“MUND BAREEFAN”

The Royal Tribal Supreme Consular Court Indian Offenses of the Mund Bareefan Embassy Clan/Native American Association of Nations is not a “Federally Recognized governing Court,” but rather a “Federally Acknowledged Constitutional Tribal Court” that utilizes its treaties, right to self-determination, to settle matters under the Tribal Annotated Code.  Sovereign, which means “Self-Governance,” in these instances, means ” the highest form of authority within a state, indicating independence and self-governance. The Mund Bareefan Clan are descendants of the indigenous people of the Southeast. The Yamassee capital Altamaha sat in the center of that most ancient land in the southeast, the lowlands of Georgia called Guale. https://archaeology.uga.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/uga_lab_series_31.pdf  THE GUALE: ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF THE GEORGIA COAST The Guale were among the first indigenous peoples met by Europeans exploring north of Mexico.  After brief contact with the Spanish in 1526, this Muskhogean-speaking group later encountered the French in 1562-1563.

FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Mund Bareefan Clan Embassy/Indigenous Native American Association of Nations, federal acknowledgment dates to February 11, 2004, through the U.S. Department of State authentication process. The Mund Bareefan Clan has obtained state recognition from multiple states, including but not limited to Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, and California. This tribal government operates under its own constitution and annotated code, and maintains diplomatic relations recognized by various state and United States Federal authorities. 

Federal acknowledgement was established on February 11, 2004. The Authentication office for The United States Department of State annexed authenticated documents, instruments, and text of MBCG-INAAN on behalf of The United States in accord with…  our authenticated agreement with the United States of February 11, 2004, is supported by…  

The Constitution of MBC/INAAN,  

The Constitution of the United States of America,  

Treaty and federal Indian law 

“The Hague Convention for Abolishing the Requirement of  

Legalization for Foreign Public; 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and Rule 902 Federal Rules of  

Evidence),  

Documents,” TIAS 10072; 33 U.S.T. 883, 527 U.N.T.S. 189. 28  

U.S.C. 1739…  

On October 12, 2004, we also received a written confirmation letter, reference from the  Authentication office stating: “the statement on our certificates “full faith and credit” is in acknowledgment of the States certificate to the document and has sufficient legal value through  State and Federal sevels for use in other countries and in this country.”   

THE TRIBAL COURT:

The court comprises (1) one Chief Administrative Justice, Jaguar Sun-Bai Learned Hand, Seven (7) Presiding Jurists, and twelve (12) Jurat Council Members. This Court carries jurisdictional parameters over 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 DOCTRINE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND SELF-GOVERNANCE:

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. (1915), 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, we are the Aboriginal Indigenous Autochthonous, Autonomous Inhabitants “origine” to the land in America.

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 Consular Court  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’s 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 of 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 of 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 committed 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,                          

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 about Indigenous self-governance, territorial rights, and enduring treaty obligations.

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

Treaty-Based Answer: 

Yamassee Native American Government, MT. ‘Arafat Embassy, (hereinafter  (MBC/INAAN) and “we”, as do other Governments and their Embassies, require the U.S.  Department of State to authenticate documents to be used in the United States of America for said documents to be considered legal.

Yamassee Native American  Government Representatives/Diplomats are not limited to or required to carry US  governmental or any other foreign governments’ issued licensing, such as but not limited to apostilles, diplomas, birth certificates, passports, marriage licenses, driver’s licenses, vehicle registration plates, and so on. Diplomats of the Yamassee Native  American Government “MT. Arafat Embassy” are being inconvenienced by US  Governmental and private employees.

Yamassee Native American Government Officials and MT. ‘Arafat Embassy Personnel carry very specific identification papers which are recorded with our database at the ISMRS and all of the other agencies required by the  US State Department for the authentication process to be complete. This is a clear, honest communication of our intent towards co-operation and for the protection of both the Yamassee Native American Government and the US Government. The documents, including our passports, will be used in the United States of America and when necessary, internationally”.  

Article 31: MBC/INAAN “Indigenous people, as a specific form of exercising their right  to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating  to their internal and local affairs, including culture, religion, education, welfare,  economics activities, land and resourced, management, environment and entry by non members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions.” 

“The of Bill of Rights Of MBC/INAAN Indigenous Peoples”  

Article 36:  MBC/INAAN Indigenous people have the right to the recognition,  observance, and enforcement of treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors, according to their original spirit of intent, and to have States honor and respect such treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements. Conflicts and disputes which cannot otherwise be settled  should be submitted to competent international bodies agreed to by all parties  concerned.”