Law Offices of Naidu, Ramjini, Neoh, Netto, Tangavelu, Chaoui & Engen

LAW OFFICES OF NAIDU, RAMJINI, NEOH, NETTO, TANGAVELU, CHAOUI & ENGEN ©

NATIVE AMERICAN LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER©

~ A Tribal Law Corporation under Section 17, Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, committed to granting you tribal jurisdiction as separate sovereigns ~

Mailing Address: P O Box 186, Swanton, Ohio 43558

Email:

Website:

MEANING AND ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE RECOGNIZED, CLASSIFIED AND CATEGORIZED AS ABORIGINALS IN THEIR HOMELANDS ©

Law Lecture #STG 110, Singapore, June 14, 2014 - by Judge Navin-Chandra Naidu

1. Cannot be sued. Operate under the Latin maxim rex non potest peccare (the king can do no wrong). They were here in Planet Earth first as the original land occupiers, possessors and owners. International law recognizes their unique standing especially the persuasive writings of Franciscus de Victoria, Hugo Grotius and Emmerich de Vattel (accepted as the leading authorities in international law) have written extensively on the Aboriginal Peoples’ inherent rights before nation-states, governments and constitutions were written as charters for human rights. The Sublimus Deus of Pope Paul in 1537, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 have recognized, accepted, validated, acknowledged and declared that Aboriginal Peoples have a unique standing in the community of nations as the original landowners who practiced communal property ownership, not private property ownership (an European concept that was shoehorned into Anglo-American jurisprudence). Canadian Indian Tribes enjoy better standing than Australian or American Aboriginal Tribes. As usual, police power was severely lacking. The nontribal governments took advantage of this malaise, and the rest is politics, as usual. Tribes have been lulled into inactivity. Very potent medicine.

1. Can be sued ONLY when they sue some other party in a non-tribal court of law, and by doing so surrender their sovereign immunity because they went outside their jurisdiction.

1. Should sue ONLY from a tribal court of competent jurisdiction to maintain and retain their sovereign immunity.

1. Have ability and capacity to protect their enrolled tribal members with absolute police power recognized under international law and treaty law. Local laws, such as federal Indian law, have legislated exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Indians. See 18 United States Code § 1152 and 25 United States Code § 1301.

1. Possess power and authority to establish and ordain executive, legislative and judicial branches of government with attendant police power (power to arrest and detain; power to take into custody wrongdoers; power to try and punish wrongdoers, etc.) as a separate sovereign without the need and necessity of obtaining any other government’s permission, or approval. See Article 1, 1933 Montevideo Convention.

1. Must have outright ownership of land and soil (Latin: usucapion), five miles beneath the soil, and five miles above (Latin: cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum".

1. Have power and authority to issue land titles – land patents, allodial titles, freehold titles, leasehold titles, Torrens system land titles, qualified titles are nothing but bogus examples and manifestations of major fraud perpetrated by non-tribal governments.

1. Have power and authority to issue passports, local travel permits; regulate and control the influx of immigrants into their homelands. Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 4 of the U.S. Constitution declares that “Congress shall have power to make Rules for Naturalization, and Laws for Bankruptcies.” Why didn’t the founders and framers adopt the word “Laws” for naturalization as well like they did for bankruptcies, instead used the word “Rules”? Legal scholars believe the founders and framers knew that they were stepping on a very sensitive issue because the first immigrants came ashore into Indian country without valid papers and visas – a clear and gross violation of international law. Treaty-making with Native Americans came into vogue because Aboriginals were and are still recognized as a unique and independent political community under international law.

1. Must be consulted by nation-states and non-tribal to obtain their consent, agreement, approval and permission prior to setting up nation-state status because such governments will be physically operating in usucapion territory.

1. Operate as a separate sovereign.

1. Have treaty-making powers with other tribes and nation-states under the power recognized in Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention as a sovereign state.

1. Have power and authority to establish and ordain banks, financial institutions, stock exchanges, schools and colleges for higher learning, correctional facilities, mining operations, agricultural programs, manufactories, etc.

1. Have power and authority to issue specie (money in the form of gold or silver coins, precious stones, and other precious commodities) if selected merchants are willing to accept it for value and worth just like Bitcoin.

Indian land titles make the best and most ideal specie because land can never be taken away, sequestered, and concealed from view like money, precious metals and precious stones. The land does not get buried or interred with humans and other animals. The land consumes us all – man, mineral, vegetable and animal.

I have been working with private international central bank of a sovereign country - quietly working behind the scenes to issue specie using Indian titles. Clearances, approvals and licenses are in hand. We are very close to realizing this powerful goal once some political maneuvers are completed, concluded, and consummated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

~ The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 -

~ Indian Land Cession in the United States – by Charles C. Royce

~ Genocide-at-Law: A Historic and Contemporary View of the Native American Experience, 34 U.Kan.L.Rev.713 (1986)

~A Bibliographic Guide to the History of Indian-White Relationship in the United States (Univ. Chi. Press 1977) – by Francis Paul Prucha

~ A History of the Indians of the United States (Univ. Okla. Press, 1970) by Angie Debo

~ Sources of American Indian Law, Panel, 67 Law Libr. J. 494 (1974)

~ Chronology of Native American History: from Pre-Columbian Tomes to the Present (Duane Champagne ed., Gale Research, Inc. 1994)

~ Timelines of Native American History: Through the Centuries with Mother earth and Father Sky (A Pergee Book 1997) by Susan Hazen-Hammond

~ In the Hands of the Great Spiri: The 20,000 Year History of American Indians (Free Press 2003) by Jake Page

~ Early American Indian Documents, Treaties and Laws, 1607-1789 (Alden T. Vaughan & Deborah A. Rosen eds., Univ. Publications 1998).

~ Indian Affairs: Laws & Treaties (Charles J. Kappler ed. GPO 1904-1941) (5 Vols.)

~ Indian Law and the Reach of History, 4 J. Contemporary L. 1, 1-13 (1977-1978) by Vine Deloria Jr.,

~ Indian Law and Policy: A Historian’s Viewpoint, 54 Wash. L. Rev. 475 (1979)

~ Original Indian Title, 32 Minn.L.Rev.28, 46 (1947)

~ The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the United States, 31 Geo. L.J. 1, 1-2 (1942)

~ The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest 13 (Oxforrd Univ. Press. 1990) by Robert A. Williams, Jr.

~ De Indis et de Iure Belli Relectiones 115-128 (Ernest Nys ed., J. Bate trans., Carnegie Institution 1917) (orig. ed. 1557), by Franciscus de Victoria

~ The Laws of Burgos of 1512-1513: Rights of native Inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere (L. Simpson trans., John Howell Books, 1960)

~ They Came Here First 122 (Harper & Row rev. ed. 1975) by D’Arcy McNickle

~ In Defense of the Indians (S. Poole trans., N. Ill. Univ.Press 1975) by Bartolome de Casas

~ Hugo Grotius, The Law of War & Peace 397 (Classics of International Law ed. 1925) (Francis W. Kelsey, trans., 1946 ed.) quoted in S. James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law 12 (Oxford Univ. Press 1996)

~ Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law 116 (Classics of International Law 1916) (Charles G. Fenwick trans. Of 1758 ed.

~ Red Man’s Land/White Man’s Law 29 (Charles Scribner’s Sons 1971) by Wilcomb Washburn

~ Dutch Treatment of the American Indian, With Particular Reference to New Netherland, in Attitudes of Colonial Powers Toward the American Indian 47 (H. Peckham & C. Gibson eds., Univ. Utah Press 1969)

~ Puritan Justice and the Indian: White Man’s Law in Massachusetts 1630-1763 at 50 (Wesleyan Univ. 1986)

~ The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M’Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1065, 1077 (2000).

~ Power Over this Unfortunate Race: Race, Power and Indian Law in United States. Rogers, 45 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1957, 2026, 2029 (2004)

~ At the Whim of the Sovereign: Aboriginal Title Reconsidered, 31 Hastings L.J. 1215, 1224-1225 (1980)

. . Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith." (Felix S Cohen, “Handbook of Federal Indian Law,”1953)