PART 1. THE CONSTITUTION'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CLAUSE OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
|
DOCUMENT 1. February 11 2011 Extraordinary circumstances.pdf Size : 241.759 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 2. February 11 2011 Intellectual basis for complaint.pdf Size : 374.076 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 3. February 11 2011 Ethics basis for court duty.pdf Size : 265.424 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 4. March 17 2011 Affidavit of Service pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.pdf Size : 6383.235 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 6. March 23 2011 Motion to Judge Thomas to amend DOCUMENT 1..pdf Size : 223.414 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 13. April 20 2011 Affidavit of Service of DOCUMENT 12.pdf Size : 11740.915 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 16. June 30 2011 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.pdf Size : 49.471 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 17. July 09 2011 Response of Netherlands' Political Branch.pdf Size : 552.65 Kb Type : pdf |
|
DOCUMENT 18. July 15 2011 Reply to Response.pdf Size : 46.029 Kb Type : pdf |
PART 2. JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
|
HCHR Application.pdf Size : 683.305 Kb Type : pdf |
|
HCHR Review.pdf Size : 474.845 Kb Type : pdf |
A NOTE EXPLAINING THE BANNER
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.