Written by W'Lawpsh   

September 21, 2011

Hitler’s Mein Kampf is based upon a theory of justice as political, social and economic fairness. His struggle was against what he felt was the unfairness of what Chancellor Otto von Bismarck reputedly had once identified as the most important event in the history of the world: North America speaks English. The question that ate at his brain until it was demented was, How come the British Empire morphed into the American Empire when Germany did not have one?

He was insane, in the sense of being insanely jealous. He had been born at the height of the Germanic peoples’ enlightenment during which they led the world in music, science and philosophy and was tormented by the feeling that if anybody deserved an empire it was his people and, probably not coincidentally, that he deserved to be its emperor. His wildest dream come true was to acquire the power enjoyed by the super-corporate elite who run today’s American empire.

For lack in his own country of anything like either the weak and poor “Indian tribes” who are the victims of the US Congress’s Appropriations Act of 1871 or the equally weak and poor “foreign Nations” who are the victims of its War Powers Act of 1973, he substituted the Jewish tribes at home for the former and tried to displace the Anglo-American empire as master of the latter. Being in too big a hurry he had not the time to “speak softly and carry a big stick” so he tried to make do with the stick, what he called the iron fist.

He failed and the American empire carried on to found the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the secret armies of the Central Intelligence Agency and its clones throughout the Free World of the Strong that enslaves and devours the Un-Free World of the Weak in the present end-of-times era. The underground fire of the holocaust of the present empire of super-commerce now encircles the earth under the euphemisms the market economy and globalization.

Beyond the mist of the propaganda and the willful blindness that permits it to persuade and flummox, stretches interminably the mass grave of dead Indians at Wounded Knee in 1890. Now tumbled in are the dead of all the places in the world where the super-corporate leaders have arranged for the political and judicial machine of the empire to install dictatorships to kill those poor people whose presence on the land stands in the way of the progress of western civilization. In place of the “White Man’s Burden” the world now has the newer, bigger and better “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Under such cunning and self laudatory labels the super-elite in power ostensibly gifts the corpses of progress with the benefits of constitutional democracy under the rule of law.

There is a way to stop this obscenely genocidal and threateningly ecocidal march into tragic oblivion: true constitutional democracy under the true rule of law, a state of affairs capable of being inaugurated by, and only by, the leader of the judicial branch of the government at the head of the empire: the Supreme Court of the United States. All that Court need do is its sworn duty as undertaken by each of its Justices pursuant to Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America. That duty is to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy upon the integrity of which survival depends.

All the Honorable Justices of that Honorable Court need actually to do to stop the insanity of unregulated super-corporatism that runs the empire is to let the People rule. This, the People in theory but not yet in practice already are supposed to be doing by means of the rule of law’s enforcement of their constitution. They do not in practice rule because their politicians and judges instead allow the super-executives and super-owners to regulate the government instead of the other way round. The constitution and the rule of law are irrelevant to reality at this historical juncture.

The Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States is waiting outside the US Supreme Court’s Courthouse door to be let in. The Case asks the Court to answer the only question that matters: Is the Appropriations Act of 1871 constitutional? As a matter of law alone there is no doubt the statute is unconstitutional.

The difficulty is that the Supreme Court of the United States has become politicized and, in consequence, rather than implementing “justice as the application of the constitutional truth to affairs,” instead it implements “justice as political, social and economic fairness” regardless of truth. And the problem is the Court’s feeling as to what is “fair” is not rocking the imperial boat.

The Supreme Court Justices (except for Justice Thomas who is true to his oath of office) politically reads the constitution’s commerce clause in isolation, and in consequence misrepresents that the government’s jurisdiction “to Regulate Commerce with Indian tribes and foreign Nations” as expressing a legislative intent to confer on government sovereignty or “plenary power” over Indian tribes and foreign Nations. United States v. Lara, 541 US 193, 200 (2004), per Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr.

Yet the willfully blindsided precedents that bind the Court establish that the commerce, defence and treaty clauses have to be read together as a set, as opposed to being read in isolation. When that is done it is apparent that while the government can regulate commerce with the Indian tribes and foreign Nations it can not acquire their territorial sovereignty and possession other than by treaty, and certainly not by conquest in war unless the war is in self-defence to repel a war started by an Indian tribe or foreign Nation.

The Indian wars of 19th century North America were not started by the tribes invading lands they previously had ceded by treaty to the United States, but rather by the government of the United States invading Indian lands that had not yet been ceded by treaty. All those wars were initiated under the authority of the Appropriations Act of 1871. All were unconstitutional and the lands invaded, occupied, usurped and disposed are all still held and governed unconstitutionally.

An amendment pursuant to the Article V amendment clause conceivably might regularize this. But for an absolute certainty it can not lawfully be regularized by means of the willful blindness of the Supreme Court and its Clerk, who obstruct and ignore the critical constitutional question of the constitutionality of the Appropriations Act of 1871; at least not forever, although the obstructing and ignoring has been going on successfully enough ever since 1871.

As United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas honestly and courageously said in the crucial same case of United States v. Lara, 541 US 193, 227 (2004):

"The Court utterly fails to find any provision of the Constitution that gives Congress enumerated power to alter tribal sovereignty…and I would be willing to revisit the question.…The Federal Government cannot simultaneously claim power to regulate virtually every aspect of the tribes through ordinary domestic legislation and also maintain the tribes possess anything resembling 'sovereignty.' The Court should admit that it has failed in its quest to find a source of congressional power to adjust tribal sovereignty. Such an acknowledgment might allow the Court to ask the logically antecedent question whether Congress (as opposed to the President) has this power. A cogent answer would serve as the foundation for the analysis of the sovereignty issues posed by this case. We might find that the Federal Government cannot regulate the tribes through ordinary domestic legislation and simultaneously maintain that the tribes are sovereigns in any meaningful sense. But until we begin to analyze these questions honestly and rigorously, the confusion that I have identified will continue to haunt our cases."

What Justice Thomas said is true both in fact and at law. Unfortunately for the poor and weak of this Earth the truth has had no discernible influence upon events. Only power has mattered, the power of the super-rich who enjoy basking in more than enough in virtue of running foreign policy by running the government that directs the military that does the killing and intimidating that breaches not only the constitution but also Articles 2(a) and 2(b) of the Convention for the Prevention for the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The pathetic reality is that “Might is Right” notwithstanding the title of the website of the Mahican and Mi’kmaq aboriginal governments at W’Lawpsh, “Might is Not Right,” http://mightisnotright.org/ and Abraham Lincoln’s prayer, “Lord, give us faith that right makes might.”

The solution to the problem of the mime in the mirror is being posted today in a letter dated yesterday to the Supreme Court of the United States that reads as follows:

RICK VANGUILDER, MAHICAN TRIBE & GARY METALLIC, MI’KMAQ TRIBE
29A Fairmont Street, Nashua, NH 03064 (Mail: Box 604, Nashua, NH 03061) 613) 864-8256 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

September 20, 2011

William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

To the Attention of: John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Re: A REQUEST PURSUANT TO 28 USC §671(a)¶2[1] and Rule 1[2] of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States for the removal of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the ground of culpable excess and abuse of jurisdiction in virtue preemptively of rejecting a constitutional challenge to 25 USC §71¶1[3] and 28 USC §1251¶(b)(1)[4] by chicanery[5] on the ground of 25 USC §71¶1 and 28 USC §1251[6]; thusly preempting the question and usurping the strictly judicial jurisdiction to answer it with judicious reasons for judgment. The rejected Case establishes on its face: (a) the questioned statutes are “affecting” the complainant “public Ministers” within the meaning of the Court’s original jurisdiction clause; (b) it identifies an irreconcilable conflict between those statutes and the constitution’s amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses read together as the legislative scheme regulating jurisdiction vis-à-vis Indian tribes and foreign Nations as settled by the original, authoritative and therefore constitutionally constitutive interpretive precedents; (c) it manifestly complies with Rules 17(3), 17(4), 22(3), 22(4), 33(1)(d), 33(1)(g)(i) and 33(h) read as a set[7] although the Clerk, without providing reasons, baldly says it does not comply with Rule 17[8]; and (d) it establishes the reasonably foreseeable, probable and actual result of the Clerk’s excess and abuse of jurisdiction is war and genocide-in-progress in consequence of the inauguration of unconstitutional empire above the rule of law instead of constitutional democracy under the rule of law.

Dear Justices:

Please see the rejected case and full particulars at http://mightisnotright.org/ .

Sincerely,


/s/ "Gary Metallic" /s/ "Rick Vanguilder"
Public Minister, Mi’kmaq Tribe Public Minister, Mahican Tribe

ENDNOTES

[1] 28 USC §671(a)¶2. “The clerk shall be subject to removal by the Court.”

[2] Rule 1. “The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.”

[3] 25 USC §71¶1. “No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty; but no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or impaired.” See, Document 2, page 2, note 8, “Case Court Documents,” http://mightisnotright.org/. And see Documents 1, 2 and 3 for the constitutional legislation and precedents not considered in the Lara case and which establish that case’s per incuriam status and therefore irrelevance for stare decisis purposes.

[4] 28 USC §1251¶(b)(1). “The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties.” N.B: The restriction in the federal statute to “foreign states” is not in the Court’s original jurisdiction clause, constitution Article III§2¶2, which stipulates, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” In Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1 (1831), this Court settled Tribes are States (Johnson, J, dissenting) albeit not “foreign” (Thompson and Story, JJ, dissenting) and, since the Cherokee complainant explicitly relied exclusively upon the reference in the general jurisdiction clause, constitution Article III§2¶1 to disputes “between a state [Georgia] and foreign states [Cherokee Nation],” in the result Marshall, CJ, held [p.20], "this court cannot interpose; at least in the form in which those matters are presented.” The case to be at bar herein of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic [or any of them] v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States corrects the defect in the form adopted by the Cherokee Nation in 1831. See, Document 8, page 1, paragraph 4 DETERMINATIVE PRECEDENT, “Case Court Documents,” http://mightisnotright.org/.

[5] “Case Court Documents,” http://mightisnotright.org/, read in pari materia and in toto establish the intent of the Clerk to evade the constitution and, in aid thereof, to evade Justice Thomas becoming seized of procedural matters pursuant to Rule 22 that require the Clerk to deliver the case to a Single Judge of the Court for procedural directions, which he refused to do. The Clerk fully was informed of the constitutional law precluding his ground for rejection; of the genocidal consequence of his rejection; and of his abuse of the constitution’s supremacy and oath clauses: Article VI¶2. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI¶3. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” See, e.g., Document 1, page 9, paragraph 3(h) JUDICIAL DUTY.

[6] Note 5, Document 14.

[7] Note 5, Document 1, page 1.

[8] Note 6.

By W’Lawpsh