“TSCHITANESSOAGAN”

Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses is not a “Federally Recognized Court” it is a “Federally Acknowledged Constitutional Tribal Court” utilizing its’ sovereign treaties, sovereign right to self-determination, and sovereign right to settle matters utilizing the Tribal  Annotated Code.  Sovereign, in these instances, means ” the highest form of authority witih a state, indicating independence and self-governance.

The court comprises (1) one Chief Administrative Justice, Jaguar Sun Bai, seven (7) Judiciaries, and twelve (12) Jurat Council Members. This Court carries jurisdictional parameters upon the Turtle Island mound-building land mass of Tribal land. Any autochthonous, aborigine, or Indian may petition this Court to have a matter removed from City, State, or District Courts regarding tribal people’s corporeal and incorporeal property held in trust; tribal hereditaments where we settle all issues of commercial injury in equity. [THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS “INDIAN COUNTRY KNOWN AS TURTLE ISLAND].

Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses hears matters for several tribal entities and the Autochthon Kingdom. The Autochthon Kingdom is a self-governing Indigenous nation with a rich cultural heritage and a long history of resilience in the face of colonial oppression. Holding ancestral blood right heirship in succession to the original signatories to the Treaty with the Delawares of 1778, the Autochthon Kingdom is committed to preserving its culture, traditions, and way of life for future generations, while working in partnership with other nations to promote peace, just law, and sustainable development for all peoples.

THE DOCTRINE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
The US Supreme Court first acknowledged tribal sovereign immunity in Turner v. The United States,  in which a non-Indian lessee [European] was barred from suing an Indian tribe for alleged damage done to his property. The Court stated that it is the “general law” that “[l]ike other governments, municipal as well as state, [tribes are] free from liability for injuries to persons or property. Serious Conflicts of Laws, Inland Piracy, Unclean Hands, Uttered Counterfeit Securities, Complicity in Fraud of Ultra Vires Act, Taxation without Representation, and Repugnancy to the Constitution subject de facto Courts to serious Jurisdictional issues.

In United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 20) The Supreme Court reiterated that Indian tribes are immune from suit when it voided a monetary judgment from a previous proceeding against the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. It stated that tribes do not waive their sovereign immunity when they fail to object to cross-claims in litigation. In Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of State of Washington, the Court held that a state could not sue a tribe to enforce its fishing regulations in Indian country “[a]bsent an effective waiver or consent” from either the Tribe or the United States, [THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS “INDIAN COUNTRY] and we are the Aboriginal Indigenous Autochthonous, Autonomous Inhabitants to the land in America’s.

Actual Knowledge to exercising predominant authority by NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS HEREBY MADE TO ANY de facto Municipality, City, State of Federal Court et al de facto corporate entities: Removal is effective immediately, to The Royal Tribal Supreme Court for Indian Offenses, being the absolute, indisputable proper venue, and jurisdiction to exhaust tribal remedy. See Nat’l Farmers, 471 U.S. at 856. Conclusive evidence and opinions affirm the following: Congress’ commitment to support tribal self-government and self-determination; judicial economy which will best be served “by allowing a full record to be developed in the Tribal Court.” De facto Federal Courts are precluded from ruling on matters on tribal jurisdiction . . . until tribal remedies are exhausted. Stock West, Inc v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1989).  Federal Court’s interpretation from National Farmers as determining that tribal court exhaustion is not a jurisdictional bar, but rather a prerequisite to a federal court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. Burlington N.R.R. Co., 940 F.2d at 1245 n.3.

 
In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, the Court expanded Puyallup’s holding by stating that any waiver of tribal immunity ‘must be unequivocally expressed. In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, the Court rejected a contention that was nearly identical to the one it had addressed in United States Fidelity over a half-century prior, further solidifying the status of tribal immunity as black letter law. In Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court, for the first time, declared that Native American tribes were immune from suit for activities engaged outside of Indian country. Specifically, the Court declared: “Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and were made on or off a reservation.  The Court did express some hesitation in reaching this decision, stating that “[t]here are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine [of tribal immunity].”  “[T]ribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance,” the Court stated, and this “consideration might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity  ” However because Congress had not specifically abrogated tribal immunity in the context of the case, the Court “decline[d] to revisit [its] case law and [chose] to defer to Congress.

 The court has investigated administrative court violations, along with the misrepresentation of statutes, codes, ordinances, or any act, as being law and to whom it applies. During our investigation, our court found numerous treaties,  constitutional violations, conflicts of laws, and violations deeded by people who are not naturalized and have never had a connection to this land. Due to these clandestine religious Freemason terrorist crimes, This court with all of its authority Approves this organic constitutional challenge and notice you of choice of law under the authority of the organic Sioux Cherokee and Iriqouis Continental constitution and, challenges the following Admiralty Laws and Religious State Statutes which are not law. 16-5-23.1(a) Connected to Roman Church/Court Fidelity Bond numbers they call case numbers. 

As the only lawful people of the land for the Continental Americas and the only people who can enforce Real law[Organic Constitution and 397 trieties], it is this Tribal Court’s responsibility to take and vest all complaints made outside the 10-mile square of D.C..  When wrongdoing has been found…. swift lawful Indictments, a fine, open Private property lien, and or possibly being ousted from the Continent, will be placed upon those who conspired to commit, Whether they are Indian or not. Again, let this Tribal Court be clear, all Affairs that take place outside the district of Columbia 10 mile square are under extra-territorial geographical jurisdiction, which gives all tribal consoul Courts and the courts of Indian Offenses and any tribe authority over it. This includes all land, air, people, and property.

Our Tribal Members are not defendants, which are deceased Estate [Bouv. Law Dictionary, which we do not recognize] nor is she a Citizen or a resident/President, employee/ward/person, In-divid-u-al=(Blonde hair, blue-eyed Christian from Europe) of or for the corporate Defacto Terrorist invader James Oglethorpe Province trust British colony hidden as your 50 State(s) names, [British company/trust, distinguished from the land.  Our Tribal Members cannot consent to or understand the charges, being, that such words used are all written in legalese and not in the actual language of a national people.

Unlawfully conveying words, to trick people into being Surety, for a Wall Street GSA bond put on a standard form, through the court’s registry investment system and a 1099 OID, is not only Religious Commercial fraud but blatant Usurpation of colonial financial war crimes and colonial religious trafficking of the living being’s. Using Roman ideas that come from the Roman Bible the Book of Statues the Book of Codes the Book of Acts I and Acts II and Roman citation ticket lawsuit punishment.

• Catholic Church-18 USC 4108 Consent to be transferred to the U.S.

When the foreign men and women, dressed in costumes, calling themselves, crusaders on patrol, Kidnap ANY Tribal Member, they did not follow lawful procedures/proceed by taking our Tribal Members to see a magistrate first; instead, they forced our Tribal Members to a place with Bars and cement which means She was kidnapped and being held for ransom.

Nor did they have a green card, with a delegation of authority order, signed and sealed by the American Indian Continental Congress, with an affidavit of fact attached to it, certified and on the public record. To leave the 10-mile square of D.C. and come across the land of Indian country[18 TRL 1151-x] and interfere in the affairs of we the American Indians.

Private religious corporation d/b/a Supreme Courts are for sale on Wall Street

• Health v. Boyd  175, S.W. 2d. 217  The one arresting has to immediately seek a magistrate and failure to do so is a strong case of false imprisonment.  

• Komisky v. Durand, 12 Atl 2d. 654   To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than taking them to see a magistrate is unlawful. 

The Fraternal Order pol-ice/Policy Department: Is another Foreign publicly registered 501c3 religious organization belonging to the catholic church[Municipal]  and the foreign men and women working for it, who are not American Indians nor are they Americans, do not have any authority to enforce roman catholic church status codes act and ordinances on continental grounds. The doctrine of all statutes codes and acts applies to pale skin Christians from Europe.

There’s no such thing as federal recognition, the word federal means Indian and we don’t need to be recognized by unlawful alien hostility occupying our land. Keep in mind that, there’s no landmass anywhere on the planet called white and, that there’s no white flag flying at the United Nations or the League of Indian Nations. A white flag means to surrender lol… The same goes for the words black, green, and purple, no such land or people exist. Mischaracterizing the heritage/her- rittance of a living being is considered genocide, trafficking, and war crimes, which holds the death penalty under international law. The district, the state, the municipal, and the foreign men and women who operate them are now all Constitutionally challenged. GENEVA PROTOCOLS OF 1949, VOLUME II, Article 3.                            

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR COURT:

This section highlights the role of the Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses (RTSCIO) as a competent court to address matters pertaining to Indigenous sovereignty, particularly in the context of Lenape territorial rights and enduring treaty obligations.

How does the Court of Indian Offenses (RTSCIO) assert its competence in safeguarding our ancestral Lenape territorial rights?

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO asserts its competence in safeguarding Lenape territorial rights by serving as a dedicated court with a deep commitment to upholding the equitable obligations outlined in treaties with the United States. The RTSCIO interprets and enforces these treaties in a manner that ensures the protection of Lenape lands and territories, thus reinforcing the Kingdom’s commitment to indigenous sovereignty.

What role does the Court  (RTSCIO) play in addressing the impact of illegal U.S. expansion on Lenape territorial rights?

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO plays a pivotal role in addressing the impact of illegal U.S. expansion on Lenape territorial rights. As a competent court, it conducts equitable proceedings to examine historical and contemporary violations of Lenape treaty rights resulting from unlawful U.S. expansion. The RTSCIO ensures that these violations are documented, evaluated, and addressed in alignment with indigenous sovereignty principles.

How does the Court (RTSCIO) view the contract status of treaties with indigenous sovereignty?

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO views treaties as fundamental contract instruments that contribute to the preservation and exercise of indigenous sovereignty. It recognizes that treaties are legally binding agreements that solidify the relationship between indigenous nations, such as the Lenape, and the United States. The RTSCIO interprets these treaties to affirm indigenous sovereignty and uses them as a basis for adjudicating disputes and asserting the rights of indigenous peoples.

How does the Court (RTSCIO) uphold the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights, lands, and resources based on international treaties?

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO upholds the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights, lands, and resources by applying international treaties and principles that emphasize the importance of safeguarding these aspects of Indigenous life. It considers international agreements, including those related to human rights and humanitarian law, as integral to the lawful framework supporting indigenous sovereignty. The RTSCIO ensures that these treaties are incorporated into its decisions and judgments to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

How does the Court (RTSCIO) address issues related to the recruitment of indigenous children and adolescents into the armed forces during armed conflicts?

 Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO addresses issues related to the recruitment of Indigenous children and adolescents into the armed forces during armed conflicts by firmly upholding international obligations. It acknowledges that Indigenous children should not be recruited into the armed forces under any circumstances and works to ensure that such recruitment is prevented and rectified. The RTSCIO collaborates with Indigenous communities and relevant authorities to provide reparations for damages or harm caused by these actions, in line with Indigenous sovereignty. 

How does the Court (RTSCIO) interpret the enduring nature of Lenape territorial rights based on treaties within the context of indigenous sovereignty? 

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO interprets the enduring nature of Lenape territorial rights based on treaties as a cornerstone of indigenous sovereignty. It views these treaties as perpetual lawful agreements that continue to govern the relationship between the Lenape and the United States. The RTSCIO asserts that these treaties obligate the United States to honor the original boundaries and property rights, promoting a harmonious relationship that respects indigenous sovereignty. As a competent court, the RTSCIO ensures that these enduring obligations are upheld and that violations are addressed in accordance with Indigenous equitable principles.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses (RTSCIO) stands as a competent court with a strong commitment to addressing issues related to indigenous sovereignty, particularly in the context of Lenape territorial rights and enduring treaty obligations. It interprets and enforces treaties, international agreements, and equitable principles to protect indigenous rights, lands, and resources while fostering a relationship that respects and upholds indigenous sovereigns.

But it is the deposit with the UN Secretary-General that carries the most profound implications. Under Article 102 of the UN Charter, every treaty and international agreement entered into by any UN member state must be registered with the Secretariat. This registration is not merely a formality; it is a condition for invoking the treaty before any organ of the United Nations.

In other words, by depositing its treaty accession with the Secretary-General, the Autochthon Kingdom has effectively enlisted the UN as a guarantor of its sovereign rights. This move also triggers the international legal obligations outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which the UN General Assembly adopted in 2007.

The UNDRIP is a comprehensive statement of the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, including their right to self-determination, autonomy, and control over their lands and resources. It calls upon member states to honor these rights and to engage with indigenous peoples on a basis of equality, mutual respect, and good faith.

Jaguar Sun Bai, Chief Administrative Justice of Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses and Head of government and Tribal Chief Justice affirmed, “The implications of this development cannot be overstated. For centuries, indigenous nations have struggled to assert their sovereignty in the face of relentless colonization, dispossession, and marginalization. By leveraging the mechanisms of international law and multilateral cooperation, the Autochthon Kingdom has opened up a new frontier in this struggle”.

But with the weight of international law and the solidarity of the global indigenous rights movement behind it, the nation is well-positioned to achieve its goals of self-determination, cultural preservation, and sustainable development.

As recognized by international law and conventions, indigenous peoples hold inherent rights to self-determination, which encompass the ability to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007). These rights are fundamental and require acknowledgment and respect from all parties involved.

Moreover, the BERNE Convention, an international agreement governing copyright protection, plays a crucial role in safeguarding the intellectual property rights of creators and authors, including those within indigenous communities. It ensures that their cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, and heritage are duly protected and respected on a global scale.

The documentation filed with the Library of Congress and Homeland Security Customs Border Intellectual Property recordation serves as tangible evidence of our commitment to upholding these principles. It signifies our dedication to honoring the sovereignty, cultural heritage, and intellectual property rights of the Autochthon Kingdom Delaware Tribal Nation State and its people.

In addition, it is important to note the delegation of authority to exercise universal jurisdiction in matters concerning indigenous rights. The exercise of universal jurisdiction allows states to pursue legal actions against individuals or entities responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, or violations of fundamental human rights, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948). This delegation of authority reinforces the imperative of upholding indigenous rights and holding accountable those who infringe upon them.

 

             Our Organic Constitutional Challenge

Chief Fox Eagle tells us;

Rebuttal Point 1.) 

A municipality is not a government agency and never has been, all municipalities Vatican terrorist criminal religious organizations, hostility occupying indigenous peoples’ lands worldwide.

Fact: 1) Municipal. … The term comes from the Ladin (org. Ladimore’s) words: Muni/ Moenio-Capio (a) Capio> to entrap, allure, entice, to hunt for legacies, a fallacy, cheat, deception, harm, lay hold of, catch at, capture and Seize. (b) Moenia/ munus/ Munia> a Roman public office that taxes and charges: a walled city of fortification or castle (of the federal lords). (c) Municipalis> Provincial> Administration/ I’VE government under the control of a Roman Magistrates, or Roman military control [Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary (C.N.L.D.)].

The Roman Catholic church ordered all Municipalities to be dissolved, 115 Congressional Session H.R. 1624 [ All municipal venues have officially ceased functioning as of The Eight-Month October 3, 2017, This includes all BAR[British Accredited Registry] Courts and Crusaders on Patrol cop departments.

Rebuttal Point 2.) 

The USA and every other version is not a government or country and never has been, we do not care what the colonial tel lie vision displays to the world.

Fact 1. : Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Religious Military Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section and its personnel. THIS WAS A SECTION NOT MENTIONED THE UNITED STATES IS FOREIGN TO AMERICA. December 26th, 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated the colonial CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under international law. On December 9th, 1945 International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations.

Fact 2. : United States Congressional Record March 17, 1993, Vol. #33, page H-1303
[The] Speaker [is]-Senator James Trafficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: It is a fact that the [Colonial] United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by [colonial] CEO President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

Rebuttal Point 3.) 

Caucasians and other foreigners are not free Americans and the term free white person does not apply to them, they just steal everything through catholic church religious usurpation and act or lie as if it came from them.

Fact 1. American”… noun- A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or Dark copper-colored people, found here by the Europeans. The original application of the word- Webster’s 1828 and 1936 Unabridged Dictionary.

 Fact 2. Free White Person “… European Jews … intermixed … Celtic … Iberians … mixed Latin Celtic-Iberians, and Moorish inhabitants of Spain and Portugal, the Mixed Greeks … Phoenicians, and North African inhabitants of Sicily. FREE WHITE PERSON, IT DOES NOT MEAN CAUCASIAN RACE Aryan race, or Indo-European races, nor the mixed Indo-European, Dravidian, Semitic, and Mongolian peoples who inhabit Persia or a Syrian of Asiatic birth and descent will not be entitled to become a naturalized citizen of the United States as being a free white person. Ex parte Shahid, D.C.Or., 6 F.2d 919, 921; Ex parte Dow, D.C.S.C., 211 F. 486, 487; In re En Sk Song, D.C.Cal., 271 F. 23. Nor a native-born Filipino. U. S. v. Javier, 22 F.2nd 879, 880, 57 App.D.C. 303. Caucasians Nor a native of India who belonged to the Hindu race. Kharaiti Ram Samras v. United States, C.C.A.Cal., 125 F.2nd 879, 881. WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO NATURALIZATION …” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. P. 792. Also see 1 Stat 103, 1 C3.

Rebuttal Point 4.) 

Our Tribal Members are not dead and they are not a U.S. Citizen There is no such thing as a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         UNITED STATES CITIZEN on or in the land of North America and never has been. There is no documentation of record through the Department of Homeland Security, nor the Department of Customs and Boarders that our Tribal Members are UNITED STATES CITIZENS. 

Fact 1.) The defacto colonial Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646 – “A “citizen of the United States is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.”

Rebuttal Point 5.) 

We the Original American Indians and not the Italian, Russian, and Irish who paid 5$ under the paper terrorist “Dawes roll commission Indians”, are the only landlord’s lawmakers of the North American lands and have the right to our laws, culture, customs, and identity.

Fact1.) Report By: Alysa Landry; Paying to Play Indian:  The Dawes Rolls and the Legacy of $5 Indians. Dawes rolls rife with ‘opportunistic white men’ and early appropriation. It may be fashionable to play Indian now, but it was also trendy 125 years ago when people [EUROPEANS] paid $5.00 apiece for falsified documents declaring them Native on the Dawes Rolls. These so-called five-dollar Indians paid [fake] government agents under the table to reap the benefits that came with pretending to have Indian blood. Mainly white men with an appetite for land, five-dollar Indians paid to register on the [Unlawful] Dawes Rolls, earning fraudulent enrollment in tribes along with benefits inherited by generations to come.“These were opportunistic[terrorist] white men who wanted access to land or food rations,” said Gregory Smithers, associate professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. “These were people who were more than happy to exploit the Dawes Commission—and [fake] government agents, for $5, we’re willing to turn a blind eye to the graft and corruption.”

Fact 2.) The term Indian: is a latter Latin word coming from Hindi and Sindu, meaning dark-hued and transferring from the Older Latin word “Ethiopian”. The term Ethiopian is not of African origin and it transfers back to the Greek word Athiopian meaning dark-hued. INDIANS. The original inhabitants of North America. Frazee v. Spokane County, 29 Wash. 278, 69 P. 782. 

Fact 3.) UNITED NATIONS: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Article 2 

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular, that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 8

1.  Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. 2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of and redress for:

(a)  Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories, or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

Article 18

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves following their procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their representative institutions to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Fact 4.) THE DOCTRINE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: The Supreme Court first acknowledged tribal sovereign immunity in Turner v. the United States,  in which a non-Indian lessee [European] was barred from suing an Indian tribe for alleged damage done to his property. The Court stated that it is the “general law” that “[l]ike other governments, municipal as well as state, [tribes are] free from liability for injuries to persons or property. In United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 20) The Supreme Court reiterated that Indian tribes are immune from suit when it voided a monetary judgment from a previous proceeding against the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. It stated that tribes do not waive their sovereign immunity when they fail to object to cross-claims in litigation. In Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of State of Washington, the Court held that a state could not sue a tribe to enforce its fishing regulations in Indian country “[a]bsent an effective waiver or consent” from either the Tribe or the United States, [THE ENTIRE uNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS “INDIAN COUNTRY] and the Moors are the Aboriginal Indigenous Autochthonous, Autonomous Inhabitants to the land in America’s. In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, the Court expanded Puyallup’s holding by stating that any waiver of tribal immunity ‘must be unequivocally expressed. In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, the Court rejected a contention that was nearly identical to the one it had addressed in United States Fidelity over a half-century prior, further solidifying the status of tribal immunity as black letter law. In Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court, for the first time, declared that Native American tribes were immune from suit for activities engaged outside of Indian country. Specifically, the Court declared: “Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and were made on or off a reservation.  The Court did express some hesitation in reaching this decision, stating that “[t]here are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine [of tribal immunity].”  “[T]ribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance,” the Court stated, and this “consideration might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity  ” However only the American Indians can abrogate their immunity.

Rebuttal Point 6.) 

The Land of America only belongs to the original true Americans and not Europeans. Those who sit in fake seats of fake government are all foreigners and have never been naturalized by any tribe here, which makes you all … unlawful undocumented immigrants since 1492g.c.

Fact 1.) United States v. Turner, 52 U.S. 11 How. 663 663 (1850): The land of America does not belong to the UNITED STATES which consists of over 1 million miles the land of America belongs to the aboriginal indigenous people.

Fact 2,)  18 USC 1151 The Continental Americas is an Indian Country

Rebuttal Point 7.) 

Statue’s Codes and Acts are not law, this is the catholic church the Vatican, and Jewish/Jew-dicial usurpers the religious banking system which the colonizers brought with them to our land when they came from Europe.

Fact 1.)  A STATUTE IS NOT A LAW 

FLOURNOY V. FIRST NAT. BANK OF SHREVEPORT, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244,248

FACT 2.) A code is not a law, 

in re Self v. Rhay Wn 2d 261, by point of fact in law

FACT 3.) A concurrent or joint resolution of the legislature is not law,

Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N

FACT 4.)  US Supreme Court decision- The common law is the real law, the supreme law of the land, the codes rules regulations, policy, and statutes are not the law, Self v. rhay.61 Wn 2d 261

FACT 5.) The US. SUPREME COURT DECISION- All codes rules and regulations are for [Europeans] colonial government authorities only, not human creators following gods’ laws. All codes rules statutes and regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process Rodriguez v. Ray Donavan US. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 769 F. 2D 1344, 1348(1985)

Fact 6.) [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 “… there is no constitutional right to be protected by the colonial state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators. Still, it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so, elementary a, services such as maintaining law and order.

Rebuttal Point 8.) 

All Europeans pretending to be Americans, have lawfully had from 1960 until the year 2010 g.c. to dismantle every de facto foreign colonial fictitious agency and corporation, get off of our land, and go back to Europe. 

 Fact 1.) United Nations 1960 DECOLONIZATION 1514 (XV)

Reconfirming the need to eliminate colonialism by 2010, as called for in 55/146, 1. Reaffirms its 1514 (XV) and all  other resolutions and decisions on decolonization, including its law 55/146, by which it declared the period 2001-2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and calls upon the administering Powers, following those resolutions, to take all necessary steps to enable the peoples of the Non-Self Governing Territories concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination, including independence;

1. Reaffirms once again that the existence of colonialism in any form or manifestation, including economic exploitation, is incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;3

1. Reaffirms its determination to continue to take all steps necessary to bring about the complete and speedy eradication of colonialism and the faithful observance by all States of the relevant provisions of the Charter, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

1. Affirms once again its support for the aspirations of the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, following relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization;

1. Calls upon the administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee to finalize before the end of 2005 a constructive program of work on a case-by-case basis for the Non-Self-Governing Territories to facilitate the implementation of the mandate of the Special Committee and the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;

Rebuttal Point 9.) 

All European Caucainsins were told to stay in Washington D.C. and that their Vatican legislatures could not make law outside of the 10-mile Square of D.C.

Fact. 1. Article 1 Sec 8 Para. 17 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square)