initially utilized as collateral for shareholder George Wheeler Sr.’s stock in the Concord Corporation. The stock liens were discharged with the income George Wheeler Sr. and the other stockholders were paid regular dividends at regular intervals from Concord Corporation town’s profits as the town aggregate Corporation partnership steadily grew.

Stock markets were developed beginning 15th century. English citizens and the Kings and Queens, the Crown, were remarkably familiar with the concepts of stockholders and corporations.

George Wheeler Sr. and the Colonists planned the Concord MA town aggregate shareholder Corporation partnership long before they launched their voyage to New England. They were precise, compulsive weaPuritaand designed their new homeland so their investments paid dividends in many forms. Stockholder revenues in the Concord Corporation demonstrated their entrepreneurial resilience.

See the photo above. In the midsection of George Wheeler Sr.’s 1684 will he gives to his sons “Thomas and John Wheeler 44 acres lying North of Walden Pond in equal right.” The ‘right’ appears to address all the rights of land factual and truthful ownership and the shareholder stock purchase and release aforementioned.

“Remarkably, during this 14th and 15th Century period the 'medieval principles which regulated this branch of Corporation Law were worked out in considerable detail. The largest part of

Conclusion GEORGE WHEELER SR. FAMILY'S WALDEN POND 44 ACERS

CONCLUSION GEORGE WHEELER SR. FAMILY'S NORTH WALDEN POND 44 ACERS

For that time being, the 17th and most of the 18th Centuries, the 1635 Indian Treaty Land, 6-square-miles Concord Township Corporation including George Wheelers Sr.'s Walden pond 44 acers were a Puritan Theocratic 'City-State on the Hill'. [preached by Governor Winthrop in preparation for Massachusetts Bay Colony voyages to New England]

Matthew 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can't be hidden." [KJV Holy Bible]

But for certain, from 1635 until the present 2021, the 6-square-miles Concord Corporation including George Wheelers Sr.'s Walden pond 44 acers were and continue until this day to be 'Indian Treaty Land' 'the Supreme Law of the Land' under the authority of the Federal Government i.e. the U.S Congress alone. States have no authority meddling on or governing within 'Indian Treaty Land'. [SCOTUS McGIRT v. Oklahoma 2020]

"Walden Pond State Reservation Park is managed by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and includes 462 acres of protected open space. Over 600,000 visitors per year come from near and all the world's continents to experience this beautiful and serene place that inspirational facility." [The Walden Woods Project]

The John Wheeler (born March 19, 1643 Concord, MA) heirs and descendant families and
‘The Society for Walden Pond and George Wheeler Sr.’s (born 23 March 1606 in Cranfield, Bedford, England) History Restoration, Preservation and Dissemination, including Henry David Thoreau and Native Indian’s ‘Cathedral of Nature’ History Restoration, Education and Preservation endeavor to :

reclaim the accurate George Wheeler Sr. History (born 23 March 1606 in Cranfield, Bedford, England)
reclaim Concord Massachusetts Bay Colony and 1635 Indian Treaty History
reclaim recognition of George Wheeler Sr. Families’ North Walden Pond 44 acres ownership
for Restoration, Preservation and Dissemination of the legitimate history within all Walden Pond State Reservation Park facilities so engaged.

Photo Gallery

ABSTRACT George WHEELER Sr. FAMILY'S North WALDEN POND Acers

Massachusetts extratextual Loss of owners' LanD

WHEELER FAMILIES' NORTH WALDEN POND 44 ACERS DAMAGES-LOST

What IS AN INDIAN TREATY ?

GEORGE WHEELER SR INDIAN TREATY NORTH WALDEN POND 44 ACRES

Conclusion GEORGE WHEELER SR. FAMILY'S WALDEN POND 44 ACERS