Written by W'Lawpsh   

I had just opened my own law practice when five Indians walked in off the street. It was February 11, 1972, and I was twenty-eight years old, as was their spokesperson. They had come from a reservation located in a region of mostly lakes and rivers and woods and rocky terrain and many moose, about forty five miles away from the northern Ontario town. They were deeply disturbed by the news report that the government was going to build a road to a previously inaccessible mountain ridge in their ancestral territory to construct an eighty million dollar destination ski and wilderness canoeing and hiking resort. The ridge is on the height of land that divides the south flowing waters of the Great Lakes/St Lawrence River watershed from the waters draining north to James and Hudson’s Bay. The place for the proposed resort is the second highest geographical elevation in Ontario. Non-natives call it Maple Mountain. The natives call it Chee-bai-bin.

In their language Chee-bai-bin means “Where the spirits go.” Since the beginning of time their ancestors’ spirits had always returned to a cave there. When the flood waters which had inundated all the land receded, the first being emerged from this cave. It was like a great mountain lion, but not; they couldn’t precisely describe it. Later a raven came out and flew around and found twigs or mud and returned, and the first people emerged. From there they spread throughout the land for many miles around, much farther than the storytellers knew or had been to. The pictograph art on the rock faces near the water line around the Chee-bai-bin region is intensely concentrated, many more than anywhere else in northeastern North America.

The more I got to know the more I found out about the extraordinarily well kept secret of how my own profession and its judiciary branch goes about stifling constitutional democracy based upon Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare and Liberty, and putting in its place the current empire based upon the opposite of each of those constitutional values. I traced the problem to its legal root and discovered that the transformation occurred overnight when the Appropriations Act of 1871 opened the floodgates that had held back the land speculators and the lawyers and judges from pouring into the Indian territories to carve up the land into the private property of the master race. The first federal imperial statute unconstitutionally abolished the Indian tribes so they couldn’t be heard to complain of the unconstitutional character of this war and genocide against their territorial sovereignty and people.

The critical fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States not only let the transformation happen, it made it happen: specifically, by never, since 1871, granting permission to appeal or to file an original jurisdiction complaint on the ground of the revolutionary conflict the between the Constitution’s commerce, defence and treaty clauses and the Appropriations Act of 1871. (In Canada the counterpart is the Indian Act of 1876. The conflict of laws issue is identical.)

A constitutional right by definition must have a constitutional remedy: a right without a remedy is an oxymoron. A constitutional right unconstitutionally blocked by the legal profession and its judicial branch is not a right, because it has no remedy.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 settled that the denial of the right to judicial review to test the constitutionality of federal statutes terminates the existence of constitutional democracy.

That is what differentiates the constitutional democracy 1789-1871 from the unconstitutional empire 1871-2011. In the former time period the Indian tribes’ constitutional right was protected by the courts and therefore existed. Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 US 543, 592 (1823), “…entitled to the respect of all Courts.” In the latter time period 1871-2011 the Indian tribes’ constitutional right has for all practical purposes been repealed because the legal profession obstructs and ignores the legal standing of Indian tribes to requisition a legal review of the federal imperial statute’s abolition of their legal standing. Thus, the Constitution is not supreme; the legal profession is in virtue of its de facto power of veto over the right’s remedy. Whatever may be its reasons, the fact is the profession and the judicial branch it staffs enforces the federal imperial law of war in willful blindness to the constitutional law of peace.

Please see Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, “Wounded Knee Massacre,” at ; and also, my comment with regard to the propaganda value of the photographic record of it at “Commentaries,” Might is Not Right, . The pictures showed the troublesome constitutional Indians the consequence of not being compliant federal Indians; especially the mass grave.

After 1871, the new and growing set of unconstitutional federal Indian “laws” made the practice of the traditional indigenous religious festivals crimes. This destroyed the inter-tribal trading pattern that helped to sustain the aboriginal economy and also the broad-based marriage opportunities so essential to the reproductive gene pool. The year-round mandatory school laws broke the aboriginal subsistence economy by precluding the family exodus from the band unit’s centralized summer location on the big lake to the headwaters of each family hunting ground. In federal imperial law the constitutional tribal government exercising original, inherent and sovereign jurisdiction was criminalized. In its place the imperial master established federal Indian governments charged with garbage collection, dog bylaws and distribution of the necessaries of life that the aboriginal economy can no longer provide.

With regard to my introductory client of 1972 the territorial limit of the federal Indians’ jurisdiction is a barren and resource-less one square mile island that gives the houses a place to rest and nothing more. On the other hand the constitutionally protected territorial sovereignty of the Indian tribe pursuant to (Canadian equivalent of) the commerce, defence and treaty clauses is to four thousand square miles with hundreds of pristine islands, lakes, rivers, streams, old growth forests of majestic white and red pine and rich mineral resources. Their choice was live there or don’t live anywhere. They stayed. It had always been the summer gathering village in the big lake from time immemorial. And they have never yet signed any treaty surrendering their territorial sovereignty as required by the treaty clause and its precedents. But again that is merely the constitutional law, and the constitutional law does not rule in the era of unconstitutional empire 1871-2011.

The new federal imperial statute “law” also made it criminal for lawyers to represent Indians with regard to asserting the constitutionally protected status of their sovereignty without the consent in writing of the bureaucrats supervising the wiping out of the tribes. United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas captured the essence of the erroneous political assumption upon the basis of which the genocide continues to be implemented in practice. In United States v. Lara, 541 US 193, 214, 227 (2004), he said what follows.

“In my view, the tribes either are or are not separate sovereigns, and our federal Indian law cases untenably hold both positions simultaneously.… In 1871, Congress enacted a statute [i.e., the first federal imperial statute the Appropriations Act of 1871] that purported to prohibit entering into treaties with the ‘Indian nation[s] or tribe[s].’ 16 Stat. 566, codified at 25 USC §71. Although this Act is constitutionally suspect (the Constitution vests in the President both the power to make treaties, Art. II, §2, cl. 2, and to recognize foreign governments, Art. II, §3; see, e.g., United States v. Pink, 315 us 203, 228-230 (1942)), it nevertheless reflects the view of the political branches that the tribes had become a purely domestic matter. To be sure, this does not quite suffice to demonstrate that the tribes lost their sovereignty. …Federal Indian policy is, to say the least, schizophrenic. And this confusion continues to infuse federal Indian law and our cases. ((note 4)…this is precisely the confusion that I have identified and that I hope the Court begins to resolve.) …I believe we must examine more critically our tribal sovereignty case law. Both the Court and the dissent, however, compound the confusion by failing to undertake the necessary rigorous constitutional analysis. I would begin by carefully following our assumptions to their logical conclusions and by identifying the potential sources of federal power to modify tribal sovereignty.…I do, however, agree that this case raises important constitutional questions that the Court does not begin to answer. 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 acknowledgement 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.”

The constitutional law itself is clear and plain in the cornerstone documents. I read them in my own miniscule law library as soon as the Indian representatives left my office back in February of 1972. Right off I could see the leading historical document is the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It codified the colonial constitutional law that had been in place since the inception of the European interest in the Americas. I am quoting the proclamation in full since it genuinely does tell the whole constitutional law story, past as well present. It was not itself new law either. Rather, it codified an unbroken line of law and equity governing the relationship between natives and newcomers ever since enactment of the papal bulla Sublimus Dei of 1537. All I achieved by reading for my master’s degree in constitutional history and Ph.D. law degree in constitutional law comparative law jurisprudence, is an understanding of the hundreds of other constitutional instruments and precedents that reiterate the identical message in so many different contexts. My own historical and legal research establishes the unbroken continuity of the constitutional law from 1537 to 2011. The proclamation codified it all, as follows.
.
“And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to our Interest and the Security of our Colonies that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected and who live under our Protection should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as not having been ceded to or purchased by Us are reserved to them or any of them as their Hunting Grounds We do therefore with the Advice of our Privy Council declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure that no Governor or Commander in Chief…do presume upon any Pretence whatever to grant Warrants of Survey or pass any Patents for Lands …upon any Lands whatever which not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid are reserved to the said Indians or any of them….And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described or upon any other Lands which not having been ceded to or purchased by Us are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements. And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians to the great Prejudice of our Interests and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians In order therefore to prevent such Irregularities for the future and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent We do with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement but that if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands the same shall be Purchased only for Us in our Name at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie…And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade….And we do further expressly conjoin and require all Officers whatever as well Military as those Employed in the Management and Direction of Indian Affairs within the Territories reserved as aforesaid for the use of the said Indians to seize and apprehend all Persons whatever who standing charged with Treason Misprisions of Treason Murders or other Felonies or Misdemeanors shall fly from Justice and take Refuge in the said Territory and to send them under a proper guard to the Colony where the Crime was committed of which they stand accused in order to take their Trial for the same. Given at our Court at St. James's the 7th Day of October 1763 in the Third Year of our Reign. George III.”

The proclamation’s approach to regulating the fur trade by a licensing system was picked up by the commerce clause of the American Constitution. The respect shown for the Indian tribes’ exclusive right of self government and sole right of possession was picked up by the defence and treaty clauses. The defence clause confirms the territorial sovereignty of foreign Nations and Indian tribes so long as they don’t invade the United States. The treaty clause confirms that entry by the United States upon their territories depends upon their consent recorded by treaty.

And according to the original and authoritative precedents the commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the Constitution collectively reiterate each of the provisions of the proclamation. In particular, Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1, 20 (1831), confirmed the application of the Constitution’s original jurisdiction clause to Indian tribes.

This is the same clause the Clerk of the Supreme Court still says can not be applied to Indian tribes since the federal imperial statute under question terminated Indian tribes for that purpose. And that is why and how Indian tribes disappeared from the historical court record after 1871. And also why and how the Indian tribes’ Case, to which this is all leading, can prevent genocide by reinstating the rule of law and, correspondingly, the constitutional democracy that presently is superseded by federal imperialism.

Over the period from 1972 to 2011, on behalf of this tribe and other Indian tribes that had the same complaint I raised the same point of constitutional Indian law in the courts of Alberta, British Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Brunswick, New York, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Washington DC, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in the Hague, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK) and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations.

Every Case identified and was restricted to its objective: the prevention of the “genocide” defined by Article 2(b) of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 that is being caused by the political and legal branches’ perverse willful blindness to the Constitution and its constitutive precedents. That is to say, the legal basis was the same in every case as that which Justice Thomas identified in the 2004 Lara Case, which is the same treaty clause basis as identified by the Indian client in 1972 and every Indian client ever since.

Article 2(b) of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 enacts, “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Causing serious mental harm members of the group.” Article (a) is ‘Killing members of the group.” Killing was the mode initially adopted by means of the Indian Wars period of American history. After the tribal leaders that stood for constitutional Indian tribal sovereignty had been murdered North American newcomer government policy under the federal imperial statute moved on to the still ongoing era of driving them mad with the injustice of the legal system’s aiding and abetting of the unconstitutional war and genocide against the tribes under the auspices of that manifestly unconstitutional federal imperial statute.

The exquisitely honed practice of North American style genocide in the dark shadow cast by the Supreme Court’s stonewalling of the principle of constitutional democracy under the rule of law is very hard indeed on the minds and bodies of people who deeply believe in justice. And the Indian tribal sovereigntists do. That is what makes them Indian tribal sovereigntists. The Direction of the King delivered by the Lords of Trade to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern District of North America, and dated 10 July 1764 (E.B. O’Callaghan et al., eds., Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, 15 Vols., Albany, 1856-83, 7:634) instructed the colonial government to accommodate the fact, “a steady and uniform attachment to, and love of Justice and Equity is one of their first principles of Government.”

I used to say to Indian tribal sovereigntist clients that the rule of law can’t be counted out until it has been given every possible opportunity to exist. It was to enable me to explore those possibilities that my family and I turned away from my non-native clients and practice of law to go and live with the Indians. My wife Margaret and I raised our children through infancy and their early school years on reservations around North America after moving in 1978 to the remote island reservation of the Indian tribe that had first contacted me in 1972 and first living with them for seven years.

As the years passed I observed the weight of the burden laid upon indigenous society by the invader’s genocidal division of it into federal imperial statute Indians and constitutional Indians. Indian individuals who started out life being raised by grandparents especially tended to be sovereigntists, although many people over the course of their lives drifted into and out of the various sub-classes: reservation, urban, federal and constitutional. Almost all experienced the trauma of the injustice, whether they were working as agents of the federal government’s genocide program or as the target of that crime. So many of the most idealistic and intelligent of the young took their own lives, both by direct suicide or indirectly by means of alcohol and drug abuse, internecine violence and the other indicators of profound social malaise and dysfunction.

A Decision of the Board of Governors (Benchers) of the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) assembled in Convocation, Toronto dated June 19, 1996, recognized the Indian tribes’ argument is that “by usurping jurisdiction over the indigenous people living on unceded hunting grounds, the Canadian government, the legal establishment and domestic courts are contributing to and are complicit in the genocide of indigenous people. “ And in response they said, “It would be difficult to disagree with [the] assertion that the issue that [the] argument raises is ‘constitutionally critical’…The ‘genocide’ of which [they] speak is real, and has very nearly succeeded in destroying the Native Canadian community that flourished here when European settlers arrived. No one who has seen many of our modern First Nation communities can remain untouched by this reality….The issue…is one of great significance for the entire people—and for all of us.…the nature of [the] argument is such that the persistent refusal of the courts—he states, without contradiction, that he has attempted to raise this argument on some forty-one times—itself in part engenders his fixed and firm conviction that his argument is correct. The issue itself has not been determined by any Court.”

On September 12, 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada instructed me, in the course of refusing once again to address the constitutional question of the prima facie invalidity of the Canadian counterpart to the Appropriations Act of 1871 that this was “an issue that has never been tried” and that, accordingly, I was entitled “to return to British Columbia tomorrow for the purpose of raising it,” but that the Court would not address the Case then before it since it had not been raised at the trial level, the consequence of which was that the Court did not have before it the Reasons for Judgment of the trial and appeal level Judges on the point of law. I pointed out to (the late) Chief Justice Lamer who was addressing those remarks to me that in July of that same year I had presented to that same Supreme Court a combined set of eighteen appeals from across Canada all restricted to the same constitutional question, in which the ground of appeal in every Case was that the trial and appeal level Judges utterly ignored the constitutional question even though no other issue had been raised in those Cases.

I told the Chief Justice it was chicanery for him now to suggest I could just go back and start all over again. He replied that I was “a disgrace to the bar” for accusing the court system of genocide and that I was “lucky” not to be cited for contempt of court for defaming the court system. I was tempted to point out to him that truth is an absolute defence to a charge of contempt of court and that what I said is legally true based upon the law of the Constitution and my own personal experience of the effect upon indigenous society of the political and judicial branches perverse willful blindness to the law and the evidence on offer. However, according to the Court, there was yet another stone to be turned.

And so, three days later I acted upon the Chief Justice’s suggestion by attempting to file the same constitutional question in a criminal law court case just starting up in British Columbia, as a preliminary objection to the court’s territorial jurisdiction on the ground of Indian tribal sovereignty at constitutional law and the genocidal consequence of the court ignoring it.

The presiding Judge immediately cited me for criminal contempt in the face of the court. In due course his Reason for Judgment was that the Law Society’s statement that the constitutional question had not been addressed was wrong. He said the truth is that in every of the forty Cases in which previously I had raised the constitutional question each Judge “carefully and patiently” had answered the question by proving it unfounded. He said specifically that the Supreme Court of Canada was included with the forty Cases, thus disagreeing with the Chief Justice of that Court who had acknowledged on September 12, 1995, (three days earlier) that so far as that Court is concerned the question presents a constitutional question that “has never been tired before.”

The upshot was that I was convicted of criminal contempt of court, sentenced to three months in jail and disbarred for “conduct unbecoming” a lawyer, namely, the “hectoring” of the legal system with a constitutional question that apparently had been carefully and patiently disposed of in accordance with the rule of law in some forty cases. The convicting Judge, unconventionally the same one that had cited me, did not himself identify any particular case in which this supposedly happened. He provided no citation where one might locate the supposed evidence of patient and careful judicial consideration of the law. He did not himself address the constitutional question.

I appealed on the ground his statement is false and, if true, would be have been supported by the citations to the court reasons for judgment wherein the supposedly patient and careful judicial consideration is recorded. Since what he said is false there are no court records capable of being cited. The Court of Appeal confirmed the convicting Judge for the reasons he gave, without dealing with the proof on offer that what he said is a barefaced lie. The Supreme Court of Canada denied permission to appeal.

And that, in microcosm, is how the legal system always works whenever the constitutional question of Indian tribal sovereignty is raised.

Although the federal law making it a crime for a lawyer to raise the constitutional question was repealed in 1952, the fact is it remains a crime and a disbarment offence to raise it. Invariably the question is obstructed by the court bureaucracy from getting before a Judge and, if it gets over that hurdle, when it comes in front of a Judge he either ignores it entirely or cites my own criminal contempt case as proof the issue has been disposed of the merits.

Not that lawyers are lined up and champing at the bit to do it. The legal profession including its academic branch and related institutions such as the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are wilfully blind to the issue of the genocide being caused by judicial willful blindness. Lawyers brush the issue aside by calling it “far-fetched” and the CCR says, ‘This dog won’t bark.” No support of any kind, whether monetary, logistical or political is accessible for the prevention of the genocide-in-progress of the last remnants of the Indian tribes.

The last hope for preserving the existence of the last of the Indian tribes from the completion of the final solution is Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. It is now blocked by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Presumably although not necessarily upon the advice and with the consent of the Chief Justice of the United States, the Clerk refuses once again to file the constitutional question of the Appropriations Act of 1871.

The Clerk’s administrative jurisdiction does not include deciding that the Appropriations Act of 1871 precludes challenges to itself. If that were true, every federal statute could just include a sentence saying no constitutional challenges allowed.

If the Court were to address the Indian tribes’ Case on the merits they would have no choice but to affirm the supremacy of the Constitution by declaring the Appropriations Act of 1871 null and void ab initio [from the beginning]. But they already know that. That is why the Case is being blocked at the administrative level.

The obstruction of the constitutional challenge to the first federal imperial statute by necessary implication of law alone saves the second, the War Powers Act of 1973. The conjunction of those two federal imperial statutes nullifying the territorial sovereignty of foreign Nations and Indian tribes is the basis for the American empire’s unconstitutional pretension to global sovereignty. That pretension is what sustains the military industrial financial complex’s empire at the expense of the existence of constitutional democracy under the rule of law.

According to the statements in and around Occupy Wall Street its objective is to restore the rule of law and by means of it to reinstate the constitutional values of Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare and Liberty as the supreme law. There is no way that is going to happen other than by means of a declaration in the Mahican and Mi’kmaq Indian tribes’ Case. I have been saying so in the previous twenty eight articles that I have submitted pursuant to the ‘Writing for Godot” feature of Reader Supported News.

For the tribes and I it has been wonderful to be able to speak the truth that tribes have had to keep bottled up since 1871 when it became a crime for them to defend their constitutional right and remedy against the federal imperialism. But no help of any kind has come of it. We had hopes someone would go to the tribes’ website http://mightisnotright.org/ and, having read the proof, would make contact to see how to help on the ground everything everywhere depends upon terminating the empire by jump starting constitutional democracy. So far nobody has helped in any way. The tribes and I are not complaining, just begging.

And there is something urgent and practical to be done that needs help to get done right away.

The tribes’ sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States whose address is listed on the Internet as Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle, NE, Washington, D.C. 20544. A copy of the letter is attached. The United States Postal Service guaranteed Express Mail delivery by October 4, 2011 at 12:00 noon. The tracking information for its number EG 834292287 US says it arrived in Washington on October 4th at 8:19 in the morning and 10:10 was “Out for Delivery.” The next entry is dated October 5, 2011 at 12:10 am and it says “Delivery status not updated.” There are no entries after that.

When Gary Metallic asked for an explanation it was, “In response to your request dated 10/06/2011, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any delivery information in our records regarding your item number EG83 4292 287US.” And the trail stops there. The tribes have no money to hire a professional process server to deliver the letter and provide them with proof of service. Now the tribes and I may well be paranoid, but the bizarreness of not being able to Express Mail a letter to the Judicial Conference seems like an aspect of the same bureaucratic obstruction that accompanies everything, absolutely everything, that is done or attempted with regard to getting the constitutional question addressed.

The letter to the Judicial Council is crucial since the letter to the Supreme Court asking it to remove the Clerk from Office for his treasonable excess and abuse of jurisdiction has been filed by the Clerk in the black hole maintained by the Court for purpose of dealing with the uppity Indian tribes that are pretentious enough to think they are not already dead in federal law and since constitutional law is inadmissible dead, period.

They are as invisible and mute as a person ostracized from the tribe for an irremediable office such as rape or murder. That tribal punishment in its time was equivalent to a sentence of death and it still has that force when the political and judicial branches of the government do it.

That letter to the Judicial Council is the last stone the tribes have yet to turn in their endeavor to prevent genocide by reinstating constitutional democracy under the rule of law. Once delivery of that letter is achieved at least the judicial branch won’t be as well able to pretend it “didn’t know.” Maybe it is possible that the Supreme Court Justices other presumably than Chief Justice Roberts never got from the Clerk the letter to them via him asking for his removal. If that letter is delivered to the Judicial Conference they will find out because most of them are on it. The letter itself can be printed from Case Court Document 20, “Case Court Documents,” Might is Not Right, . Contact: .

Is there anybody out there to help the tribes and constitutional democracy by delivering the letter?