RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Who owns Wall Street anyway

Written by W'Lawpsh   
Thursday, 13 October 2011 12:26
Readers may wish to cross-reference this article to its subsequently published companion "Who Owns Wall Street Anyway. THE SEQUEL."


In the United States’s constitutional law which accepts Amerindian law on this legal point, Wall Street presumptively is an aspect of the great spirit and, for the present, is within the stewardship obligation of the Mahican tribe whose sovereign territory consists of such parts of the Hudson River drainage basin as have not been ceded by Indian Treaty pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. So in that sense it is not “owned” by any individual, government or corporation but rather only cared for and worried about on behalf of all living beings that live there and in the natural region of which it inextricably is a part of the whole.

Before 1789 the Treaty Clause law was the cornerstone of the law governing jurisdiction and possession by crown governments within the British Empire, as witness: Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1704-1775) in Joseph H. Smith, Appeal to the Privy Council from the American Plantations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950); An Act concerning purchases of lands from the Indians, Stat. Prov. NY 1684, c. 9; Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1, 20 (5 Pet.) (1831), explained at Document 8 page 1 paragraph 4 DETERMINATIVE PRECEDENT, Case Court Documents, Might is Not Right, IN THE MATTER OF Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States; and Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 542, 544, 545, 546, 552, 553, 559, 560, 583 (1832), quoted at Document 2 page 8 note 8.

As explained throughout the said website and the set of Articles by W’Lawpsh published by Reader Supported News, the Commerce, Defence and Treaty Clauses of the Constitution of the United States as settled in the era of constitutional democracy 1789-1871 establish the United States can regulate trade with foreign Nations and Indian tribes pursuant to the Commerce Clause provided it maintains the peace by respecting their sovereignty by not entering upon their territory except with permission pursuant to the Treaty Clause or, if any should start a war by invading the United States, by retaliating in self defence pursuant to the Defence Clause. And, correspondingly, the reason since 1871 the United States has not been at peace with Indian tribes and foreign Nations but rather has invaded, occupied, usurped and dispossessed at will in breach of the Constitution is that the Supreme Court of the United States obstructs and ignores the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of conflict between the Constitution and the Appropriations Act of 1871 and the War Powers Act of 1973.

The Case of the Mahican and Mi’kmaq Tribes is the most recent so far as is known to have raised the constitutional question upon which depends the reinstatement of constitutional democracy and correspondingly an end to the wars and genocides by the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional empire against foreign Nations and Indian tribes in abrogation of the constitutional values of justice, tranquility, defence, welfare and liberty in peace and with respect for the sovereignty of others so long as they respect the sovereignty of the United States. This might be termed, “The you-leave-us-alone-and-we’ll-leave-you-alone position where “us” stands for the United States.” In any event, the Clerk of the US Supreme Court refuses to file the Case so the Judges can do their constitutional duty of upholding the Constitution’s policy of peace with respect against the war mongers’ and money managers’ mortally competing policy of war with contempt for others.

The stewardship of the Mahican Tribe with regard to Wall Street is not a threat to anyone other than those whose fortunes are dependant upon the continuity of the unconstitutional empire that the tribe intends to have the Supreme Court terminate by declaring unconstitutional the two federal statutes upon which it relies for its war jurisdiction based upon the assumption of American sovereignty over the entire world, as proclaimed by the conjunction of the Appropriations Act of 1871 (Indian tribes) and the War Powers Act of 1973 (foreign Nations). The reason is, stewardship helps even the imperialists although they are too preoccupied with gratifying their will to money and power to look up from self, family and co-imperialists to become aware of the unity of creation and the interdependence of all its aspects. If they could raise their eyes from the banal to the sublime they could read and understand the significance of the stewardship obligation under which all Peoples labor. The Case of the Mahicans and Mi’kmaqs explains this under the sub-heading “THE WAY” in Document 1 pages 6-8 paragraph 3(f) as follows.

The compulsory imposition of the newcomers’ culture based upon the human domination of nature, upon the misapprehension nature is severable and its parts are available for exploitation with indifference to the reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence upon the unified whole, respect and reverence for which is “The Indian Way,” the old way of being, thinking, feeling and above all knowing in each individual’s heart of hearts, has been the Indians’ problem for a very long time, so long, in fact, that the clock can not be turned back or damages awarded commensurate with the past suffering.

All that can be done, from the point of view of the applicants [Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic] and other constitutional (as opposed to federal) Indian governments whose constituents still identify the individual self with the unified Self that is the great spirit or nature or whatever other name one assigns to that awareness, is to serve as stewards of the shared environment to the extent that fate and their attention to that duty permits.

All the Peoples who are on the applicants’ land, now, without regard to race, color or creed, who have put down roots and become part of it like the applicants themselves, are one with nature and beneficiaries of the stewardship obligation whether or not they appreciate it.

There is therefore no reason for newcomers and their structures for the political administration of their awesome military, industrial and technological power to feel threatened by setting free the truth that will set us all, nature included, free.

But they do fear this anyway because not understanding “the Indian Way” they attribute to us their own cultural Way.

Perhaps they feel all humans, given the chance, will think and feel like they do. If so, they do not only not understand us but they ignore the safety net provided by their own Constitution that they can amend, in the proper way.

In sum, the applicants’ Way of stewardship precludes a rational basis for the fear that fosters willful blindness and deafness to the Constitution as it is written and, even if the applicants were themselves to undergo some epiphany of conversion to the newcomer Way of predation against all, that same Constitution provides a legal remedy, the remedy of a due and proper constitutional amendment pursuant to Article V.

Not a judicial amendment of the constitution but rather a constitutional amendment of the constitution.

A judicial amendment, for example, would occur if the US Supreme Court were to obstruct and ignore the prevention of the continuing of the unconstitutional war and genocide identified in the 2011 Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. The Case asks the Court to answer the question asked, answered and invited by Justice Clarence Thomas in the 2004 Case of United States v. Lara.

The Clerk of the Court is refusing to file the Case so the Full Court can answer the question that Justice Thomas has noticed, answered and invited back to the Court for confirmation or rejection. Justice Thomas’s answer is, the Appropriations Act of 1871 is void for conflict with the constitution.

The Clerk of the Court at this moment (and since 1871 actually) is getting away with causing global war and genocide by relying upon a statute that he knows is prima facie null and void. Until it is rejected by the Full Court the answer given by Justice Thomas in 2004, and the Full Court in the constitutional democracy era 1789-1871, is “the law” for the purposes of “constitutional democracy under the rule of law.”

Unconstitutional empire hangs by that thread.

Well, maybe cable, if the Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr., is behind the Clerk on this. And if he is? He has the Judicial Conference of the United States sorted out as well as its administrative no less than its judicial head.

But still, can even the Chief Justice; or the Full Court, or the President, or Congress or all working together maintain their unconstitutional empire over the People’s constitutional democracy? your social media marketing partner
Email This Page


THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.