Pages

Tuesday, 3 July 2012

U.S.: Indian tribal sovereignty - The realpolitik

This is an issue that has recently been bought to my attention. If you can help or would like further information, please visit Might Is Not Right

The genocide of the constitutionally-recognized Indian Tribes by the federally-recognized Indian “First Nations” began in the United States with the Appropriations Act of 1871 and its Canadian counterpart the Indian Act of 1876. Henceforth North American federal law has ignored the existence of the Tribes and, therefore, of the constitutions’ absolute protection under the commerce, defence and treaty clauses precedents of the territorial sovereignty of the Tribes. Federal law recognizes only those Indian governments that are created under federal law with delegated powers of a municipal nature but without any basis for a claim to governmental or territorial sovereignty. The Indian Tribes such as survive are States for the purpose of the law of treaties and, as such, have exclusive sovereign jurisdiction to grant or refuse to grant by treaty with the United States or Canada the right of entry to the sovereign Indian territory. The “First Nations” are sub-governments of the federal governments and, as such, have no such right to surrender Indian sovereignty. Vis-à-vis each other First Nations and the United States are not separate States for treaty law purposes but rather one State and one agent of that State without treaty making jurisdiction. In British Columbia the federal government fraudulently is treating with “First Nations” for the surrender of the territorial sovereignty of the Indian Tribes the existence of which is denied. The axiom is nemo dat quod non habet [one can not give what does not have].

The genocide of the constitutionally-recognized Indian Tribes is perfected by the courts’ obstruction and ignoring since the 1870s of the existence of the Indian Tribes. Civil court clerks refuse to file documents commencing Tribal sovereignty cases on the ground only “First Nations” can represent Indians. Criminal law judges refuse to address habeas corpus applications to justify their own assumption of jurisdiction on prima facie sovereign Indian Tribal territory. The Supreme Court will not conduct a judicial review of the conflict of laws between the commerce, defence and treaty clause precedents protecting sovereign Indian Tribal territory from the Appropriations Act of 1871 confiscating it. The Appropriations Act of 1871 repeals the constitutional protection but does not comply with the constitution’s amendment article and so is null and void by operation of law alone. This is simple and compelling and true law and the courts will not address it. The direct consequence continues to be genocide-in-progress quietly working every day in the United States and Canada as the final solution nears fulfilment. The Case-under-Obstruction in the Supreme Court of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States brings this to a head and requires performance of the Court’s most fundamental 1803 Marbury v. Madison duty of judicial review. No other Case is or is ever likely to be in this position of focus and presentation. If the constitutional question of constitutionalism vs imperialism is to be resolved pursuant to the rule of law rather than bloody suppression this Case must be heard. The courts of Europe and especially the European Court of Human Rights can and should declare the duty of the Supreme Court to do that duty in the interest of the “Prevention” of “Genocide” with the meaning of Article 2(b) of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

The Case needs contacts, and help in Europe to come before those courts to obtain that relief.

Posting of articles or a press release is not an endorsement. Content is chosen on presentation and level of interest