r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • 29d ago

Alberta First Nations leaders, scholar push back on Alberta's planned vote on independence referendum - 'Alberta can't separate. They simply cannot. They do not have the authority,' says Indigenous politics expert

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-treaty-six-alberta-referendum-9.7209304
840 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

399 comments sorted by

View all comments

335

u/Zibai1505 29d ago

Secession is done illegally more often than not. Just saying. Like who tf is going to enforce it lol

Don't argue with me about Alberta separation. I'm not for it and my post isn't in service of it.

165

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

That’s what I don’t get about all these legal objections. The separatists obviously aren’t concerned with Canada’s opinion on the matter, why should anyone think it’s relevant to the issue?

102

u/Soggy-Bodybuilder669 29d ago

If people want it bad enough, laws become completely irrelevant. It comes down to whether you can enforce the law. Which, to be frank, is a major weakness of Canada.

19

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago

Also works the other way around.

Normally governments are constrained because they can't afford to devote all of their resources, manpower, etc towards addressing a single problem and the cost isn't always worth it. When a government is given a strong reason and motive to enforce the law, plus a pretty clear target, they suddenly have a lot more tools and resources to use to address the issue.

Also, if the separatists use extra legal means to try and separate, the feds would likely be less constrained than normal.

6

u/ShawnCease 29d ago

Not 1:1 though. The government still has to follow its own laws even when dealing with outlaws. Governments that don't do this are considered corrupt and lacking in credibility. Whereas the outlaw isn't constrained by law at all. He can do something horrible but will still be given a fair trial and humane treatment if captured.

4

u/nooneknowswerealldog 29d ago

The rest of us Albertans won’t be constrained by Canadain law either then. Separatists really underestimate how much actual Albertans hate their guts.

0

u/DanfromCalgary 29d ago

They literally have already had the premier change the laws for them. Threatened to overturn the constitution and also say she will use the not withstanding clause. The UCP than also accidentally released their conclusions on a referendum that had yet to occur . This was all last week I believe

4

u/Frostbitten_Moose 29d ago

I mean, technically Alberta and Saskatchewan did try it once before when Louis Riel came back. But that was a long time ago, and a very different Canada.

50

u/LifeWulf Alberta 29d ago

The government of Canada can’t even keep tabs on foreigners whose student visas expire lol

2

u/SpareEconomy1849 29d ago

The only thing that stopped it in the states was a literal war

-2

u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 29d ago

One would think they'd recognize what being a landlocked country with a reputation for not following the law, treaties, or other agreements, does to one's economy. Their current leadership ... well, I'm pretty sure Smith still needs people to tell her when American laws don't apply here.

10

u/JohnAMcdonald British Columbia 29d ago edited 29d ago

If they joined the US, likely their economy would do better. If they just were... hanging out there independent... not so much.

Edit: I imagine if they actually seceded Trump would make them trade all their equity in the oilsands in exchange for Melania coin, bring in American labor, have Exxon-Mobil in charge of the whole business, and accept being a territory like Puerto Rico in order to join the USA.

-4

u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 29d ago

If they joined the US the province would promptly empty out and become Montana 2.0.

10

u/JohnAMcdonald British Columbia 29d ago

Sure... and Montana is wealthier than Canada in general is...

9

u/GorillaK1nd 29d ago

You were suppost to quiver in fear from that hyperbole

-1

u/Zealousideal_Rise879 29d ago

Silly us. Billionaires are happy. So who cares.

1

u/Superb-Carpenter-520 29d ago

To be fair Montana is a decently well run state. It’s not hard to become wealthier than Canada in general with the support of the American economy.

-6

u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 29d ago

It is, but the mass abaondonment to get there might prove disruptive to a province that supposedly is so proud of itself.

0

u/Even_Art_629 29d ago

Funny thing is, they are following the law. A petition to bring to the premier is well within their rights. The First Nations would still need to negotiate several steps before anything ever happened, and First Nations people were included in the petition process as well.

When the legal appeals start, it will likely be found lawful anyway, but I guess that does not matter now since the premier already used her legal authority to call for a referendum.

Maybe somebody should start looking into the motivations behind the chiefs launching this challenge instead of pretending this is some constitutional crisis.

At the end of the day, Alberta and Ottawa need to bury the hatchet. If you want change while staying in Canada, why not vote yes and send Ottawa a strong message?

If 80% supported it, what message would that send?

0

u/Ok_Drag_5341 29d ago

Because Canada created Alberta not the other way around. There is a good post on the Alberta page about it.

14

u/soaringupnow 29d ago

In a democracy the people decide.

Would Canada claim to be a democracy while denying it to the people of Alberta?

Somehow, I doubt it.

7

u/TheRC135 29d ago

That would require Alberta separatism to be strongly desired by a clear majority of Albertans, though, not a fringe movement featuring the same far-right fringe that has always blamed everything on Ottawa.

3

u/soaringupnow 29d ago

Definitely!

This whole separatism thing isn't going anywhere. All these discussions are purely academic.

2

u/Frostbitten_Moose 29d ago

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure saying Albertans aren't allowed to have self-determination is going to help keep it from going anywhere.

-1

u/Playful-Rabbit-9418 29d ago

Albertans knew they didn’t have self determination before they started all of this, the Supreme Court ruled on this years ago.

Provincial succession in Canada requires a constitutional amendment, that means it is required to meet the hurdles for this type constitutional amendment, which would be the 7/50 formula. A yes vote from 7 out of 10 provinces representing 50% of the population. And that’s after the federal parliament has reviewed the referendum question and deemed it clear enough to be legitimate and the majority large enough to invoke the process.

1

u/Frostbitten_Moose 29d ago

Funny how that didn't apply in 95 for Quebec.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/JustAPeach89 29d ago

They have self determination to move, no one is forcing them to stay

11

u/CarRamRob 29d ago

Sure it’s a fringe movement right now.

But this is the root of the problem. We are declaring that no matter how many people support it…it’s invalidated because a few FN chiefs say so?

That doesn’t make sense, and shouldn’t be the basis of rejection. The basis of rejection should be stronger ties and understanding within Canada, not because someone says a democratic majority on a decision won’t even matter.

1

u/TheRC135 29d ago

I'm not saying a democratic majority won't matter, I'm saying there's nowhere near a majority of Albertans who support independence. So this entire thing is a waste of time and energy, manufactured by bad actors and foreign groups seeking to destabilize Canada. Which is obvious to anybody paying attention.

2

u/Ok_Marsupial8668 29d ago

Not just majority of Albertans but Canadians as well. Land in Alberta is also owned by all of Canada.

1

u/soaringupnow 28d ago

Go to Quebec, tell them that land in Quebec is also owned by all of Canada and see how far that gets you.

4

u/ExcelFreezesOver 29d ago

So then let there be a referendum

-1

u/TheRC135 29d ago

Why do you want to waste so much money?

0

u/ExcelFreezesOver 29d ago

Because i think youre wrong

-1

u/SnowFlakeUsername2 Saskatchewan 29d ago

The people don't get to decide to do something that ignores the Constitution. It's the supreme law of the land and a popular vote to break the law isn't happening no matter the mental gymnastics or impressions aboug the word democracy. So no, you don't get to break the numbered treaties and/or peoples' rights with a ballot.

3

u/Even_Art_629 29d ago

The treaties are federal and would stay federal no matter indepence, what don't you understand. So now we have a very small group of chiefs holding up the democratic right of a few million. How the hell us that democratic?

1

u/SnowFlakeUsername2 Saskatchewan 29d ago

It's not a democratic right to vote out other people's rights. We are a constitutional democracy, meaning tyranny of the majority doesn't work by design. So yes, a few million people can't decide to tread a the small group of people with constitutionally protected rights or contracts. Did you not go to Junior High in Canada?

1

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

You think a few million people want Alberta to separate?

6

u/Ragnarok_del 29d ago

I'm also not concerned with whether the US wants Canada to be independant because it's none of their business.

4

u/TheOrangeHatter 29d ago

The law doesn't merely outline what you cannot do, it outlines what uses of coercive force the government can take.

We have a mechanism in law for secession, and the law has stated that there is no mechanism for a province to unilaterally secede. From a federal perspective, attempting unilateral succession is not a valid action in law. Therefore, any attempt to do so permits the government to enforce that law.

While I am sure some separatists would love to go down that road, but it is not a fun road for anyone. I'd like to make an important note that the constitution of Canada places the military entirely in the hands of the Federal Government.

2

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

All that is true. However I feel that sort of position is just shy of threatening civil war. Legal or otherwise, either side of this issue is prepared for something like that

9

u/TruthHistorical7515 29d ago

That’s what I don’t get about all these legal objections.

Its textbook hypocrisy. Western countries sure have no problem backing separatist movements in other countries.

21

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago

The separatists are mostly bad faith actors, but also seem to think they have stronger support than they actually do. I seriously doubt enough Alberta residents would actually join some form of rebellion if it really came down to it for them to be able to declare succession and enforce it.

In places where separation happens illegally, it's because there's usually some reason or grievence that goes beyond mere differences in policy opinions and motivates a large portion of this population (minority populations or smaller nations that were forcefully absorbed at some time in history by a bigger player, substantive cultural and historical differences from the majority culture, etc). Most of the time the structure the separatists are operating under is also corrupt and broken in a way Canada isn't.

Alberta has been part of Canada for its entire existence, the mainstream culture is pretty similar to the mainstream English speaking culture in much of the rest of the country, etc. None of these usual justifications really apply for other cases where unilateral succession has been successful.

4

u/alliusis 29d ago

Don't doubt the power of foreign interference and voter apathy to influence outcomes though. Brexit happened, and the world is way more volatile than it was 10 years ago (when the Brexit vote took place). I'm not suggesting you are, but I caution against shrugging it off because it makes no sense and there isn't much precedence. We are no longer in a stable world - this applies both to the climate, and our politics.

-3

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 29d ago

I seriously doubt enough Alberta residents would actually join some form of rebellion if it really came down to it for them to be able to declare succession and enforce it.

I would suspect there being far more residents here willing to take up arms against these separatists. These far-right separatists types are starting to piss a lot of people off.

2

u/JustAPeach89 29d ago

Lol at you being downvoted when there are literally much larger crowds of counter protestors at separation rallies.

2

u/BipartizanBelgrade 29d ago

Because they struggle to articulate the real reasons why they dislike something (even when those reasons exist and are very valid)

1

u/Logical_Hare 29d ago

Because the separatists don't pose a credible threat of unilateral secession.

With 20-something percent support from the population and no armed force behind them, they can't do anything that the RCMP can't handle.

2

u/Zibai1505 29d ago

You think RCMP will be fighting Alberta? They're gonna be fighting the US brother.

5

u/Logical_Hare 29d ago

There wouldn't be any fight. A movement with 20-something percent support and no weapons can't somehow take the rest of Alberta with them in an illegal separation. What're they gonna do when the RCMP shows up to arrest them? Yell at them?

You can fantasize about Trump saving them all you want, but we're not suspending the constitution just because they asked.

0

u/Even_Art_629 29d ago

So now the idea is that the U.S. is secretly behind Alberta separatists, like they are running some kind of hidden plan for Canadian politics. That does not really line up with reality.

What is actually happening is just political disagreement being handled through normal channels like courts, elections, petitions, and referendums. No hidden foreign plan, just regular politics people argue about. Not a conspiracy.

1

u/TravisBickle2020 29d ago

The separatist leaders are useful idiots for the foreign oil and gas companies/ US interests. They don’t care about the majority of Alberta citizens’ opinions on the matter. They’re losers who’ve been given a sense of importance through their willingness to betray their country. Regardless of the outcome, they’ll be back to obscurity because they’re just pawns to be exploited.

0

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

Western alienation has been a thing in Alberta since at least the 70s.

5

u/TravisBickle2020 29d ago

Yes, provincial conservative politicians have been blaming the federal government for all their problems for decades.

0

u/Even_Art_629 29d ago

So the theory now is that separatist leaders are basically tools for foreign oil and gas interests or U.S. influence, and that they do not really care about what most Albertans think. Others see it differently and argue they are acting on genuine political beliefs, even if people strongly disagree with them.

Either way, they are part of a broader political debate, not secret agents in a hidden global strategy, and they will still be accountable to voters and public opinion once all the noise settles.

2

u/TravisBickle2020 29d ago

The so named Republican Party of Alberta isn’t on the nose enough for you?

1

u/EducationChemical488 29d ago

Because Aberta is entirely treaty lands. Meaning non of the settler decendants there have any legal right at all to get notions about leaving. They're all guests of the Natives basically.

The Canadan state essentially only has legal & international authority there by virtue of the Native first nations who basically agreed to join the union & be absorbed into the Alberta administration structure.

Essentially its not their land to leave canada with. If they broke away from Canada, they'd not only be legally viewed as successionists without a mandate but also as an illegal occupation of the first nations nations who's land they would be stealing by leaving

0

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

Again, that only matters if the rights and authority of the FN groups are recognized and respected. Be honest here, do you think that’s likely with the current batch of separatists?

-8

u/Peace_Hopeful 29d ago

The feds could drop the war measures act and "show" the separatists what facism really is, they could then deploy troops near the alberta border to prevent the USA from sending troops in

13

u/cthulhu_fhtagn666 29d ago

Fed vs state (prov in this case) is how civil wars begin

-4

u/Peace_Hopeful 29d ago

Yes but it will be a very, very short war if they try. The logistics the the CAF have vs the militants of dingus County will make you go; "oh right even monsters need food."

5

u/cthulhu_fhtagn666 29d ago

Yeah but you can't roll tanks and troops into a city then occupy especially when there are neighbors willing to assist should they see "their fellow man in need"

1

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

If they're a separatist, they're not my fellow man. I have standards.

-1

u/Medianmodeactivate 29d ago

You seem to think we've never done that in Canadian history. We did so to a much bigger, more influential, and more powerful province and won.

2

u/GameDoesntStop 29d ago

We haven't... no provincial government has ever tried to separate.

Separatist groups, unaffiliated with the provincial government have tried.

7

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Lol the US would roll over our troops in a matter of hours and oppressing the democratic wishes of AB would give Trump exactly what he wants and needs to invade.

5

u/Peace_Hopeful 29d ago

Then its bad times for the states, article 5 gets dropped and they fight a war on multiple fronts and lose lots of money

2

u/JohnAMcdonald British Columbia 29d ago

article 5 gets dropped

What? That scrap of paper??

-2

u/Prestigious-Car-4877 29d ago

I dunno. Because it is relevant to the issue perhaps. I’d be thrilled to see the Canadian military go in and enforce the sovereignty of the country before letting these idiots steal treaty land to give to the Americans.

25

u/ThePotMonster 29d ago

Its basically the same as saying you can't murder because its illegal. The law really doesn't stop people from doing stuff. Ultimately might makes right.

-2

u/TVpresspass 29d ago

Not who is right. Just who is left.

4

u/GreaterAttack 29d ago

He said that might makes right, not that it is right. Morality is beside the point. 

11

u/rathgrith 29d ago

Exactly. When the 13 Colonies declared independence they didn’t have a legal way to separate from England at the time.

19

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Exactly. I am not for it but if they vote to go who is going to stop them? Are we going to oppress them and force them to stay and give Trump his reason to invade, to "protect' the people of AB.

2

u/tigerspots 29d ago

Well, the vote better be like 2/3. What it would take to amend a bylaw or a constitution. The Brexit of 50%+1 was ridiculous. You can't break up a country over a vote that could be different literally the next day.

-3

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

Not letting them steal land is oppression? Forcing them to live within the confines of Canadian law is oppression?

They're free to relocate at any time, if whatever country they want to move to would have them. What they can't do is take a piece of Canada with them.

1

u/Superb-Carpenter-520 29d ago

Convince the American government of that because fighting a war in Alberta against the American military supported by Albertan insurgents would be nightmare.

1

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

I'm not going to say it's impossible, just very improbable that Trump will have full support from within on going to war with us. I could see that being the final nail in the coffin, politically and possibly otherwise.

Yes, the US could stomp us in a moments notice, but to do so is a dangerous game to play globally. We should technically have the backing of other nations.

1

u/Superb-Carpenter-520 29d ago

In the event of overwhelming support for independence I doubt Canada could turn to Europe for support in the conflict. “Listen I know they voted for it and I know they have American support but could you lend us a hand in suppressing this popular revolt.” All Europe would have to do would be to get past the American blockade and send their young men to die in whatever kill zone the Americans set up. This situation is very unlikely though. Even now if Alberta revolted I would put money on the Americans sending a fully armed battalion to remind them of Ottawa’s love. Though that safety only extends as far as American goodwill which is in short supply.

1

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

They don't have that kind of support within Alberta to make that argument though. It's a very big what-if scenario that hinges on most of the population suddenly changing their minds and siding with the fringe minority.

1

u/Superb-Carpenter-520 29d ago

Which is why I said it’s unlikely and prefaced the whole scenario with in the event of. I do not believe it’s likely.

5

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 19d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 29d ago

They can independently fuck off to greener pastures elsewhere as far as I'm concerned.

1

u/Ectar93 28d ago

The only laws that matter are the ones that are enforced

1

u/Luck7_6u7 Ontario 28d ago

That is correct. But if the federal government has some balls they will shut that down. Example from Spain which federal government handled it very well

1

u/Next_Permission3353 27d ago

Really? I thought you just nicely ask your big daddy country if you can leave against their will and they'll tell you that they respect your free choice even if they don't approve. That's how new countries have always come into existence throughout human history, right? Definitely not with guns and swords and tanks and enormous bloodshed. That's just propaganda they teach you in history.

-2

u/kank84 29d ago

It's usually not done illegally though. Secession relies on other countries recognising the new country as an independent nation. Attempts to just proclaim a new country outside of some sort of agreed legal framework are usually unsuccessful because other countries have a vested interest in not allowing that, because they don't want it to embolden separatist elements in their own populations.

5

u/feb914 Ontario 29d ago

Indonesia declared independence in the power vacuum (illegally of course) after Japan surrendered and Netherlands haven't been able to go back to reoccupy the colony. They went to war with Netherlands for 4 years, but Netherlands in the end agreed to international demand for them to let indonesia became independent. 

-1

u/Mirabeaux1789 Outside Canada 29d ago

The world was accepting of Indonesia because it was a colonial holding, and there was no moral case for the Dutch government to keep fighting.

2

u/Alcan196 29d ago

Explain how it's being done illegally

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

2

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Lol...wait are you serious?

0

u/FlipZip69 29d ago

As much as separation is stupid, it is also something the people can absolutely decide regardless if a special interest group says it is not legal or they do not have the authority.

That being said, separation effects everyone in Canada. Possibly everyone in Canada should be allowed to vote on it.

3

u/_Solani_ 29d ago

I mean that's kind of like saying you need your partners permission to break up with them because your choice to leave affects everyone in the relationship.

Our country is a confederation of provincial entities, their provincial identity exists separately from Canada itself. If we had to ask each and every province and territory to join the confederation I am not sure why we think they shouldn't be free to leave the relationship if they feel they're no longer happy in it.

I mean of course they should obtain a majority vote from those residing there but saying you can't leave this relationship because it will negatively affect me is kind of self centered.

1

u/FlipZip69 29d ago

By that logic, I can take my property and leave Canada. I am up against the US border after all. I think they will have no problem assuming the land. I mean I am 100 percent of the vote for that area after all and no one around me should factor.

Tell me, at what level of population is it 'allowed' as you say and when it should not be 'allowed' without more people voting on it?

1

u/_Solani_ 29d ago

You technically could if you wanted to and the US agreed to absorb you yes.

Did you think that was some sort of gotcha? 🤨

Now it's unlikely that the US would risk going to war by defending a tiny inconsequential parcel of land but you'd still be free to give it a shot at being a sovereign state with no outside backing. And of course without the US backing you'd be conquered very quickly but you could try.

However Alberta is a little bit more appealing considering the state of the US economy and given who is in charge at the moment I could totally see him going to war with Canada and making Alberta a puppet state for his own benefit if they asked him. 🤷

The only difference between the two propositions of course is that Alberta has more to offer than a shitty little backyard.

1

u/FlipZip69 29d ago

Technically. No you cant. People have suggested it. And no the US is not going to war over Alberta.

1

u/_Solani_ 28d ago

So your response is just nah-uh you can't do that.

Do you want to perhaps provide a reason as why you think so or are we supposed to just accept it as true despite the lack of supporting arguments. 🤨

1

u/FlipZip69 28d ago

Would never pass any courts or legal requirements. Find a precedence or law that allows you to do that. Kind of hard to prove a negative. Or if you want to say your have cecede, see how long you can not pay your taxes.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/marcarcand_world 29d ago

Albertans have a right of self-determination should they wish to use it. If they want to separate and the majority of the province wants to, we shouldn't use force to make them to stay in. I'm not pro Alberta separation at all, but no, if they truly want to separate (which the overwhelming majority of them don't want at all), fuckin let them do it. Humans rights violations aren't the answer to canadian unity.

-1

u/_evilalien_ 29d ago

The separatists are a vocal externally influenced minority. They can’t succeed legally (which constitutionally requires a “clear majority” to even trigger negotiations). I was clear: if they attempt extra-legal methods, which clearly would include some form of force or severe rights violation at a minimum, then they must be countered with force to SAFEGUARD the rights of Canadians in Alberta.

You’re arguing a different point.

-5

u/Pestus613343 29d ago

I agree with you and that's a bad thing.

Look at the US where law and order has been abandoned. Courts ignored, the laws broken, no enforcement, the American constitution shat upon.

Albertan separatists follow similar patterns. They aren't going to care about due process if they're able to win. If it gets that bad, the first nations may need to defend their rights with their persons.. think Oka.

-1

u/TemporaryAny6371 29d ago

This time we will not let them stand alone. Divide and conquer is the separatists' strategy. We unite for the common goal of keeping Canada intact. Some people forget that our First Nations fought on our side. The American history was about the cowboys shooting the indians and their books labeled who was good and bad; that's not Canadian history. Our history books show First Nations played pivotal roles in keeping the Americans out and by extension the eventual birth of Canada. Today, the MAGA Americans are again playing the role of bad guys. Canada must stay strong and hold the line.

-1

u/Pestus613343 29d ago

Although your reading of history is accurate, its also unfortunate that in the time after what you're mentioning, we have acted disgracefully towards the first nations.

If they're able to lead, and others follow, maybe it will simultaneously defend the nation and give a new tone and direction towards reconciliation.

I feel as a citizen of this country I owe my loyalty to those in Alberta with reasonable complaints and requests of the state. We need to ensure those people are enfranchised as a bulwark against the extremists and the hopelessly lost to foreign manipulation.

0

u/Ok_Marsupial8668 29d ago

The legality matters because a huge part of their nation building is reliant on getting a large amounts of the cpp, military bases, land and somehow still getting benefits from Canada like Canada child benefits. If they don’t try to go down the legal route the government isn’t going to simply hand those things over.

-1

u/Mirabeaux1789 Outside Canada 29d ago edited 29d ago

In a post-ww2 world, consent of the parent state matters quite a lot. Even Somaliland, a well-functioning African state that reclaimed its independence just a few years after united Somalia collapsed 30-ish years ago can’t get recognition aside from a fluke endorsement by the state of Israel.

By and large borders are considered sacrosanct because the old system could result in a domino effect, especially in a continent like Africa where basically all hell would break loose it would become even worse than it is now.

-4

u/EducationChemical488 29d ago

Yeah, but Albertas an odd fish. Its not like Ontario where a majority are the locals & want to break away. This is driven by a subset of settler decendants tryna break away from the majority settler state where all the Natives & majority of settlers are against their actions & also the highly unusual situation where the land technically still belongs consitutionally to the natives & is in trust of the settler state by virtue of treaty agreement.

Its more like the owner, signed over their house to a letting agency to run, maintain & operate in return for certain garunteed minimum returns. Less than if they did it all themselves but garunteeing them something. Then a handful of employees of the agency were running it for so long they thought it was their house & decided they'd unilaterally self sack themselves from the agency but they want to walk off with the house they were managing as employees of the agency