Another "Disclaimer" sent out by the Women Title Holders of Kanien'ke:haka/Mohawk Nation
OBJECTION TO CONTINUING FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO USURP KANION’KE:HAKA/MOHAWK JURISDICTION THROUGH FRAUDULENT LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS, TO ILLEGALLY IMPOSE TAXES AND POLICING ON OUR TERRITORY KNOWN AS “NEW YORK STATE” AND BEYOND BY THE UNITED STATES, NEW YORK STATE, NON-INDIAN CORPORATIONS, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, BOARDS, TRIBAL “GOVERNANCE” AGENCIES AND ALL OTHER “OUTSIDERS”
DATE: February 1, 2006
FROM: Women Title Holders of the Kanion’ke:haka Nation
According to Wampum 44 of our law, the Kaianereh’ko:wa, the Women Title Holders are the “progenitors of the soil”, the Caretakers of the land, water and air of Turtle Island. We are notifying you and the International Forum of Nations of our constitutional jurisdiction in our land that is being violated.
Re: Invasion of Kanion’ke:haka/Mohawk constitutional jurisdiction by the United States and New York State and other foreign entities
TO: President of United States; Governor New York State; Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II; Governor General of Canada; New York State Senate; New York State Legislature; U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Attorney General; Department of Interior; and other involved parties. (Addresses at end of Public Notice).
OBJECTION TO: The attempted theft through a fraudulent land claims settlement of unsurrendered Kanion’ke:haka Indigenous constitutional jurisdiction by the United States, New York State, their counties and affiliates and outside non-indigenous entities such as the New York State incorporated tribal councils; and to your illegal attempt to impose outside taxation and policing on us. The U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sherill v. Oneida Nation of New York Inc. killed federal Indian law. “Alloidial title” is a phony argument.
Our relationship is based on the Guswentha/Two Row Wampum Agreement. The Kaianereh’ko:wa and U.S. Constitution agreed to respect this agreement as an “alternative to war”. Only the President of the United States may contact us according to our constitution-to-constitution relationship. All foreign agencies cannot enter our community to enforce their colonial laws upon our people. We must follow nation-to-nation protocol. Sherill is federal Indian law, not constitutional.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York Inc. was made under federal Indian law. Congress created federal Indian law and can change it anytime to suit its needs. Our constitutional arrangement cannot be changed.
Using Sherill the federal government is trying to apply “latches”. Latches means that any Indian “tribe” set up under federal Indian law that did not take a court action on their land claims within an unspecified time cannot now do so. Indians under federal Indian law have only those rights that are given to them by the federal government. The constitutional Indians retain full jurisdiction.
Twenty years ago the federal government set up illegal municipal level “tribal” councils. St. Regis, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga and out-of-state tribes were encouraged to start land claims cases against New York State. They were to work out a “settlement” to extinguish sovereign Indian title in exchange for casinos. These sell-out tribal councils agreed to give up Rotinoshon’non:we (Iroquois) land, which is most of New York State.
The Kanion’ke:haka filed a “constitutional jurisdiction question” in the St. Regis v. New York State case. We asked:
How did federal and state government entities get jurisdiction to sign over unsurrendered land that is protected by the U.S. Constitution?
Judges McCurn and Lowe of the U.S. District Court made a decision to dismiss our question. They could site no law and no precedents. We appealed to the Second Circuit which also ignored the question. We then appealed to the United State Supreme Court.
We then filed the same question in the Sherill/Oneida and Onondaga cases.
In Sherill, the judge had learned from the “mistake” of Judges McCurn and Lowe. They went back to the old strategy of willful blindness to the constitutional question. By saying nothing they thought they could close the loophole that we used to get the issue in. We appealed because there was no final decision.
Our question involves genocide – the deliberate attempt to destroy a people. If someone is on death row, the court is petitioned with a “habeas corpus” to stop the execution. No answer is the court’s “final solution” reply. The execution is then carried out.
When it’s a nation, the petition is “quo warranto”. In Sherill, the court refused to answer. This made it a “final solution” reply. We appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and were assigned the number 05-165. This court also did not answer. It in effect upheld the rule of law and the constitutional nation-to-nation relationship between the Rotinoshon’non:we/Iroquois and the United States. The U.S. and New York State cannot apply domestic law onto the Rotinoshon’non:we. The court could only confirm that we still have constitutional jurisdiction over New York State and beyond. The U.S. Supreme Court killed fraudulent federal Indian law!
Indian constitutional jurisdiction is timeless, until there is a consensual treaty according to the Kaianereh’ko:wa, which can’t cede any land. The U.S. Constitution specifies a treaty can only be made with the President. Latches cannot apply to the constitution.
The United States and New York State are trying to steal our lands again. According to the American constitution no state can simply appropriate our land, resources and sovereignty. The Western Sahara case states that a territory cannot be incorporated in another state without the informed consent of the majority of its constitutional people. This requirement has not been met.
Allodial Title
There are no references or precedents in law to “allodial title” in any of the constitutions, such as the Indigenous Kaienerekowa/Great Law or the non-Indigenous U.S. or Canadian constitutions. Allodial title means “absolute property”, not subject to anything and outside the rule of law. This concept is being used to convert our existence into a property concept against the rule of law. The “lawmakers” pretend that it’s a property right that can be alienated or sold.
Indigenous women’s rights in the Kaianereh’ko:wa are not “private property!” It cannot be constitutionally taken under “eminent domain”. Private property is a federal law concept that was unconstitutionally interjected into North America by Congress’ Appropriations Act, 1871, followed by the Canadian Parliament’s Indian Act, 1876.
Indigenous people must consent to the application of all non-Indigenous law such as “eminent domain”. The U.S. and Canada have no eminent domain on unsurrendered Indigenous territory, which is all of Turtle Island. Our own constitution does not allow us to consent to non-Indigenous law, or taking compensation for selling our lands. Our lands are not for sale.
Our rights have always been a constitutional trust, in perpetuity, according to the Kaianereh’ko:wa and the rule of law. Our rights are strictly legal and not subject to judicial discretion. For us, the legal constitutional remedy is the land, not the money. The lawyers arguing for St. Regis and Oneida don’t want the land, they want the money.
The Women Titleholders are upholding constitutional law in which time does not run out. Our land is given absolutely to the past, present and future members of our nation. Therefore, we do not fear the so-called laches, allodial title, eminent domain, manifest destiny or the other fraudulent machinations of federal, state and provincial laws. The Kaianereh’ko:wa cannot be amended unless the whole community is involved. It must be ratified by the entire Grand Council of the Iroquois Confederacy.
The constitutional Oneidas did not lose their sovereign rights because the Oneida Inc. Indians could only lose what they pleaded, which is federal law.
Taxation and Policing
We oppose the recent illegal invitation by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Inc. and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne to allow foreign police and tax agencies to enter the international territory of Akwesasne, including their tribal police forces who aid and abet these outsiders. They have no right to enter into international agreements with: FEMA, HOMELAND SECURITY, RCMP, OPP, SQ, FBI, CIA, BORDER PATROL, CORNWALL POLICE, MASSENA POLICE, IBET, COAST GUARD, AKWESASNE MOHAWK POLICE SERVICE, MOHAWK TRIBAL POLICE, ATF, MINUTE MEN, NYSTATE POLICE, NATIONAL GUARD, U.S. MILITARY SERVICES, NY DEPT. OF TAXATION; INTERNAL REVENUE OF TAXATION; A.G. OF U.S., A.G. OF CANADA, CANADIAN ASSN. OF POLICE CHIEFS, U.S. TREASURY DEPT., A.G. NYS, DEPT. OF INTERIOR, DEPT. INDIAN AFFAIRS, CANADA BORDER SERVICES, U.S. CUSTOM AND IMMIGRATION AND CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
We have a sovereign right to control our own affairs. We never made agreements with the United States, New York State or Canada to pay taxes to foreign states or to have our businesses inspected. Colonial federal, provincial and state entities imposing your will on us without our informed consent is contrary to international law. All your negotiations with the outside entities known as “St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Inc.” and the “Mohawk Council of Akwesasne” must cease and desist immediately.
You have no treaty with us as designated under Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, or under Sections 109 and 132 of the Canadian Constitution. Any agreement must be ratified at Onondaga and by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. All substitutes are unconstitutional. The continuing rule of the Kaianereh'ko:wa is expressly and explicitly confirmed by Article XI of the 1775 Philadelphia Articles of Confederation and Article VI of the 1789 Constitution of the United States.
See: No. 05-165: 2005. In The Supreme Court of the United States In re Kanion’ke:haka Kaianereh’ko:wa Kanon’ses:neh, Non-party, Petitioner/Movant/Appellant, The Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians, Plaintiffs, Respondents, v. The State of New York, Defendants, Respondents. Petition for Writs of Certiorari and Quo Warranto with Prohibition and Mandamus in Aid to Prevent Genocide. Rules 17.1 and 20.1;
In the Supreme Court of Canada – Kanion’ke:haka Kaianereh’ko:wa Kanon’ses:neh v. Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Court File: 05-CV-030785.
Whereas:
1. Jurisdiction over our ter ritory now called “New York State” and beyond, belongs to the Kanion’ke:haka.
2. United States and New York State and all other entities must respect that relations with us shall be con ducted on a nation-to-nation basis.
3. United States and Canada never made a treaty of surrender with the Kanion’ke:haka.
4. The denial of a nation’s exis tence constitutes genocide, according to the many international covenants that United States and Canada have pledged to uphold;
Therefore:
5. We demand that United States, New York State and their corporate bodies and associates immediately cease and desist their illegal negotiations to assume false jurisdiction or presence in any way, shape or form on our territory.
6. Finally, we demand to be officially informed of how international, federal, state and provincial entities can violate international law and the rule of law by superseding our jurisdiction over territory that we never surrendered through a treaty or any means whatsoever.
By Kanion’ke:haka Women Title Holders
Katenies /s/ _______________________________
Towenino /s/ ______________________________
Kahentinetha /s/_________________________
? P.O. Box 418, Akwesasne Kanion’ke:haka (New York) 13655
Akwesasne 1-613-575-1550
Attached: Two court documents
Sent to: All media; Mohawk Casino of Akwesasne; Turning Stone Casino; all New York Senators; all New York State Assembly members; US Senate and Congress;
-President of United States; Secretary of Defense; The Pentagon; Commissioner, New York State Department of Taxation; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Department of the Interior; Office of Tribal Justice; U.S. Congress; U.S. Army Corp of Engineers; The United States Army; The U.S. Navy; Central Intelligence Agency;
-Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II; Governor General of Canada; Prime Minister, Government of Canada; Bloc Quebecois; New Democratic Party; Liberal Party of Canada; Premier of Ontario; Attorney General of Ontario; Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; Minister of Defense Canada; Department of Justice Canada; Attorney General of Canada; Department of Indian Affairs;
Mr. Javier Solana, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union;
-Bono; Royal Canadian Military Institute; Toronto Stock Exchange; Montreal Stock Exchange; New York Stock Exchange; Tokyo Stock Exchange; London Stock
