Patricia Anne Davis, MA
315-A Rio Grande Blvd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87104
206-778-6721
patricia_anne9@hotmail.com
www.nativeamericanconcepts.wordpress.com
* Light * Livelihood * Love * Laughter * Legacy * Liberation *
September 8, 2016
Dave Archambault II, Tribal Chief
Standing Rock Tribe
P. O. Box D
Fort Yates, ND 58538
INTRODUCTION LETTER: International Indigenous Sovereign Law Documents
Dear Tribal Chief Archambault,
Attached, find the following International Indigenous Sovereign Law documents for your review and discussion among the appropriate Tribal leaders and legal team who are collaborating to initiate the Government to Government/Nation to Nation strategies for the protection of water regarding the 1851 Great Tetuwan Treaty Rights, in response to the attempt of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on and near Standing Rock tribal land.
The International Indigenous Sovereign Law documents were compiled by Rudy Al James, Tlingit of Ketchikan, Alaska. He had been making presentations to various tribes in hopes of educating tribal leaders and American Indian communities about these laws with the hope of truly protecting our land and natural resources, language and cultures. I assisted Mr. James in disseminating the attached documents because he intended for American Indians to use them for their purpose.
Sincerely,
Patricia Anne Davis, MA
CC: publicrelations@standingrock.org/ssittingbear@standingrock.org
redwarriorcamp@gmail.com
info@lakotalaw.org
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we create them." Albert Einstein
THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA
A “Declaratory Judgment” interprets the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous People of North American as a “Government to Government” relationship of The Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Tribal Nations, specifically their Treaty Rights regarding the 1851 Great Tetuwan Treaty with the US Government as cited here:
The Indian Tribal Justice Act
EXPCITE – TITLE 25 – INDIANS CHAPTER 38 – INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE SUPPORT, Sec. 3601. Findings – STATUTE “The Congress finds and declares that -
(1) there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;
(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;
(3) Congress, through statues, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;
(4) Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems;”
September 26, 2011
KUIU KWAAN TRADITIONAL TRIBAL COURT
DELCLARATORY JUDGMENT
THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA
THIS DOCUMENT IS TO INFORM ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD OF CERTAIN IRREFUTABLE FACTS CONCERNING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
THIS FACTUAL DATA IS RECOGNIZED TRADITIONAL TRIBAL LAW – UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW – UNITED NATIONS LAWS – TREATIES, ACCORDS AND UNDERSTANDINGS
The following Legal Cites pertains to a portion of the laws that identify some of the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of North America. These laws obligate all nations of the world, including the government of the United States of America, on how to conduct relations with the Indigenous Peoples. Those agencies of the U.S.A. that ignore or do not comply with said laws are subject to prosecution by such laws as P.L. 100-606, the Anti-Genocide Act, and most certainly will be censured by the United Nations.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
“(1 Stat. 50) Article 3 assured that “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.”
________________________________________________________________________
(1) there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;
(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;
(3) Congress, through statues, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;
(4) Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems;” ______________________________________________________________
“To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to affirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.”
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
“To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to affirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.
Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including mostly notably George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and governmental practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; and
Whereas…………………………………………………………………………………………and
Whereas…………………………………………………………………………………………and
Whereas……………….., the Congress has assumed a trust responsibility and obligation to Indian tribes, and their members to “exercise the utmost good faith in dealings with the Indians” as provided for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, (1 Stat. 50); and,
Whereas Congress has consistently reaffirmed these fundamental policies over the past two hundred years through legislation specifically designed to honor this special relationship; and,
Whereas the judicial system of the United States has consistently recognized and reaffirmed this special relationship; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That –
(1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United
States Constitution, acknowledges the historical debt which this, Republic of the United
States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian nations….
(2) the Congress also hereby reaffirms the constitutionally recognized government-to-
Government relationship with Indian tribes which has historically been the cornerstone of this Nation’s official Indian Policy;
(3) the Congress specifically acknowledges and reaffirms the trust responsibility and obligation
of the United States Government to Indian tribes, including Alaska Natives, for their
preservation, protection and enhancement, including the provision of health, social and
economic assistance programs as necessary, to assist tribes to perform their government
responsibility to provide for the social and economic well-being of their members and to
preserve tribal cultural identity and heritage; and
(4) the Congress also acknowledges the need to exercise the utmost good faith in upholding its treaties with the various tribes, as the tribes understood them to be…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 100-606 – Genocide Act Codified
November 4, 1988
“(1) In the case of an offense under subsection (a) (1), a fine of not more than $1,000.000 and imprisonment for life; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1, 000.000. or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c) INCITEMENT OFFENCE – Whosoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500.000 or imprisonment not more than five years, or both.
(D) Required circumstance for offense.
(1) The offense is committed within the United States
(2) The alleged offender is a national of the United States.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police – Supreme Court ruling reported Nov. 1991
491 U.S. 58, 57 LW 4677 (1989)
“State official sued in their individual capacities are “persons” under 42 USC 1983 who may be held liable for damages for civil right violations. State officials can be held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their official duties. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that Section 1983 was designed to redress violation of civil rights by persons acting under color of state law….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 83-280
(67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. ss 1162 and 28 U.S.C. ss 1360) Limitation of state authority to alienate tribal land rights:
“(Nothing in this Act authorized the)…alienation, encumbrance or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation or the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any federal treaty, agreement or statue or with any regulations made pursuant thereto….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 83-280
Public Law 83-283, codified in the United Sates Code, Title 28, section 1360
Cite as PL 83-280, 28 USC 1360 (2001)
(Comment: This act prohibits states from asserting jurisdiction within Tribal boundaries without tribal consent.)
U. S. Constitution Supremacy Clause
“Article VI Paragraph 2 states, “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, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
______________________________________________________________________________
The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act 1834
177. Purchases or Grants of Lands from Indians, R.S. was from Act June 30, 1834 (25 U.S.C. ss 177).
“No purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Rights of Indians not Impaired; Boundaries
R.S. 1839; Public Law 980213, 15(a), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1462
“Nothing in this Title shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property pertaining
to the Indians in any Territory, so long as such rights remain un-extinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any Territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of such tribe embraced within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory,…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Sperry Oil and Gas vs. Chisholm
“(264 U.S. 488), 68 L. Ed. 03, 44 S. Ct 372, it was found”…nor can the State courts assume jurisdiction in a controversy involving Indians.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Powers of Indian Tribes Nathan R. Margold
“In the opinion of Nathan Margold on Powers of Indian Tribes approved October 25, 1934 (55 I.D. 14): ‘It is fact that State governments and administrative officials have frequently trespassed upon the realm of tribal autonomy, presuming to govern the Indian tribes through State law or departmental regulation or arbitrary administrative fiat, but these trespasses have not impaired the vested legal powers of local self-government which have been recognized again and again when these trespasses have been challenged by an Indian tribe.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986
(PL 99-499) The SARA Amendments to the Clean Water Act – recognize the Indian Tribes as co-trustees of the environment and identify broad powers for chronicling and reporting water resource emergencies, furthermore, testimony from Tribes carries the weight of rebuttable presumption when determining losses and restorations. The Amendments define “Indian tribe” as any Indian tribe, band, and nation or other organized group or community, including any Alaskan Native Village, but not including any Alaskan Native regional or village corporation…Page 5172. ______________________________________________________________________________
United States v. Winans, 1905
(198 U.S. 371) “…The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Indians could cross private property to get to their fishing stations. The Supreme Court found that the right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of larger right possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed. New conditions came into existence, to which those rights had to be accommodated. Only a limitation of them, however, was necessary and intended, not taking away. That is, the treaty was not a grant to the Indians, but a grant from them.”
______________________________________________________________________________
The Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18, 1934
(48 Stat. 984-988) As Amended by the Act of May 1, 1936, Section 16:
“…to prevent the sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of tribal lands, interest in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent of the tribe…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Wheeler-Howard Disclaimer
Protecting interest in tribal Possessory claims in Section 2 and 15 of the Act (48 Stat. 984-988): (Section 2) (providing)…
Section 150 providing that “…Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or prejudice any claim or suit of any Indian Tribe against the United States.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council vs. Alaska
Adds further understanding and interpretation of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991) states:
“8. Indians 6(2). In interpreting Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress can be presumed to know that statutes passed for benefit of Indian tribes will be liberally construed in favor of tribes. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, S. 2-403, 25 U.S.C.A. S 1901-1963.”
“13. Indians 32(1). Indian tribe need not wait for affirmative grant of authority from Congress in order to exercise dominion over its members.”
“14. Indians 2. Indian groups to be recognized as sovereign should be those entities which historically acted as bodies politic,…”
Section C. “Alaska errs, however, in seeking to impose upon Indian law doctrines from other fields of law. Because of the unique legal status of Indians in American jurisprudence, legal doctrines often must be viewed from a different perspective from that which would obtain in other areas of law.” See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 100 S. Ct 2578, 2583, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)
“Statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians; ambiguous provisions are to be interpreted to the Indians’ benefit.” Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. at 766, 105 S. Ct. at 2403.
(Comment: Important decision recognizing the fact that Indian Law stands upon Indian Law.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Comment) The following cited International Laws have been agreed upon and signed by the United States of America, under the Supremacy Clause these forgoing laws and the following laws cited become the Supreme Law of the land.
United Nations Law
International Law
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
(Comment) The following cited International Laws have been agreed upon and signed by the United States of America, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. A. Constitution these laws become the Supreme Law of the land.
Preamble
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
“Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, Agree upon the following articles:
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Part III
Article 11
No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unknown interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public, or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
PART VI
Article 50
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.”
______________________________________________________________________________
THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUAN RIGHT MECHANISM AND PROCEDURES
“The promotion and protection of human rights has been a major preoccupation for the United Nations since 1945, when the Organization’s founding nations resolved that the horrors of The Second World War should never be allowed to recur. Respect for human rights and human dignity ‘is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, the General Assemble declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over the years, a whole network of human rights instruments and mechanism has been developed to ensure the primacy of human rights and to confront human rights violations wherever they occur.
Protection
“The Centre for Human Rights operates a 24-hour fax “hot line”, put at the disposal of victims of human rights violations, their relatives and non-governmental organizations, to allow them to contact the Centre for Human Rights. It also allows the Centre for Human Rights to react rapidly to human rights emergencies.”
United Nations Centre for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 3924
Fax: 41 22 917 0213
New York Liaison Office (CHR)
Room S-2914
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Fax: (212) 963-4097
Coordination and rationalization of the human rights programme
The Centre for Human Rights in Geneva, part of the United Nations Secretariat, in this connection implements the policies proposed by the High Commissioner.
For further information, please contact:
Tel: (212) 963-5930
Department of Public Information
Public Inquiries Unit
Room GA-57
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 963-4475
______________________________________________________________________________
Laws Between Nations
Foreign Law
“The law of a foreign country, or of a sister state. In conflicts of law, the legal principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation. Many states have foreign law provisions in their legal codes that defer to foreign law to prevent manifest injustice,” Black’s
September 28, 2011
KUIU KWAAN TRADITIONAL TRIBAL COURT
Rudy Al James Patricia Anne Davis, MA
P.O. Box 8302 315 Rio Grande Blvd NW # A
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Albuquerque, NM 87104
rudyaljames@gmail.com patricia_davis4@yahoo.com
Cell: 206-795-7573 Cell: 206-778-6721
MEMORANDUM
Re. INHERENT RIGHTS
Wesley G. Dick, Jr.
1030 Breckenridge Dr.
Fallon, NV 89406
Dear Wesley,
Please find enclosed certain legal cites that pertain to both U.S.A. Federal and International Law that affect our Indigenous people of North America. These laws recognize your Inherent Rights as a tribal member. Part I Article I of the United Nations International Law state: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
All said Indigenous people have a right to hunt, to fish, gather, and hold Sacred Ceremonies from their traditional tribal areas that include making a living in traditional ways. Please be advised that Traditional Tribal areas are where, in ancient times, Tribal people utilized these areas for their spiritual/cultural practices and livelihood. Therefore, even though these areas presently carry designations as state or federal forests, parks, wilderness areas, recreation areas, game preserves, National Parks and private forest lands such as Weyerhaeuser Forest Lands or regardless of what name the new people have given to these regions, they are still utilized. No permits are required to do what the Indigenous Peoples have done in the past. Also, be advised that American Indian culture can evolve into contemporary life.
I would like to advise all Native people to join the United Indigenous Nations and to carry a picture ID card showing that membership, which will serve to show State or Federal Agent(s) or anyone inquiring, of your association with said organization.
This will most certainly ensure a protection of the stated rights that you are entitled to. Also, there is no judge, agent or representative immune from prosecution for violations of these recognized enclosed laws. Do not hesitate to show and state your Inherent Rights.
If any Indigenous person faces any kind of resistance by state, federal or private individuals, please do not hesitate to call our offices. What is quoted and stated is the Law.
Sincerely Yours,
Rudy Al James,
Kuiu Kwaan Tribal Spokesman, Secretary General of the United Indigenous Nations, Member of the Board of Governors of The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, (a United Nations NGO with Roster Status), Lead Judge of the Traditional Tribal Court of the Kuiu Kwaan.
ENCLOSURE: Pertinent Laws enclosed should accompany this Memorandum
November 2, 2011
Wesley Glenn Dick Jr.
1030 Breckenridge Dr. Notice of Special Appearance
Fallon, Nevada 89406
Kwassuh AKA Wesley G. Dick Jr. Case#: 12 CR00019
Honorable Judge,
Comes now, Sovereign, Kwassuh, AKA Wesley G. Dick jr. a member of a Federally recognized Tribe-Northern Paiute Nation, Numa-Toi Ticutta, Enrollment #0238, Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada. I enter this Notice of Special Appearance under duress and threat of court sanctions, and charges.
This is a Special Appearance to notify the Nevada District Court hearing case # KKC-06202011-9: that it has no jurisdiction; and, that any enforcement of de facto jurisdiction will be contrary to tribal law, federal law, and a clear violation of international law that governs human rights, which are inherent to the American Indian Tribes of Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada). All Laws applicable to this case shall stand as a witness for me and all American Indians as Indigenous Peoples.
First and Foremost, I am not a “person” – in that I am not a mask. The word, “person”, is derived from the Latin word, “persona”, which means “mask”. A mask is a form of disguise, usually over the face to hide the wearer’s identity and to establish another being, i.e.: another something that exists. Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition.
The Term: SINDERESIS. "A natural power of the soul, set in the highest part thereof, moving and stirring it to good, and abhorring evil. And therefore sinderesis our creator put in man, to the intent that the order of things should be observed. And therefore sinderesis is called by some men the ‘law of reason,’ for it ministers the principles of the law of reason, the which be in every man by nature, in that he is a reasonable creature." Doct. & Stud. 39.
First and Foremost, I am a “Sentient Being”, meaning having life with spiritual thinking from the creator as my progenitor. Thus, I am a holy and precious child of a living creator. Accordingly I, Sovereign Kwassuh, my Traditional Tribal name, a member of the American Indian Tribe Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) constituted of the four sacred elements Mother earth-physical; fire-intellect; water-emotive; air-spiritual, my authentic being do hereby, enter this notice of Special Appearance to give notice to the Nevada District Court handling this case and its Departments in connection with this case, not limited to its officers of the court and its employees and or anyone under its directives and/or in direct connection to this case, from the Nevada District Court handling this case, to the Department of Fish and Wildlife; that YOU possess no authorization, and no personal or subject matter jurisdiction over me individually nor over the Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada), Clans and Bands within the Confederation of American Indians as Indigenous People.
Furthermore this court has convened unlawfully with regards to this case and that its citizens who are agent(s), employees, prosecutor and or anyone hired by the state in connection with this case has taken an egregious stance towards this matter and thus has committed a flagrant and blatant disregard in the invasion of my Inherent Sovereign Rights, which is unconscionable, by asserting false claims of jurisdiction under the color of law.
This court has the duty to, in due diligence, to make a clear distinction of proper application of jurisdiction and fully recognize the proper jurisdiction of the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) violating solemn Tribal Law and International Law, United States Federal Law.
All American Indian Tribes as Indigenous people have a right to hunt, to fish, gather and hold sacred ceremonies from their traditional tribal geographical areas that include making a living in traditional ways. Our life ways, the aboriginal peoples, the unique cultures, the sacred ceremonial, customs, traditions and quality of lives the Native Americans all shared from past thousands of years to the present depends on the freedoms our ancestors practiced in their daily lives. We experienced the loss of identity, and inherent rights before. Now there is protection. We as a people are compelled to stand and cannot return to that loss.
A very heavy financial burden has also been placed on me and my family at the worst of these difficult times. The need to sell some of our personal belongings and get personal loans from the pawn shop in order to maintain the everyday cost of living, having to drive a many distance to and from the library in order to produce documents, traveling to get advice from legal persons, and having to get donations to assist us.
Even though I explained in detail my full intentions to defend myself and stand up for our Native rights. This is just a few examples of the undue and unnecessary steps we have endured so far. I am thankful to my family and friends for their help in getting me this far. Having to take my family on an over 2,000 mile round trip to the State of Washington to get fair justice by a Tribal Court was especially financially difficult.
Please be advised that Traditional Tribal areas are where, in ancient times, Tribal people utilized these areas for their spiritual/cultural practices and livelihood. Therefore, even though these areas presently carry designations as state or federal forests, parks, wilderness areas, recreation areas, game preserves, National Parks and private forest lands such as Weyerhaeuser Forest Lands or regardless of what name the new people have given to these regions, they are still utilized for Traditional Tribal purposes. No permits are required to do what the Indigenous Peoples have done in the past. Also, be advised that American Indian culture retains the inherent right to evolve into contemporary life to meet basic needs and to perpetuate Traditional Tribal authentic identity.
The Nevada District Court’s assertion of erroneous claims such as jurisdiction is a violation of my Inherent Sovereign Rights, and compels the laws to stand as a witness against YOU.
The United Nations Charter Article 73 and Conventions in particular the UN Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (US signatory Feb. 19, 1986) and the subsequent codification into U.S. Public Law 100-606, Nov 4, 1988 Ronald Reagan, USC 18 Ch 50a ss 1091(a)(4) wherein the "ethnic group" with its distinctive cultural traditions and heritage have been subjected to, "...conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part." - 18 ~`USC 1091(a) (4) United States Federal Law, mainly P.L. 100-606, cited as the "Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act)"
Furthermore, I move the Nevada District Court, and motion for the complete and in its entirety, a dismissal of this case and stricken from the record. Any and all other Special Appearances shall be made by my representative selected at my discretion.
To the extent that this court takes any action to undermine, disregard or ignore this Motion of Special Appearance for a dismissal of charges, would constitute a wanton disregard of human rights, and the laws of protected rights, set forth by the agreement of International Communities as well as a Nation to Nation status. This Motion shall serve as a warning notice to this district court that it will be violating Federal Law and Law. This is clearly a gross act and violates my inherent rights, which are protected by law and other applicable International Sovereignty Laws.
I, Kwassuh further state, I am well within my rights to execute my rights to prosecute any and all public Officers, servants, employees and those under its directives for violations of purported laws designed to protect the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) including, but not limited to the Lacy Act itself, the U. S. Constitution, the Jay Treaty, the U. N. Charter, the Genocide Act, Public Law 100-606.
I, Kwassuh further state the right of dismissal due to the court negligently inflicted “Double Jeopardy.”
The American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) have not legally surrendered or lost the attributes of Sovereignty, including but not limited to those concomitant with jurisdiction over lands, waters, resources and air through consent, war, treaty, history, or any other devise, either overt or covert.
Through the inherent Sovereign authority of the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) I, Kwassuh, assert that no federal, state or local laws were violated on my part; and, that any assertion or enforcement of any defacto laws and those acting under the color of law are null and void and shall meet the punishment to the full extent of the law.
YOU are hereby put on notice that the Secretary General of the United Indigenous Nations, Rudy Al James, has been notified as to the conduct of this court as well as other appropriate American Indian Sovereigns and Tribal Nations. YOU are also, hereby notified that any dilution or compromise of this motion of Special Appearance is or will be in violation of my Inherent Sovereign Human rights, and therefore considered a gross violation by interference of my rights as a Sovereign American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada), the U.S. Constitution, the Jay Treaty, the U.N. Charter, the Genocide Act and the Lacey Act, etc.
Therefore, I, Kwassuh, AKA Wesley G. Dick Jr. move for dismissal of all charges and that they be stricken from the record on the grounds stated above.
___________________
Sovereign, Kwassuh
American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada)
November 2, 2011
Joann Spotted Bear
Lay Advocate
P. O. Box 261
Wounded Knee, SD 89515 Notice of Special Appearance
Honorable Judge Quaid:
Your Honor, for the record, I am Sovereign, Joann Spotted Bear, from the Federally Recognized Nation called Pine Ridge Lakota Sioux. I am a Licensed Lay Advocate and Representative for Sovereign Kwassuh, who is a member of the Federally recognized Tribe Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte, enrollment number #0238 (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada). Kwassuh as Sovereign, also known as Wesley Dick Jr. due to the fact that Kwassuh is a registered, authentic, natural tribal and cultural name of AKA Wesley Dick Jr. (European), we instruct the court to use the name Kwassuh hence forth, and throughout the remainder of our presence.
Your honor, First and Foremost, I am not a “person” meaning that I am not a mask because the word “person” is derived from the Latin word “persona” which means “mask”. A mask is a form of disguise usually over the face to hide the wearer’s identity to establish another being, ie: another something that exists. Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition.
The Term: SINDERESIS. "A natural power of the soul, set in the highest part thereof, moving and stirring it to good, and abhorring evil. And therefore sinderesis our creator put in man, to the intent that the order of things should be observed. And therefore sinderesis is called by some men the ‘law of reason,’ for it ministers the principles of the law of reason, which be in every man by nature, in that he is a reasonable creature." Doct. & Stud. 39.
As Sovereign, we are both flesh and blood Sentient Beings who waive no rights and concede no authority nor jurisdiction to the Nevada District Court from the entry of this court and henceforth, throughout these proceeding and any to come. We are only here on the grounds of Special Appearance and are requesting a dismissal of all charges related to case no. #
Our approach to this court is in the Power of Authenticity, the Spirit of Peace and Wisdom of our Ancestors from time immemorial, who greeted YOU in the like manner when YOU first arrived to OUR SHORES on OUR land. We are non-adversarial Peoples and our intent today is to remove all barriers to justice for my client; to bring this encounter to remedy and to finality.
Your Honor, First and Foremost, I assert and submit to this court that the jurisdiction of this court is being challenged and can be challenged at anytime, it’s matter of jurisdiction, and violations under the United Nations Law, International Law, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
United Nations Human Rights says, “Respect for human rights and human dignity ‘is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, the General Assemble declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The fact is, only conducted himself as his ancient ancestors have done, which are protected to date by the established Laws and Treaties. My client injured no one in the state of Nevada. The status of my client as Sovereign has been raised from the onset of this forced encounter. These issues including threat of fines and possible incarceration have put my client and his family, wife and children under emotional stress and financial duress. Now, I Joann Spotted Bear have been summonsed I to represent Kwassuh who is authentic and Sovereign.
I am challenging this court position of jurisdiction. On many levels, but not limited to: Joyce v U.S. 474 2D 215, “there is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction”, nor can this court enact policies that would override human rights laws and statures not to mention violate them. Just like, you could not enact polices for an entire nation. It would constitute, an abrupt detour from establish laws and boundaries and are unenforceable. Sovereign laws are there to protect the sovereign Peoples of the indigenous nations; doing any less is contrary to the interest of positive nation to nation relations and can be fairly categorized as serious breach in Human Rights and a fiduciary responsibility on the part of the court.
Questions to the Nevada District Court Handling This Case are:
The following Legal Cites pertain to a portion of the laws that identify some of the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of North America. These laws obligate all nations of the world, including the government of the United States of America, on how to conduct relations with the Indigenous Peoples. Those agencies of the U.S.A. that ignore or do not comply with said laws are subject to prosecution by such laws as P.L. 100-606, the Anti-Genocide Act, and most certainly will be censured by the United Nations.
The abrogation of duties is the issue here, beginning with the incident and ordeal my client experience with your officer in encountering your officer, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not acknowledging aboriginal rights to practice the sacred methods and use of Indigenous Peoples traditional plant gathering has been detrimental. First and Foremost, it is the responsibility of the YOUR Departments to be abreast of laws applicable to the indigenous peoples.
The Nevada District Court handling this case runs the risks of creating and exacerbating more injury to my client, the Indigenous Peoples of North America, and runs the risk of engagement with Superior Authorities which can result in punitive damages as well as monetary damages, officials’ risk of imprisonment, fines to the maximum extent of the law. We are prepared and willing to take this the next level.
Nation to Nation RELATIONSHIP is at the forefront of this controversy in which We are in honor. Our position is the preservation in perpetuity of our Peoples, Natural Law; and,
Spirituality, Language, Culture, Ceremonies, Governing Laws, Land and Inherent Sovereign Rights of Indigenous Peoples given to us by Creator.
The Nevada District Court’s position as the actors, have deviated from the prescribed governing principals that ensures and protects Human Rights. Now, through its actions, undermines OUR Peace and Safety, through an abrogation of responsibilities and wanton disregard for our traditions, culture, spiritual ceremonies; and, an established legal precedence supporting our Inherent Rights. We Affirm and assert, OUR request that all charges be dismissed against Sovereign Kwassuh based on the lack of jurisdiction.
Tribal Lay Advocate
Joann Spotted Bear
315-A Rio Grande Blvd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87104
206-778-6721
patricia_anne9@hotmail.com
www.nativeamericanconcepts.wordpress.com
* Light * Livelihood * Love * Laughter * Legacy * Liberation *
September 8, 2016
Dave Archambault II, Tribal Chief
Standing Rock Tribe
P. O. Box D
Fort Yates, ND 58538
INTRODUCTION LETTER: International Indigenous Sovereign Law Documents
Dear Tribal Chief Archambault,
Attached, find the following International Indigenous Sovereign Law documents for your review and discussion among the appropriate Tribal leaders and legal team who are collaborating to initiate the Government to Government/Nation to Nation strategies for the protection of water regarding the 1851 Great Tetuwan Treaty Rights, in response to the attempt of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on and near Standing Rock tribal land.
- Indigenous Sovereign Law Memo
- Indigenous Sovereign Law
- Indigenous Sovereign Law Special Appearance
- Nevada Case: Indigenous Sovereignty Westley Dick
- Nevada Case: Indigenous Sovereignty Joann Spotted Bear
The International Indigenous Sovereign Law documents were compiled by Rudy Al James, Tlingit of Ketchikan, Alaska. He had been making presentations to various tribes in hopes of educating tribal leaders and American Indian communities about these laws with the hope of truly protecting our land and natural resources, language and cultures. I assisted Mr. James in disseminating the attached documents because he intended for American Indians to use them for their purpose.
Sincerely,
Patricia Anne Davis, MA
CC: publicrelations@standingrock.org/ssittingbear@standingrock.org
redwarriorcamp@gmail.com
info@lakotalaw.org
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we create them." Albert Einstein
THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA
A “Declaratory Judgment” interprets the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous People of North American as a “Government to Government” relationship of The Lakota, Dakota, Nakota Tribal Nations, specifically their Treaty Rights regarding the 1851 Great Tetuwan Treaty with the US Government as cited here:
The Indian Tribal Justice Act
EXPCITE – TITLE 25 – INDIANS CHAPTER 38 – INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE SUPPORT, Sec. 3601. Findings – STATUTE “The Congress finds and declares that -
(1) there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;
(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;
(3) Congress, through statues, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;
(4) Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems;”
September 26, 2011
KUIU KWAAN TRADITIONAL TRIBAL COURT
DELCLARATORY JUDGMENT
THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF NORTH AMERICA
THIS DOCUMENT IS TO INFORM ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD OF CERTAIN IRREFUTABLE FACTS CONCERNING INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
THIS FACTUAL DATA IS RECOGNIZED TRADITIONAL TRIBAL LAW – UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW – UNITED NATIONS LAWS – TREATIES, ACCORDS AND UNDERSTANDINGS
The following Legal Cites pertains to a portion of the laws that identify some of the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of North America. These laws obligate all nations of the world, including the government of the United States of America, on how to conduct relations with the Indigenous Peoples. Those agencies of the U.S.A. that ignore or do not comply with said laws are subject to prosecution by such laws as P.L. 100-606, the Anti-Genocide Act, and most certainly will be censured by the United Nations.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
“(1 Stat. 50) Article 3 assured that “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.”
________________________________________________________________________
- The Indian Tribal Justice Act
(1) there is a government-to-government relationship between the United States and each Indian tribe;
(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to each tribal government that includes the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government;
(3) Congress, through statues, treaties, and the exercise of administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance, and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes;
(4) Indian tribes possess the inherent authority to establish their own form of government, including tribal justice systems;” ______________________________________________________________
- 100TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION SENATE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION 76
“To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to affirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.”
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
“To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution and to affirm the continuing government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States established in the Constitution.
Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including mostly notably George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and governmental practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; and
Whereas…………………………………………………………………………………………and
Whereas…………………………………………………………………………………………and
Whereas……………….., the Congress has assumed a trust responsibility and obligation to Indian tribes, and their members to “exercise the utmost good faith in dealings with the Indians” as provided for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, (1 Stat. 50); and,
Whereas Congress has consistently reaffirmed these fundamental policies over the past two hundred years through legislation specifically designed to honor this special relationship; and,
Whereas the judicial system of the United States has consistently recognized and reaffirmed this special relationship; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That –
(1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United
States Constitution, acknowledges the historical debt which this, Republic of the United
States of America owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian nations….
(2) the Congress also hereby reaffirms the constitutionally recognized government-to-
Government relationship with Indian tribes which has historically been the cornerstone of this Nation’s official Indian Policy;
(3) the Congress specifically acknowledges and reaffirms the trust responsibility and obligation
of the United States Government to Indian tribes, including Alaska Natives, for their
preservation, protection and enhancement, including the provision of health, social and
economic assistance programs as necessary, to assist tribes to perform their government
responsibility to provide for the social and economic well-being of their members and to
preserve tribal cultural identity and heritage; and
(4) the Congress also acknowledges the need to exercise the utmost good faith in upholding its treaties with the various tribes, as the tribes understood them to be…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 100-606 – Genocide Act Codified
November 4, 1988
“(1) In the case of an offense under subsection (a) (1), a fine of not more than $1,000.000 and imprisonment for life; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1, 000.000. or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c) INCITEMENT OFFENCE – Whosoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500.000 or imprisonment not more than five years, or both.
(D) Required circumstance for offense.
(1) The offense is committed within the United States
(2) The alleged offender is a national of the United States.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police – Supreme Court ruling reported Nov. 1991
491 U.S. 58, 57 LW 4677 (1989)
“State official sued in their individual capacities are “persons” under 42 USC 1983 who may be held liable for damages for civil right violations. State officials can be held personally liable for actions taken in the course of their official duties. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that Section 1983 was designed to redress violation of civil rights by persons acting under color of state law….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 83-280
(67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. ss 1162 and 28 U.S.C. ss 1360) Limitation of state authority to alienate tribal land rights:
“(Nothing in this Act authorized the)…alienation, encumbrance or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation or the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any federal treaty, agreement or statue or with any regulations made pursuant thereto….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Public Law 83-280
Public Law 83-283, codified in the United Sates Code, Title 28, section 1360
Cite as PL 83-280, 28 USC 1360 (2001)
(Comment: This act prohibits states from asserting jurisdiction within Tribal boundaries without tribal consent.)
U. S. Constitution Supremacy Clause
“Article VI Paragraph 2 states, “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, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
______________________________________________________________________________
The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act 1834
177. Purchases or Grants of Lands from Indians, R.S. was from Act June 30, 1834 (25 U.S.C. ss 177).
“No purchase, grant, lease or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution….”
______________________________________________________________________________
Rights of Indians not Impaired; Boundaries
R.S. 1839; Public Law 980213, 15(a), Dec. 8, 1983, 97 Stat. 1462
“Nothing in this Title shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property pertaining
to the Indians in any Territory, so long as such rights remain un-extinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any Territory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of such tribe embraced within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or Territory,…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Sperry Oil and Gas vs. Chisholm
“(264 U.S. 488), 68 L. Ed. 03, 44 S. Ct 372, it was found”…nor can the State courts assume jurisdiction in a controversy involving Indians.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Powers of Indian Tribes Nathan R. Margold
“In the opinion of Nathan Margold on Powers of Indian Tribes approved October 25, 1934 (55 I.D. 14): ‘It is fact that State governments and administrative officials have frequently trespassed upon the realm of tribal autonomy, presuming to govern the Indian tribes through State law or departmental regulation or arbitrary administrative fiat, but these trespasses have not impaired the vested legal powers of local self-government which have been recognized again and again when these trespasses have been challenged by an Indian tribe.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986
(PL 99-499) The SARA Amendments to the Clean Water Act – recognize the Indian Tribes as co-trustees of the environment and identify broad powers for chronicling and reporting water resource emergencies, furthermore, testimony from Tribes carries the weight of rebuttable presumption when determining losses and restorations. The Amendments define “Indian tribe” as any Indian tribe, band, and nation or other organized group or community, including any Alaskan Native Village, but not including any Alaskan Native regional or village corporation…Page 5172. ______________________________________________________________________________
United States v. Winans, 1905
(198 U.S. 371) “…The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Indians could cross private property to get to their fishing stations. The Supreme Court found that the right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of larger right possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed. New conditions came into existence, to which those rights had to be accommodated. Only a limitation of them, however, was necessary and intended, not taking away. That is, the treaty was not a grant to the Indians, but a grant from them.”
______________________________________________________________________________
The Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18, 1934
(48 Stat. 984-988) As Amended by the Act of May 1, 1936, Section 16:
“…to prevent the sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of tribal lands, interest in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent of the tribe…”
______________________________________________________________________________
Wheeler-Howard Disclaimer
Protecting interest in tribal Possessory claims in Section 2 and 15 of the Act (48 Stat. 984-988): (Section 2) (providing)…
Section 150 providing that “…Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or prejudice any claim or suit of any Indian Tribe against the United States.”
______________________________________________________________________________
Native Village of Venetie I.R.A. Council vs. Alaska
Adds further understanding and interpretation of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991) states:
“8. Indians 6(2). In interpreting Indian Child Welfare Act, Congress can be presumed to know that statutes passed for benefit of Indian tribes will be liberally construed in favor of tribes. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, S. 2-403, 25 U.S.C.A. S 1901-1963.”
“13. Indians 32(1). Indian tribe need not wait for affirmative grant of authority from Congress in order to exercise dominion over its members.”
“14. Indians 2. Indian groups to be recognized as sovereign should be those entities which historically acted as bodies politic,…”
Section C. “Alaska errs, however, in seeking to impose upon Indian law doctrines from other fields of law. Because of the unique legal status of Indians in American jurisprudence, legal doctrines often must be viewed from a different perspective from that which would obtain in other areas of law.” See, e.g., White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 100 S. Ct 2578, 2583, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980)
“Statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians; ambiguous provisions are to be interpreted to the Indians’ benefit.” Blackfeet Tribe, 471 U.S. at 766, 105 S. Ct. at 2403.
(Comment: Important decision recognizing the fact that Indian Law stands upon Indian Law.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
(Comment) The following cited International Laws have been agreed upon and signed by the United States of America, under the Supremacy Clause these forgoing laws and the following laws cited become the Supreme Law of the land.
United Nations Law
International Law
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49
(Comment) The following cited International Laws have been agreed upon and signed by the United States of America, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. A. Constitution these laws become the Supreme Law of the land.
Preamble
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
“Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, Agree upon the following articles:
PART I
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Part III
Article 11
No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation.
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unknown interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public, or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
PART VI
Article 50
The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.”
______________________________________________________________________________
THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUAN RIGHT MECHANISM AND PROCEDURES
“The promotion and protection of human rights has been a major preoccupation for the United Nations since 1945, when the Organization’s founding nations resolved that the horrors of The Second World War should never be allowed to recur. Respect for human rights and human dignity ‘is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, the General Assemble declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over the years, a whole network of human rights instruments and mechanism has been developed to ensure the primacy of human rights and to confront human rights violations wherever they occur.
Protection
“The Centre for Human Rights operates a 24-hour fax “hot line”, put at the disposal of victims of human rights violations, their relatives and non-governmental organizations, to allow them to contact the Centre for Human Rights. It also allows the Centre for Human Rights to react rapidly to human rights emergencies.”
- …UN human rights advisory services and technical assistance.
- Crisis management
- Prevention and early warning
- Assistance to States in periods of transition
- Promotion of substantive rights
United Nations Centre for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 3924
Fax: 41 22 917 0213
New York Liaison Office (CHR)
Room S-2914
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Fax: (212) 963-4097
Coordination and rationalization of the human rights programme
The Centre for Human Rights in Geneva, part of the United Nations Secretariat, in this connection implements the policies proposed by the High Commissioner.
For further information, please contact:
Tel: (212) 963-5930
Department of Public Information
Public Inquiries Unit
Room GA-57
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 963-4475
______________________________________________________________________________
Laws Between Nations
Foreign Law
“The law of a foreign country, or of a sister state. In conflicts of law, the legal principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation. Many states have foreign law provisions in their legal codes that defer to foreign law to prevent manifest injustice,” Black’s
September 28, 2011
KUIU KWAAN TRADITIONAL TRIBAL COURT
Rudy Al James Patricia Anne Davis, MA
P.O. Box 8302 315 Rio Grande Blvd NW # A
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Albuquerque, NM 87104
rudyaljames@gmail.com patricia_davis4@yahoo.com
Cell: 206-795-7573 Cell: 206-778-6721
MEMORANDUM
Re. INHERENT RIGHTS
Wesley G. Dick, Jr.
1030 Breckenridge Dr.
Fallon, NV 89406
Dear Wesley,
Please find enclosed certain legal cites that pertain to both U.S.A. Federal and International Law that affect our Indigenous people of North America. These laws recognize your Inherent Rights as a tribal member. Part I Article I of the United Nations International Law state: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
All said Indigenous people have a right to hunt, to fish, gather, and hold Sacred Ceremonies from their traditional tribal areas that include making a living in traditional ways. Please be advised that Traditional Tribal areas are where, in ancient times, Tribal people utilized these areas for their spiritual/cultural practices and livelihood. Therefore, even though these areas presently carry designations as state or federal forests, parks, wilderness areas, recreation areas, game preserves, National Parks and private forest lands such as Weyerhaeuser Forest Lands or regardless of what name the new people have given to these regions, they are still utilized. No permits are required to do what the Indigenous Peoples have done in the past. Also, be advised that American Indian culture can evolve into contemporary life.
I would like to advise all Native people to join the United Indigenous Nations and to carry a picture ID card showing that membership, which will serve to show State or Federal Agent(s) or anyone inquiring, of your association with said organization.
This will most certainly ensure a protection of the stated rights that you are entitled to. Also, there is no judge, agent or representative immune from prosecution for violations of these recognized enclosed laws. Do not hesitate to show and state your Inherent Rights.
If any Indigenous person faces any kind of resistance by state, federal or private individuals, please do not hesitate to call our offices. What is quoted and stated is the Law.
Sincerely Yours,
Rudy Al James,
Kuiu Kwaan Tribal Spokesman, Secretary General of the United Indigenous Nations, Member of the Board of Governors of The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, (a United Nations NGO with Roster Status), Lead Judge of the Traditional Tribal Court of the Kuiu Kwaan.
ENCLOSURE: Pertinent Laws enclosed should accompany this Memorandum
November 2, 2011
Wesley Glenn Dick Jr.
1030 Breckenridge Dr. Notice of Special Appearance
Fallon, Nevada 89406
Kwassuh AKA Wesley G. Dick Jr. Case#: 12 CR00019
Honorable Judge,
Comes now, Sovereign, Kwassuh, AKA Wesley G. Dick jr. a member of a Federally recognized Tribe-Northern Paiute Nation, Numa-Toi Ticutta, Enrollment #0238, Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada. I enter this Notice of Special Appearance under duress and threat of court sanctions, and charges.
This is a Special Appearance to notify the Nevada District Court hearing case # KKC-06202011-9: that it has no jurisdiction; and, that any enforcement of de facto jurisdiction will be contrary to tribal law, federal law, and a clear violation of international law that governs human rights, which are inherent to the American Indian Tribes of Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada). All Laws applicable to this case shall stand as a witness for me and all American Indians as Indigenous Peoples.
First and Foremost, I am not a “person” – in that I am not a mask. The word, “person”, is derived from the Latin word, “persona”, which means “mask”. A mask is a form of disguise, usually over the face to hide the wearer’s identity and to establish another being, i.e.: another something that exists. Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition.
The Term: SINDERESIS. "A natural power of the soul, set in the highest part thereof, moving and stirring it to good, and abhorring evil. And therefore sinderesis our creator put in man, to the intent that the order of things should be observed. And therefore sinderesis is called by some men the ‘law of reason,’ for it ministers the principles of the law of reason, the which be in every man by nature, in that he is a reasonable creature." Doct. & Stud. 39.
First and Foremost, I am a “Sentient Being”, meaning having life with spiritual thinking from the creator as my progenitor. Thus, I am a holy and precious child of a living creator. Accordingly I, Sovereign Kwassuh, my Traditional Tribal name, a member of the American Indian Tribe Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) constituted of the four sacred elements Mother earth-physical; fire-intellect; water-emotive; air-spiritual, my authentic being do hereby, enter this notice of Special Appearance to give notice to the Nevada District Court handling this case and its Departments in connection with this case, not limited to its officers of the court and its employees and or anyone under its directives and/or in direct connection to this case, from the Nevada District Court handling this case, to the Department of Fish and Wildlife; that YOU possess no authorization, and no personal or subject matter jurisdiction over me individually nor over the Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada), Clans and Bands within the Confederation of American Indians as Indigenous People.
Furthermore this court has convened unlawfully with regards to this case and that its citizens who are agent(s), employees, prosecutor and or anyone hired by the state in connection with this case has taken an egregious stance towards this matter and thus has committed a flagrant and blatant disregard in the invasion of my Inherent Sovereign Rights, which is unconscionable, by asserting false claims of jurisdiction under the color of law.
This court has the duty to, in due diligence, to make a clear distinction of proper application of jurisdiction and fully recognize the proper jurisdiction of the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) violating solemn Tribal Law and International Law, United States Federal Law.
All American Indian Tribes as Indigenous people have a right to hunt, to fish, gather and hold sacred ceremonies from their traditional tribal geographical areas that include making a living in traditional ways. Our life ways, the aboriginal peoples, the unique cultures, the sacred ceremonial, customs, traditions and quality of lives the Native Americans all shared from past thousands of years to the present depends on the freedoms our ancestors practiced in their daily lives. We experienced the loss of identity, and inherent rights before. Now there is protection. We as a people are compelled to stand and cannot return to that loss.
A very heavy financial burden has also been placed on me and my family at the worst of these difficult times. The need to sell some of our personal belongings and get personal loans from the pawn shop in order to maintain the everyday cost of living, having to drive a many distance to and from the library in order to produce documents, traveling to get advice from legal persons, and having to get donations to assist us.
Even though I explained in detail my full intentions to defend myself and stand up for our Native rights. This is just a few examples of the undue and unnecessary steps we have endured so far. I am thankful to my family and friends for their help in getting me this far. Having to take my family on an over 2,000 mile round trip to the State of Washington to get fair justice by a Tribal Court was especially financially difficult.
Please be advised that Traditional Tribal areas are where, in ancient times, Tribal people utilized these areas for their spiritual/cultural practices and livelihood. Therefore, even though these areas presently carry designations as state or federal forests, parks, wilderness areas, recreation areas, game preserves, National Parks and private forest lands such as Weyerhaeuser Forest Lands or regardless of what name the new people have given to these regions, they are still utilized for Traditional Tribal purposes. No permits are required to do what the Indigenous Peoples have done in the past. Also, be advised that American Indian culture retains the inherent right to evolve into contemporary life to meet basic needs and to perpetuate Traditional Tribal authentic identity.
The Nevada District Court’s assertion of erroneous claims such as jurisdiction is a violation of my Inherent Sovereign Rights, and compels the laws to stand as a witness against YOU.
The United Nations Charter Article 73 and Conventions in particular the UN Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (US signatory Feb. 19, 1986) and the subsequent codification into U.S. Public Law 100-606, Nov 4, 1988 Ronald Reagan, USC 18 Ch 50a ss 1091(a)(4) wherein the "ethnic group" with its distinctive cultural traditions and heritage have been subjected to, "...conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part." - 18 ~`USC 1091(a) (4) United States Federal Law, mainly P.L. 100-606, cited as the "Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act)"
Furthermore, I move the Nevada District Court, and motion for the complete and in its entirety, a dismissal of this case and stricken from the record. Any and all other Special Appearances shall be made by my representative selected at my discretion.
To the extent that this court takes any action to undermine, disregard or ignore this Motion of Special Appearance for a dismissal of charges, would constitute a wanton disregard of human rights, and the laws of protected rights, set forth by the agreement of International Communities as well as a Nation to Nation status. This Motion shall serve as a warning notice to this district court that it will be violating Federal Law and Law. This is clearly a gross act and violates my inherent rights, which are protected by law and other applicable International Sovereignty Laws.
I, Kwassuh further state, I am well within my rights to execute my rights to prosecute any and all public Officers, servants, employees and those under its directives for violations of purported laws designed to protect the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) including, but not limited to the Lacy Act itself, the U. S. Constitution, the Jay Treaty, the U. N. Charter, the Genocide Act, Public Law 100-606.
I, Kwassuh further state the right of dismissal due to the court negligently inflicted “Double Jeopardy.”
The American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) have not legally surrendered or lost the attributes of Sovereignty, including but not limited to those concomitant with jurisdiction over lands, waters, resources and air through consent, war, treaty, history, or any other devise, either overt or covert.
Through the inherent Sovereign authority of the American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada) I, Kwassuh, assert that no federal, state or local laws were violated on my part; and, that any assertion or enforcement of any defacto laws and those acting under the color of law are null and void and shall meet the punishment to the full extent of the law.
YOU are hereby put on notice that the Secretary General of the United Indigenous Nations, Rudy Al James, has been notified as to the conduct of this court as well as other appropriate American Indian Sovereigns and Tribal Nations. YOU are also, hereby notified that any dilution or compromise of this motion of Special Appearance is or will be in violation of my Inherent Sovereign Human rights, and therefore considered a gross violation by interference of my rights as a Sovereign American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada), the U.S. Constitution, the Jay Treaty, the U.N. Charter, the Genocide Act and the Lacey Act, etc.
Therefore, I, Kwassuh, AKA Wesley G. Dick Jr. move for dismissal of all charges and that they be stricken from the record on the grounds stated above.
___________________
Sovereign, Kwassuh
American Indian Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada)
November 2, 2011
Joann Spotted Bear
Lay Advocate
P. O. Box 261
Wounded Knee, SD 89515 Notice of Special Appearance
Honorable Judge Quaid:
Your Honor, for the record, I am Sovereign, Joann Spotted Bear, from the Federally Recognized Nation called Pine Ridge Lakota Sioux. I am a Licensed Lay Advocate and Representative for Sovereign Kwassuh, who is a member of the Federally recognized Tribe Northern Paiute Nation – Numa Ticutte, enrollment number #0238 (Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribes of Nevada). Kwassuh as Sovereign, also known as Wesley Dick Jr. due to the fact that Kwassuh is a registered, authentic, natural tribal and cultural name of AKA Wesley Dick Jr. (European), we instruct the court to use the name Kwassuh hence forth, and throughout the remainder of our presence.
Your honor, First and Foremost, I am not a “person” meaning that I am not a mask because the word “person” is derived from the Latin word “persona” which means “mask”. A mask is a form of disguise usually over the face to hide the wearer’s identity to establish another being, ie: another something that exists. Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition.
The Term: SINDERESIS. "A natural power of the soul, set in the highest part thereof, moving and stirring it to good, and abhorring evil. And therefore sinderesis our creator put in man, to the intent that the order of things should be observed. And therefore sinderesis is called by some men the ‘law of reason,’ for it ministers the principles of the law of reason, which be in every man by nature, in that he is a reasonable creature." Doct. & Stud. 39.
As Sovereign, we are both flesh and blood Sentient Beings who waive no rights and concede no authority nor jurisdiction to the Nevada District Court from the entry of this court and henceforth, throughout these proceeding and any to come. We are only here on the grounds of Special Appearance and are requesting a dismissal of all charges related to case no. #
Our approach to this court is in the Power of Authenticity, the Spirit of Peace and Wisdom of our Ancestors from time immemorial, who greeted YOU in the like manner when YOU first arrived to OUR SHORES on OUR land. We are non-adversarial Peoples and our intent today is to remove all barriers to justice for my client; to bring this encounter to remedy and to finality.
Your Honor, First and Foremost, I assert and submit to this court that the jurisdiction of this court is being challenged and can be challenged at anytime, it’s matter of jurisdiction, and violations under the United Nations Law, International Law, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
United Nations Human Rights says, “Respect for human rights and human dignity ‘is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”, the General Assemble declared three years later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The fact is, only conducted himself as his ancient ancestors have done, which are protected to date by the established Laws and Treaties. My client injured no one in the state of Nevada. The status of my client as Sovereign has been raised from the onset of this forced encounter. These issues including threat of fines and possible incarceration have put my client and his family, wife and children under emotional stress and financial duress. Now, I Joann Spotted Bear have been summonsed I to represent Kwassuh who is authentic and Sovereign.
I am challenging this court position of jurisdiction. On many levels, but not limited to: Joyce v U.S. 474 2D 215, “there is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction”, nor can this court enact policies that would override human rights laws and statures not to mention violate them. Just like, you could not enact polices for an entire nation. It would constitute, an abrupt detour from establish laws and boundaries and are unenforceable. Sovereign laws are there to protect the sovereign Peoples of the indigenous nations; doing any less is contrary to the interest of positive nation to nation relations and can be fairly categorized as serious breach in Human Rights and a fiduciary responsibility on the part of the court.
Questions to the Nevada District Court Handling This Case are:
- By what authority does this court presume to rebel against the Superior and Supreme laws of the land?
- Are these Treaty’s and Laws not potent enough to deter violators from breaking the most fundamental rights of the Peoples/Nations of the Earth?
- By what authority does this court presume an entitlement to have jurisdiction over any Sovereign Tribal member of the Indigenous Tribes of North America, but specifically the one my client is a member of .which is contrary to:
- By what authority does this court presume to rebel against the international agreements, treatise, etc. which were made by the U.S. and the Northern Paiute Nation sovereignty of another Sovereign?
- Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868: Has the District Court of Nevada honored this Treatise? “(1 Stat. 50) Article 3 assured that “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.”
- By what authority does this court presume to rebel against the International Community, meaning Nation to Nation agreements regarding established policies on human rights?
The following Legal Cites pertain to a portion of the laws that identify some of the Inherent Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of North America. These laws obligate all nations of the world, including the government of the United States of America, on how to conduct relations with the Indigenous Peoples. Those agencies of the U.S.A. that ignore or do not comply with said laws are subject to prosecution by such laws as P.L. 100-606, the Anti-Genocide Act, and most certainly will be censured by the United Nations.
- Treaty of Fort Laramie of the year 1868 Articles 1-17
- The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 “(1 Stat. 50) Article 3;
- Jay treaty 1630 tops Royal Proclamation 1763,
- Dawes act of 1887, and the IRA of June 18, 1934
- The Howard Wheeler act..of 1934;
- The Indian Tribal Justice Act EXPCITE – TITLE 25 – INDIANS CHAPTER 38 – INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE SUPPORT, Sec. 3601. Findings – STATUTE
- 100TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION SENATE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION 76
- Public Law 100-606 – Genocide Act Codified November 4, 1988
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police – Supreme Court ruling reported Nov. 1991
- Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. ss 1162 and 28 U.S.C. ss 1360) Limitation of state authority to alienate tribal land rights.
- Cite as PL 83-280, 28 USC 1360 (2001) (Comment: This act prohibits states from asserting jurisdiction within Tribal boundaries without tribal consent.) (See Attachment to cites)
- Public Law 83-283, codified in the United Sates Code, Title 28, section 1360
The abrogation of duties is the issue here, beginning with the incident and ordeal my client experience with your officer in encountering your officer, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service not acknowledging aboriginal rights to practice the sacred methods and use of Indigenous Peoples traditional plant gathering has been detrimental. First and Foremost, it is the responsibility of the YOUR Departments to be abreast of laws applicable to the indigenous peoples.
The Nevada District Court handling this case runs the risks of creating and exacerbating more injury to my client, the Indigenous Peoples of North America, and runs the risk of engagement with Superior Authorities which can result in punitive damages as well as monetary damages, officials’ risk of imprisonment, fines to the maximum extent of the law. We are prepared and willing to take this the next level.
Nation to Nation RELATIONSHIP is at the forefront of this controversy in which We are in honor. Our position is the preservation in perpetuity of our Peoples, Natural Law; and,
Spirituality, Language, Culture, Ceremonies, Governing Laws, Land and Inherent Sovereign Rights of Indigenous Peoples given to us by Creator.
The Nevada District Court’s position as the actors, have deviated from the prescribed governing principals that ensures and protects Human Rights. Now, through its actions, undermines OUR Peace and Safety, through an abrogation of responsibilities and wanton disregard for our traditions, culture, spiritual ceremonies; and, an established legal precedence supporting our Inherent Rights. We Affirm and assert, OUR request that all charges be dismissed against Sovereign Kwassuh based on the lack of jurisdiction.
Tribal Lay Advocate
Joann Spotted Bear
