Friday, December 23, 2016

Water Protectors and the American Justice System


Photo copyright Rob Wilson
Water Protectors and the American Justice System

Steve Melendez
Paiute Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
President, American Indian Genocide Museum

Censored News

As the Water Protectors are in court this week, Assistant State’s Attorney Ladd Erikson asked the Morton County District Court  to enter an order to prevent any mention of the treaties, “There is no relevance to any testimony or evidence regarding: Historical treaties between the U.S. Government and the Sioux Nation [or] tribal sovereignty…”
We can ask as did the court in the case of the United States v. Klein (13 Wall. 128), “What is this but to prescribe a rule for the decision of a court in a particular way?”
In the Hearings on Senate Bill 3083 “Limiting Jurisdiction of Court of Claims in Indian Cases” in 1940, the discussion continued, “In other words, the act attempted to strip the Court of its inherent judicial power to make a determination of the case by requiring it to render a decision in favor of one party”.
Assistant State’s Attorney Ladd Erikson is asking the court to make a decision of trespassing without determining who has the title deed to the property in question.
We know that courts cannot alter treaties and by the same token, even the Supreme Court cannot nullify all treaties according to race.

John Hult wrote for the Argus Leader last month an article entitled Pipeline Protests: 7 history lessons which also appeared in USA TODAY. He wrote, “THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY. This legal concept was used by European Colonial powers to justify the taking of aboriginal land. Essentially, it gave land title to any Christian nation whose explorers set foot upon non-Christian soil. In 1823, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. M’Intosh codified the doctrine into U.S. law, when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote an opinion stating that Native Americans could occupy land, but only the government could own it. Marshall, as it happens, stood to lose much of his own land if he’d ruled for the other side”.
I was under the impression that it was the duty of the Morton County District Court to examine all of the evidence and if they should find a scam large or small,  they should rule accordingly.

We have to wrap our minds around the United States government's white supremacist colonial legal posturing that they already own everything by right of "Discovery".

The evidence should determine who owns the land. If we cannot submit our treaties as evidence, where is the justice?

Steve Melendez,
Paiute Reno-Sparks Indian Colony
President, American Indian Genocide Museum



Website: http://www.aigenom.org

2 comments:

T Hawk said...

John Hult, Ladd Erickson are just about the same set that allows misconception and ignorance to develop in this matter, the 1868 treaty does not mention anything about a possibility or reason that any other laws or bindings with other tribal nations to abridge the solemn oath to the Great Sioux Nation to up hold the Document of agreement between Headman of the tribes and appointed commissioners acting upon the United States. And futhermore, the lands in question, "Are part of the 1868 Fort Laramie" and article 6 "Bad Men" clause has been successfully used in U S Courts and are material to defense under Great Sioux Nation. "Mini Wiconi" water is life.

American Indian Genocide Museum said...

You don't believe that they still use the doctrine of discovery on the Indians?

Censored News PayPal



Censored News depends on reader donations for live coverage. brendanorrell@gmail.com