Royal Tribal Supreme Court for Indian Offenses™ “RTSCIO” Official Equity Court to Autochthon Kingdom (DST) TXu 02347364 with delegated authority as recorded in the Library of Congress and with Homeland Security : 

Autochthon Kingdom Delaware Tribal Nation State and the Royal Tribal Supreme Court Indian Offenses
Subject: International Acknowledgement Regarding Self-Determination Rights of Indigenous Peoples and BERNE Convention
Greetings esteemed members of the International Community,
We are pleased to bring to your attention the matter of international acknowledgment concerning the self-determination rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the implications of the BERNE Convention. This notice is issued in accordance with the records documented with the Library of Congress (TXu 02347364) and the Homeland Security Customs Border Intellectual Property recordation (COP 030067).

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.

We are not a “Federally recognized Court”, we are a Federally acknowledged Official Equity Court to Autochthon Kingdom (DST) TXu 02347364 established the Twelfth: Month of December 12th, 1443 Correspondence to 12/12/2022 g.c. The court comprises (1) one Chief Justice, 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 of Columbia Courts, regarding tribal people’s corporeal and incorporeal property held in trust; tribal hereditaments where we settle all matters of commercial injury in equity. [THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS “INDIAN COUNTRY].

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. 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 defacto 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 pertaining to tribal jurisdiction . . . until tribal remedies are exhausted. Stock West, Inc v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9^th 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 whether they 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.

This section highlights the role of the Royal Tribal Supreme Court for 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 Royal Tribal Supreme 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 set forth 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 Royal Tribal Supreme Court of Indian Offenses (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 Royal Tribal Supreme Court of Indian Offenses (RTSCIO) view the contract status of treaties in relation to 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 Royal Tribal Supreme Court of Indian Offenses (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 Royal Tribal Supreme Court of Indian Offenses (RTSCIO) address issues related to the recruitment of indigenous children and adolescents into armed forces during armed conflicts?

Treaty-Based Answer: The RTSCIO addresses issues related to the recruitment of indigenous children and adolescents into armed forces during armed conflicts by firmly upholding international obligations. It acknowledges that indigenous children should not be recruited into 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 Royal Tribal Supreme Court of Indian Offenses (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.

In conclusion, the Royal Tribal Supreme Court of 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.