Written by W'Lawpsh   

Please suppose you’re New York’s police chief and faced with Occupy Wall Street. The occupiers say those who run Wall Street have influenced government to enact politically, socially and economically unjust laws under the auspices of which the 1% exploits and despoils unfairly albeit, from all that appears, not provably illegally. Your legal staff and the outside counsel they retain all say you have no choice: your duty as Police Chief is to uphold the allegedly unjust law as it is written without regard for how it might better be written. So you tell the protesters you have no choice and give them 72 hours to think it over.


They come back to you with the argument that the Constitution renders the unjust laws not merely unfair but, in addition, null and void from the word go. They draw to your attention my article “Who owns Wall Street anyway," Reader Supported News, October 13, 2011, http://readersupportednews.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7858. They produce an invitation to Occupy Wall Street people to occupy Wall Street as unceded sovereign territory of the Mahican Tribe. And they adopt the Legal Argument and its Proof identified at the Tribe’s website “Might Is Not Right.”


The protesters thusly evidence their awareness that the ordinary laws that shield the 1% are part of a set that establishes the existence of the United States as an unconstitutional empire whose policy is global sovereignty implemented by means of war based upon contempt for the territorial sovereignty of foreign Nations and Indian tribes. The historical root of the set is the two federal imperial statutes the War Powers Act of 1973 and the Appropriations Act of 1871. They assume jurisdiction over foreign Nations and Indian tribes. But as the constitutional legislation and precedents irrefutably establish, that assumption is unconstitutional.


It introduces a federal policy of imperialism in place and stead of the Constitution’s previously established anti-imperial policy of peace based upon respect for the territorial sovereignty of foreign Nations and Indian tribes. The commerce clause delegates to the federal government jurisdiction to regulate trade with them subject to the defence and treaty clauses’ preclusion of invasion or entry other than in self defence or with written consent. The imperial federal regime and the anti-imperial constitutional regime are profound and irreconcilable other than pursuant to the amendment clause.


Until then, say the protesters, you have no choice: your duty is uphold the Constitution as it is written without regard for how it might better be written. To do otherwise is to give Aid and Comfort to the Enemies of the Republic who have replaced constitutional democracy with unconstitutional empire. You pass that along to your lawyers, for a second opinion. It can only be that the protesters are right on the constitutional law but, so long as the US Supreme Court hangs tough for empire by continuing to obstruct and ignore the Constitution, as it has ever since enactment of the Appropriations Act of 1871, there is no practical solution.


Or, what it is the same thing, this time round your lawyers don't give you a legal opinion based upon the words of the commerce, defence and treaty clauses as a set but, instead, brush aside your request on the ground the protesters' argument self-evidently is too "far-fetched" to comment upon, or its author is a "flake", or some other attack the messenger evasion of the issue. This is the probable "legal opinion" of the 1% since there genuinely are no legislative words and precedents capable of being put forward to contest the constitution's legislative words and precedents recorded at the "Might Is Not Right" website.


If there were, the Supreme Court (aside from Justice Thomas in 2004) long since would have let the Tribes' Case come before it and then publicly have identified its error on the basis of the contrary and superior authority, instead of having obstructed and ignored the issue since 1872.


Nothing I’ve said here will come as news to legal counsel for the imperialist 1%. Their confidence is based upon the historical incapacity of popular movements to focus legally as opposed to politically, socially and economically. In consequence the dreadfully misleading impression, upon which the empire’s legal establishment entirely depends, is that the empire is defending "the rule of law" against Occupy Wall Street misfits, who want to change the law by unlawful means, by intimidation, disruption and, ultimately, the aspiration of bloody revolution.


Occupy Wall Street might have a greater chance of success by being identified first and foremost as the defender of constitutional democracy under the rule of law, with the reality of revolution only as the last resort failing the reinstatement of constitutional democracy by means of the rule of law.


Specifically, Occupy Wall Street surely can and absolutely must demonstrate that it is for justice in both of its legal senses, i.e., as the application of the legal truth to affairs in courts, and, secondly, as political, social and economic fairness in the legislative creation of law.


When that has been done, it will be apparent on the face of the public record and without the need for self justifying argument that the 1% is not for justice, in either sense. It evades a show down in the Supreme Court with regard to the unconstitutionality of the two federal imperial statutes of 1871 and 1973 upon which the imperialists depend to throttle the world and all its being other than themselves. And it buys from the political branch all of the other imperial legislation required for perpetual war to complement those two pillars of blood soaked privilege.


Yet the soul of the country according to the document constituting it is "Justice, Tranquility, defense, Welfare and Liberty." Without justice in both senses the country is soul dead.


As a practical matter I suggest Occupy Wall Street appoint one of itself to sue or defend (it makes no difference which) on the ground of law alone that no court (other than the Supreme Court under the original jurisdiction clause of the Constitution) can adjudicate the territorial sovereignty dispute between the United States or New York and the Mahican Tribe over jurisdiction to govern and possess Wall Street or any part* thereof.


The burden of proof with regard to the jurisdictional question of constitutional anti-imperialism versus federal imperialism is upon the United States or New York. They must produce the Indian treaty ceding the original tribal sovereignty; failing which no person can be upon the land other than by Indian invitation, which Occupy Wall Street does have, and any person bothering Occupy Wall Street does not have.


The trial judge and appeal court presumably and quickly will brush it aside. Then Occupy Wall Street can apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal to it. At that juncture, the Justices of that Court will face a challenge they have never before had to face. They publicly and quite simply will be seen either to uphold the anti-imperial commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the Constitution, or, alternatively, to commit treason by burying them under the federal imperial legislation.


You don't need a lawyer to raise and answer the constitutional question of imperialism and court costs are modest when lawyers are not involved. All your court document need do is cross reference and adopt the law at the website "Might Is Not Right." From that point forward, the law can speak for itself; and it is simple, clear and plain.


Please do this. Do it for the sake of the earth and all its living beings. The chance will not come again. The Mahican and Mi'kmaq Tribes' Case and the law it identifies is the only prospect for pulling the country back from the brink of the abyss, in time, not only to avert revolution but annihilation.


-------------------------

*NOTE: Since Wall Street is long you might want to focus your test case at one or more specific locations and then have a professional title searcher search title to make sure there is no Indian treaty already registered and proving a good root of title based upon a previous transfer by the Mahican tribe of its constitutionally secured territorial sovereignty to the United States and New York.

But use a title searcher not a lawyer because of the intractably profound conflict of interest under which the legal profession labors with regard to this issue. Prior to 1871 the profession historically began unconstitutionally certifying titles as good and marketable even though the chains of title did not reach back to an Indian treaty prior to 1871.

This was one of the reasons the first federal imperial statute the Appropriations Act of 1871 was enacted. By abolishing the previously established sovereign status of the tribes, the statute set up the situation presently being encountered by the Mahican tribe in the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. The Clerk of the US Supreme Court fraudulently refuses to the file the tribes’ complaint that the Appropriations Act of 1871 is unconstitutional on the ground it purports to repeal a constitutional right and remedy without complying with the amendment clause, which is of course a constitutional impossibility.

The legal profession certifies unconstitutional titles and the judiciary drawn from the legal profession obstructs and ignores court cases that seek to remedy this abrogation of the rule of law upon which the existence of constitutional democracy depends.

The Dutch and British era constitutions are no different than the Constitution of the United States with regard to the inviolability of the territorial sovereignty of the Indian tribes and the precondition of constitutionally valid Indian treaties before either the Netherlands, Britain or the United States can assume the sovereign power to grant possessory title and the present right of possession to any land that has not been surrendered by Indian treaty.

Years ago I had a title search done for Governor’s Island and learned that the Dutch Governor ostensibly had acquired and registered title to it in favor of himself personally pursuant to an Indian treaty that the mother country later set aside as fraudulent, thus reinstating Governor’s Island as still subject to the territorial sovereignty of the Mahican tribe, as it remains to this time, aside from the problem the corrupted courts won’t address the constitutional question not just of this but of all the other equally fraudulent titles.

As soon as the British took over from the Dutch in New York they reassured the Indian tribes their territorial sovereignty and the treaty process was saved and continued.

One of the instruments by which this was done is entitled An Act concerning purchases of lands from the Indians, Stat. Prov. New York 1684, c. 9: “Bee itt Enacted by this Gen’ll Assembly and by the authority of the same that from henceforward noe Purchase of Lands from the Indians shall be deemed a good Title without Leave first had and obtaineid from the Governor signified by a Warrant under his hand and Seale and entered on Record in the Secretaries office att New Yorke and Satisfaction for the said Purchase acknowlidged by the Indians from whome the Purchase was made is to bee Recorded likewise which Purchase soe made and prosecuted and entered on Record in the office aforesaid shall from that time be Vallid to all intents and purposes.”

This 1684 New York law was confirmed as to all land in British North America by the Royal Proclamation of 1763: “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.--…no Governor or Commander in Chief…do presume to…pass Patents…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 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…no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians…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.”

The commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the US Constitution saved and continued the same constitutional law as had previously constituted the basis for the rule of law in the Dutch and British eras of New York in general and Wall Street particular. That’s why sovereign-to-sovereign Indian treaties have to be produced from the land registry records before the United States and New York can have constitutional jurisdiction to govern and grant possession.