Might is Not Right


Rick Vanguilder and Gary Metallic,



CanadaFranceNetherlandsPortugalRussiaSpain, United Kingdom and United States,


IN THE MATTER OF preventing the genocide caused by the obstruction and ignoring of the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty asked and answered and invited into the Supreme Court of the United States by its Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in the case of United States v. Lara, 541 US 193 (2004). 


To re-instate constitutional democracy under the rule of law for all purposes in order to serve the particular purpose of preventing the genocide that is being caused by the judicial branch’s blindness, since 1871, to its previously settled answer to the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty pending treaty of relinquishment, as required by the Constitution's amendment, defense, original jurisdiction and treaty clauses.


The case is in limbo because the US Supreme Court Clerk refuses to docket and deliver it to the US Supreme Court Judges to affirm their previously-settled answer to the constitutional question. The Clerk's stated reason is, federal legislation blocks access to the Court, as if that were possible in a constitutional democracy in which by definition the constitution is always the supreme law. The Clerk blindsides the constitution and applies manifestly unconstitutional federal law. The constitution guarantees to the tribes the same access to the Court as foreign Nations whereas the federal legislation repeals tribal access. 


The die was cast in terms of the constitutional recognition of Indian tribal sovereignty and its corresponding court remedy in North America in 1704 when Queen Anne commissioned a Standing Trial Level Sub-Committee of the Appellate Level Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) with independent and impartial third-party court jurisdiction over boundary disputes between sovereign crown and Indian tribal governments in the case of Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1704-1776) (Case Court Document 2 p.20). Thus when a delegation of three Mohawk and a Mahican Ambassador and Public Minister visited Her Majesty in 1710 they diplomatically were received as "Indian Kings" and the famous portraits reproduced in the banner were commissioned as such. That was then. The second reproduction is now. The legal point of the case is that while the constitutional law has been continuous since at least 1704 the attitude of the judicial branch of newcomer government has gone from respect and protection to contempt and genocide, without justification, solely by means of the judicial obstruction and ignoring of the constitution, since 1871, in abrogation of constitutional democracy under the rule of law, in aid of stealing the Indians' land, rather than continuing to make valid treaties for it as required by the constitution. 

Make a Free Website with Yola.