Sovereign idiocy in native American communities

[wserra]

The Sevierville court case only has one piece of information posted on the web, for privacy of the person involved, which in this case would be me.

Alright, I'll drop the sarcasm.

The problem is that, in the name of "privacy", the information you post is unverifiable. If you truly are interested in proclaiming your native sovereignty, why do you care about privacy? You are sovereign. You could post your name on billboards. You want people to verify what you say. You essentially make the claim that you are immune to laws of general application. That's an extraordinary claim, for which you offer no proof at all - let alone extraordinary proof.

If it's a con, on the other hand . . . .

Frauds usually charge a large amount to make as much money as possible and get out.

Frauds charge what they can get.

you have NO understanding of the subject matter.

Well, no, that's clearly wrong. Many people here have substantial knowledge of the law. Plenty to know that you guys don't.

Come on people, just admit you don't know everything, and that somebody just might be a little more informed than you.

Lots of people know more than I, about lots of subjects. We're not discussing lots of subjects; we're discussing the law. Your posts and web sites make it clear that you guys don't know very much at all about the law. Why don't you post one of those legal arguments, complete with citations, which you claim won those alleged cases for you? Let's see how it goes.

I can't recite all the legal terms that apply, but I know someone who has it all researched and the law books to back it up

Who might that be? What "law books"? Or is this another "privacy" thing?

UNOTI isn't forcing anyone to get involved.

The difference between a robbery and a con is force. They're both larcenies.

All I want is for you people to STOP posting on something you obviously DO NOT understand.

But we do understand. There are hundreds of these things. They're the subjects of this board. They're called "scams".

[Thule]

I can't recite all the legal terms that apply, but I know someone who has it all researched and the law books to back it up

I have looked at the scans posted at your site. Sorry to say, but picking isolated sentences from a collection of books and using them out of context is not research.

And a lot of the books quoted is not of much value. For instance, it is noted that before 1800, the US Government would deal with the Indian nations as they were foreign nations. It is an interesting historical fact, but legally it is worth next to nothing.

[Pottapaug1938]

Oh, and the entire US Constitution is derived from the Iroquois Great Law of Peace, which is made up of over 100 wampum belts, isn't that cute?

Your claim of the origin of the US Constitution is not "cute", it's 100% unadulterated equine digestive byproducts. The only people who believe that breathtaking piece of idiocy are 1) those people who are trying to actively confuse us or 2) those people who have such an intense political need to believe something that they will grasp at anything -- no matter how untrue and ungrounded in historical fact -- that supports their beliefs.

Read Charles Pierce's book "Idiot America". The thought processes described in the book might seem familiar to you. Arthur Schlesinger's "The Disuniting of America" would be an excellent followup, because Schlesinger directly addresses the sort of "compensatory history" foolishness that you are trying to pass off on us.

[Thule]

Your claim of the origin of the US Constitution is not "cute", it's 100% unadulterated equine digestive byproducts.

Well, there is a bit of truth in her statement. The Iroquis-law has been recognized as one (of many) source of inspiration for the Constitution. Interesting as a historical fact, but of no legal value.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc ... res331.pdf

[Pottapaug1938]

Your claim of the origin of the US Constitution is not "cute", it's 100% unadulterated equine digestive byproducts.

Well, there is a bit of truth in her statement. The Iroquis-law has been recognized as one (of many) source of inspiration for the Constitution. Interesting as a historical fact, but of no legal value.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resourc ... res331.pdf

OK, then. It's 95% equine digestive byproducts -- although I wonder if the Senate may have been hoping to finesse a potential political sh*tstorm by issuing the resolution, which speaks in generalities and is devoid of historical documentation. The Iroquois Confederation was a great thing; but we do ourselves no favors by overinflating its historical importance.

[kinikia]

777

[wserra]

I've responded to kinikia in a PM with an email address to which she can send her docs, assuming (which is not clear to me from her post) that she does not mind if I link to them in the form she sends them to me.

Posting jpgs as images here frequently doesn't work well, depending on the size of the jpg.

[Pottapaug1938]

Kinikia is almost Van Peltian in her ability to dodge, weave and evade whenever a direct question is asked of her. Having her here ought to be interesting....

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="kinikia"]

A poker player doesn't show his cards if he wants to win.

... and we are calling your hand. Publicly. On this forum. Just like the rest of us. Put the documents on this forum, and then we'll talk further.

[kinikia]

777

[kinikia]

777

[wserra]

kinikia did, in fact, email me three jpgs. Now is as good a time as any to discuss them, since we are buried under 15+ inches of heavy, wet snow, and it appears that the our street has not been plowed for several hours (if at all). BTW, kinikia, you should know (if you don't already) that your email client does display a name. PM me if you want more details.

One of the three is the same doc as on the website - a blank form on which someone has printed the words "valid license", a few zeros, and a couple of check marks. That's it. Another is the identical blank form on which someone has written "valid insurance", and what appears to be initials above the "judge" line. The third appears to be a traffic summons for unlicensed operation, name redacted.

kinikia, let me explain a little about the nature of legal proof. It shares a very important characteristic with scientific proof in that both must be verifiable. If I claim a revolutionary new process that accomplished cold fusion in my kitchen, I will be met only with derision unless I can lay out the steps that let others do so as well. If I claim to be a sovereign nation capable of granting citizenship and its accoutrements (like driver's licenses) while on US soil, I will similarly be met only with derision unless I can cite legal authority that grants me the power to do so and verifies that I and others have prevailed in court based on that authority. The documents you provide don't come close. What would? Well, a good start would be a written decision (preferably from an appellate court but a trial court will do for now) recognizing that UNOTI has the power to issue valid driver's licenses. You have nothing like that.

One other thing: it's the rare traffic court action that means anything at all. As anyone who has sat in traffic court knows, tickets are dismissed for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with the law. Cops don't show up. Somebody has a good story. The judge is in a hurry (yes, I have seen that). Moreover, according to our colleague bmielke, one can walk into a TN traffic court, pick up that form, and create him/herself the purported orders you sent me. You make an extraordinary claim - that some group of self-declared sovereigns can set themselves up as a co-equal government. You need to prove that, or yes, in taking people's money for snake oil you are running a scam.

Final word about the true legal status of recognized tribes - forget UNOTI, which has the same legal status as the Hekawis from "F-Troop". They are not close to independent sovereigns. Ever since a series of decisions by then Chief Justice Marshall beginning with Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823), tribes have the status of limited self-rule over their own territories. They have no power to legislate over others outside their property. For details, see Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

So: you still need to prove that your UNOTI license is worth anything, and why, if it is not, charging for it is not a scam.

[bmielke]

In 08 there was a Jeffery Davis Rader General Sessions Judge of Sevier County. Wserra is correct in that anyone can creat an order using that form and submitt it to be signed. It is very strange and I will look again that the "Signed" Order is not time/date stamped. Usually an Order goes directly from the Judge to the clerk and then copies may be obtained there. The only exception I know of is the Order granting an Affidavit of Indegency. In that case it needs to be filed with your complaint/petition and may go back to a lawyer's office before being filed.

[wserra]

I see something else on the UNOTI site, which basically removes any lingering doubt about whether the whole thing is a scam - a document which, they claim, "protects all Indians from Taxation ... as Natives, we are non-taxable, not tax exempt, but non-taxable". And I assume that you can attain that marvelous status by the simple act of purchasing citizenship and a passport from UNOTI for the modest total fee of $225.

Well, no, you can't. Native Americans are just as subject to income tax as are the rest of us, with a few exceptions - and those exceptions are due to statute, not any considerations of "sovereignty". They are certainly not due to any UNOTI mumbo-jumbo.

[Nikki]

Kinikia wrote "my current Cherokee License and Citizenship Card"

Interestingly enough, both of these are valid, legal documents.

A number of Tribes have been granted the authority to issue their osn identification documents, driver's licenses and vehicle license plates.

[wserra]

Interestingly enough, both of these are valid, legal documents.

Do you have a reference for that, Nikki? I was aware that certain tribes issued their own vehicle registrations - the Cherokee can and do - but am somewhat surprised that any issue driver's licenses.

In any event, even the registrations are only for those who live on tribal lands. Federally-recognized tribal lands.

[kinikia]

777

[kinikia]

777

[wserra]

It seems as though you all expect me to tell you and show you everything we have ever done to get where we are.

I don't see anyone asking you that. I see people asking you to prove that your stuff does what you claim for it. I suggested to you what that proof might consist of. You haven't responded.

It seems as though no one wants to believe that it is even possible to achieve what we already have.

Because you haven't proven that you've achieved squat.

We declared independence from the United States of America.

Several friends and I did that once. We were about ten years old at the time. It didn't do anything then either.

Don't quote McIntosh, Chief John Marshall or Andrew Jackson

In other words, in a conversation about law, don't quote law? I can see why you might prefer that, but it is hardly a reasonable request. And I didn't quote Andrew Jackson, but would be glad to do so: “Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error”.

This is what your people did to our people.

Tell me, who are "my people"?

Then signed Treaties with our Nations, here on The Great Turtle Island, and then committed genocide on our people.

I don't dispute that. I do wonder what it has to do with whether you can issue valid driver's licenses.

Everything you all are saying on this site is in genecidal mode.

Well, then, I think you ought to file a criminal complaint against me with the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. You don't believe you are being just slightly hyperbolic?

Before you put up selective pages from a website and "decide" that its a fraud, why don't you contact the people involved first?

Because I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the website says what you intended it to say. If it does, why do I need to speak with anyone? If it doesn't, why don't you fix it?

Copyright infringements were committed just to blog your opinion about claims of something being fraudulent

If that's what you believe - well, you know who I am, why don't you sue me? Before doing that, though, you might look into something called "fair use". Wikipedia has a pretty good summary.

Snip the list of good things you claim to be attempting. Perhaps you are. But you are not "independent", and you can't deliver on things you advertise. Good intentions notwithstanding, what does that make you?

Referring to the page with the document that liberates one from the income tax:

If you read the description and paid any attention to where you were you would have seen you were on the Archives page, that document was taken in the raid on BIA in the 70's. It was posted for historical reasons.

Oh. Perhaps you can point out where it says that on the page. And it's not even the document itself that makes the claim, but your commentary on it, to its left: "This Document to the right, protects all Indians from Taxation". Moreover, it appears immediately below a commercial for your $22 CD concerning "Traditional Customary Agreement and the Gieneragowa, or Kieneragowa known in English as the "Great Law of Peace" used as a Constitution by Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island". Is that posted for "historical" reasons too? If someone wants it, do they have to pay you the $22 in "historical" money?

[Thule]

Before you put up selective pages from a website and "decide" that its a fraud, why don't you contact the people involved first? Copyright infringements were committed just to blog your opinion about claims of something being fraudulent, but you haven't proven anything, only that you don't know all the facts about what we are doing. You wanted papers from a court, I gave them to you, sorry they didn't look official enough, but we didn't make them up. .

Ahh, the old infringement-argument. Kinikia, that argument has been tried before. Unfortunatly for you, a claim of copyright does not mean that you gets to decide who is worthy enough to discuss the claims posted on the page.

Just think about it, there are hundres of pages claiming that McDonalds is bad for your health. If discussing McDonalds© constitutes an infringement, don't you think Ronald and his army of lawyers would have taken steps? So, with all due respect, if you think copyright is beeing violated, you can sue me or you can stop wasting bandwidth. But don't expect me to take such claims serious.

As for the "papers", you claimed to have court documents proving the validity of your theoris. You turned out to be wrong. Instead of bemoaning how it "didn't look official enough", you could post *real* court documents. It was your claim that such documents existed, not mine.

Oh, and one more thing. Would you mind adding some space in your posts? Huge, uninterrupted blocks of text are hard to read&quoute.