You are on page 1of 96

TM

TM
Disclaimer
The information mentioned herein is a
compilation of the results of various research
efforts and is for your personal research.

NOTICE is given in accordance with Title 17


U.S.C. Section 107; this booklet is not offered as
legal advice or legal instruction, and the reader
should not construe this information as such
under any circumstance, present or future. This
material is distributed for research purposes only!
Do the work!

Seeking the Truth through


research, study, application, and
diligence towards
Realization of Self.
PERSONAL GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT
TO ASSIST IN YOUR RESEARCH:

 Set up a study area, complete with designated days & times.


Keep these appointments with yourself.
 Invest in all the tools required, i.e. computer, printer, globe,
highlighters, pen/pencils, journal, reference books, good light-
ing, comfortable chair, desk, bookcase, DVD player, cable
TV, Internet access, clock, small refrigerator, tea/coffee pot &
accessories, etc.
Study time required: Indefinite.
For your study/library, complete with the basics:
 The United States Constitution (7 Articles)
Study it. Research each word as it relates to law. Memorize it.
Know everything about it. Teach it. You must be able to defend
yourself based on this research.
 21 Amendments: The 9th amendment was amended to
become the 13th amendment. So, actually there are only 20.
Familiarize yourself with each one as it relates to you.
 Declaration of Independence
 Bill of Rights
 Indian Commerce Clause (Article I, section 8, Clause 3)
(Note: A PDF discussing it can be found online)

3 Commonly Used Law Dictionaries & Reference Tools:


 Black’s Law Dictionary-*Make sure to use 4th Edition!!
 Ballentine’s Law Dictionary
 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
 Unabridged English Dictionary
 Latin Dictionary (these 3 dictionaries should be Unabridged)
 Spanish Dictionary
 Greek Dictionary
 Thesaurus
 Google Online: Administrative Law
 Uniform Commercial Code (Contract Law)
It’s critical to research every term you’re not familiar with.
It is said, ”If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.”
The Research undertaken and presented inside of this
publication has led to profound understanding of the terms com-
mon law, jurisdiction, citizenship, American, Naturalized, Nation-
alized, and Indigenous citizen status /standing, and should be con-
tinually researched by America’s people everywhere. If a man or
woman understands his/her Rights, he/she then understands the
law, and benefits from the law, and enjoys his/her Rights.

QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU FIT IN?


The Study of Jurisdiction & Status is for the man
or woman who believes the next man or woman’s Rights are as pre-
cious as his or her own. This study is for the benefit of all Sentient
Beings, and it is an encouragement to those searching to correct herit-
age history and remove the shackles of oppression.
Through knowledge we abolish corrupt officers of the law, and
we reintroduce happiness and harmony back into our communities
[because we gain respect];
Through knowledge, we abolish corrupt prosecutors of the law
and gain freedom for our abused and imprisoned children who
have fed the SLAVE SYSTEM (jail) far too long;
Through knowledge we abolish corrupt judges and replace them
with better ones;
Through knowledge we abolish the legislators who give corrupt
power to those who wish to subjugate us all...forever.
Ultimately, through knowledge, we learn to respect the real law;
the law of Great Mother Earth and the law of the
Creator of All.

TM

TM

TM
Disclaimer 3
Personal Growth & Development 4
To Be Free 7
THE BULLETIN: STOP ABUSIVE CORRUPT PROSECUTORS! 9
Official Oppression 12
Jurisdictions 15
The Enacting Clause 19
Common Law & Jurisdiction Section I– Born in America 20
Case Law Citations 22
Hearsay 23
Just Say No! 24
Common Law & Jurisdiction Section II– Federal “Bill of Rights” 25
Common Law & Jurisdiction Section III– Rights are Protected 29
Jurisdiction Challenges 31
7 Elements of Jurisdiction 32
Right to Travel Roads and Highways 35
Due Process 39
Necessity of Evidence 40
Your Status in Jurisdiction 43
The Reasonable Man 46
Facts and Facts Alone 50
What is Truth? 51
The 4th Amendment 52
Papal Bulls 54
Clinton Executive Orders: COLLATERAL 55
Constitutional Protections Almost Gone 58
U.S. Salvage Claim 60
NAAIP 2015 Mandate 61
14th Amendment Citizen Trickery 62
U.S. Definition of ‘Indian’ 63
UN Definition of The Indigenous 64
Indian Affairs Hearing July 12, 2012 65
Erasing History 66
Slaves to the U.S. Debt 73
In Honor of The Empress 74
Emmanual Afraka Article / David Imotep Ph.D. 75
The Truth About Slaves 77
Negro Heritage 80
The Forgotten Story of American Indian Slavery 82
The Dark History of Memphis, Tennessee 84
1866 Chickasaw Choctaw Treaty 89
Filing Suits in the Proper Court 90
Reclamation 91
Time to Illuminate BACK COVER
To Be Free Page 7

TO BE FREE
When a Freeman or Freewoman is compelled to do any-
thing, except upon the verdict of a Lawful Jury, this consti-
tutes Enforcement of Equity Law or Roman Civil Law
known today as Commercial Law. All rules and regulations
of our courts must be in harmony with the constitutions in
order to be valid- otherwise the orders are null and void.

Common International Law (CIL) provides a jurisdiction


where the people’s Rights are protected. Common Law is
founded and grounded upon substantive Rights (real proper-
ty, your Body, etc.). In Common International Law, when
applied properly with the “Alien Tort Statute” (ATS), no city
ordinance, code, rule, policy, regulation, or ‘legislative
order can override the absolute guarantees provided in
the Constitution for the United States.
Law Merchant or Admiralty is based on paper debt, credit,
checks and banking, which allows a summary process; a pro-
cess that does not allow a jury and gives no due process of
law. In Volume 16. American Jurisprudence. 277, it states
the following: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional
statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reali-
ty no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any pur-
pose. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed. Since an unconsti-
tutional law is void, the general principles follow that it im-
poses no duties (penalties, fines), confers no rights, creates
no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords
no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. Fur-
ther, a void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid
one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede
any existing valid law of the land, it is superseded thereby.”
Unconstitutional laws hold NO VALIDATION!
Page 8

Jurisdiction and Status is a rendering of the publica-


tion Author’s notes, research files, and legal processes. He used these
files and notes in defense of false claims levied against him by tenacious
prosecutors, public defenders, and judges in the Western District of
Tennessee, America.

The compiled notes herein trace a brief history of Law, Jurisdiction, and
Indigenous International and National Status, and are provided as a study
and research guide for friends, family, researchers and supporters. The
notes and case law references reveal internal practices and policies
of misconduct and corrupt workings within the legal system at all
levels from law enforcement officers to prosecutors and judges.
The Author is a member of the Chakchiuma Sektchi Nation and is
a descendant of the currently known Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shaw-
nee, Creek people. He is the current National Director of the Na-
tional Association for the Advancement of Indigenous People.

In 2005, at the request of local attorney Javier Bailey, the minister initiated
peaceful picket and protest to raise awareness to the issues of gangs, drugs,
hip-hop culture, and the results of law enforcement inter-action. The protest
demanding a fair trial for national hip hop artist and rapper Tab “Turk”
Virgil in front of the Shelby County Criminal Justice complex in downtown
Memphis, Tennessee, gained local and national media attention; it also
gained unwanted attention and threats from local deputy sheriffs and police.

After the conclusion of the Turk trial, local law enforcement initiated an
illegal raid at the apartment where the minister and his family were visiting.
The “Bishop”, as he is affectionately called, was illegally detained and
charged with possession of a weapon (legally owned), and possession of
controlled substance (his wife’s legally prescribed medication located in a
kitchen cabinet). These blatant illegal actions against his Rights,
along with subsequent acts of judicial and prosecutorial conspira-
cy, thrust him into a life of perpetual legal and spiritual research,
which he shares freely with all who will listen.
“Remain steady; they have one thing on their tongue, the oppo-
site on their heart; even in their dreams they do not know the
CREATOR, nor the path to the CREATOR. In this world, sorrow
will always find them; they that rock and sway are NEVER
steady.” Kabir the Saint
STOP ABUSIVE-CORRUPT PROSECUTORS!
Author’s Notes
FACT: According to the “Rules of Criminal Procedure”, a proper
criminal COMPLAINT or AFFIDAVIT must be filed before AR-
RAIGNMENT. In many cities and towns across America criminal com-
plaints are often filed weeks after police have made an arrest, and that
is ILLEGAL.
FACT: In October 2005, before relocating to Atlanta, Georgia, I was
illegally detained and arrested by Memphis Police Officers Jimmy
Lewis, Badge # 4959, and J.P. Smith, Badge # 1676, during a failed
“Operation Blue Crush” break in. These arresting officers, assuming
protection under Brisco vs. LaHue, committed fraud by filing false
information inside Affidavit of Complaint (criminal complaint) to vali-
date my arrest. Their acts were deliberate violations of law, therefore,
they have no immunity protection; Screws v US 325 U.S. Further, Leg-
er v Warren 57 NE 506 states: “To afford protection to the officer or
person making an arrest, the authority must be strictly pursued; and ‘no
unreasonable delay’ in procuring a “proper warrant” for the prisoner’s
detention can be excused or tolerated.”
TRUTH: Before a valid arrest warrant can be issued, the judicial of-
ficer issuing the warrant must be supplied with sufficient information to
support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the
warrant; Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971); a factually suffi-
cient basis for the probable cause judgment must appear within the
“Affidavit of Complaint”, and if hearsay evidence is relied upon, the
basis for the credibility of both the informant, and the informant's infor-
mation, must also appear in the “Affidavit of Complaint”, otherwise
affidavit is fatally defective, Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969).
Page 10

FACT: In October 2005, I also filed a certified copy of Judge Dwyer’s


signed Oath into the record, in open court, hoping to encourage him to
honor the Constitutions, which he swore oath to uphold. I also filed
motion for ‘Bill of Particulars’ in accordance with TRCP Rule 7(c) and
Subdivision (c). The District Attorney’s Office refused my request, and
then began an all out assault against me because I personally delivered
a copy of the request to the DA’s Office, and because I chose to defend
myself without an attorney. I refused an attorney because, according to
the latest publication of “Corpus Juris Secundum” legal encyclopedia,
volume 7, section 4, an attorney's first duty is to the Courts and the
Public, not the Client. Attorneys have an obligation to do what the
judge orders them to do, and many judges violate the law and do what-
ever the prosecutor wants them to do.
FACT: On April 18th, 2006, when I arrived for a hearing at Division
Six courtroom, I was arrested and detained, without due process, by
former Judge Waymon Fred Axley because I refused to accept court
appointed counsel, which was my right under Faretta Vs. California,
422 U.S. 806 (1975). In Faretta Vs. California, the Supreme Court of
the United States held that criminal defendants have a Constitutional
right to refuse counsel and defend themselves in state criminal process.

Within minutes of the detention, Judge Axley conspired with Assistant


District Attorney Bailey and Assistant Public Defender William Yon-
kowski to send me to a mental institution for six weeks because I re-
fused to accept Yonkowski as my attorney. During this nine-day kid-
napping, I suffered a stroke and was hospitalized in chains, leaving my
wife and children no access to me, or knowledge of my condition. My
wife was even threatened with arrest if she were to contact the hospital
to inquire about my condition. After being released from custody, I
filed an FBI complaint against Judge Axley for kidnapping [false ar-
rest] and violation of ‘Due Process’. (Note: Three months later, Judge
Axley was removed from the bench due to numerous complaints.)
After my release from custody, I secured a copy of my case file from
the clerk’s office at 201 Poplar. In that file, I found a fraudulent crimi-
nal affidavit and a copy of a fraudulent mental hospital order signed by
Judge Axley, as well as Attorney William Otis Yonkowski, who was
claiming to be my attorney. In August 2007, I returned to Division Six
courtroom again for the same charge. This time District Attorney Gib-
bons’ office offered to dismiss their bogus charges if I agreed to pay
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to any charity of my choosing.
Instead, I demanded an immediate trial by jury. CASE was
Page 11

Judges and prosecutors often violate the law; and when a judge or dis-
trict attorney does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his/her
orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S., and “he/she is without juris-
diction and case should be dismissed, jurisdiction cannot be presumed”,
Smith v. McCullough 46 S.Ct. 338, and “Once jurisdiction is chal-
lenged, it must be proven.” Hagens v. Lavine 415 U.S. 533, and “No
sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.” Standard v.
Olsen 74 S.Ct. 768.
**Take caution to ‘rights waived’ through the 14th Amendment.

TRUTH: Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdic-
tion to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason, U.S. v.
Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980);
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821),
and is in clear violation of law.
FACT: Prosecutors routinely advise police to arrest and imprison with-
out concern for a magistrate. An arresting officer is fully aware of the
effect and the illegality of the arrest he/she makes; see Screws v State,
which states the officer is criminally culpable and civilly liable for the
consequences of false arrest, which is Aggravated Kidnapping. Such
actions of false imprisonment are in violation of Trezevant v City of
Tampa, 741 F2d 336 (11th Circuit, 09/06/1984), which allows
$72,000 per hour for false imprisonment after false arrest.

TRUTH: Public defenders are not immune from liability under 42


USCS 1983 for intentional misconduct, under color of law, by virtue of
alleged conspiratorial action, with state officials that deprive their cli-
ents of federal rights, Tower v. Glover, 467 US914, 104S Ct2820, 81L
Ed2d 758.

TRUTH: To the detriment of all Americans, the structures, practices,


and patterns of discrimination and abuse in our society are born
from an intrinsically corrupt legal system, and have caused sig-
nificant damage and suffering, re. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,
78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958), also in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,
94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974), "when a state officer [public defender,
etc.] acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Constitution, he
is stripped of his official capacity and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct removing his immunity from
prosecution.”
Page 12 OFFICIAL OPPRESSION
The Actions of Official Oppression
In the actions leading to the arrest of this Writer, many laws were
broken; these actions are called “Official Oppression” and they
happen all day all across the country. Official Oppression can in-
clude actions of “Due Process Violations”, “Aggravated Assault”,
“Conspiracy”, “False Arrest”, etc. These actions are encouraged
and promoted by rogue prosecutors and judges all the time and in
most alleged drug cases.
In Corporate Administrative Courts, Judges can do whatever they
want; BUT... if WE understand the tricks of the courts, WE can de-
mand change and force judges to follow the LAW! Stand on your square
and learn basic truth! WE CAN CHANGE THESE ILLEGAL
COURTS, and the False Arrests and False Convictions will GO
AWAY!!!
In these instances, the police, prosecutors and judges are aware of
the oppression against you; they are in possession of what is called
“having prior knowledge, authority, power, opportunity to prevent
or aid in preventing injury, damage, to Claimant”, Title 42 USCS
Section 1986, as applies to public officials, Officers, by the exist-
ence of an agreement between 2 or more persons, acting in a pri-
vate conspiracy, McNalley v Pulitzer Pub. Co. (1976) 532 F 2d 69,
429 US 855, 50 L Ed 2d 131, for deprivation of substantive
Rights, Dickerson v City Bank & Trust (1983) 575 F Supp 872,
regardless of source, Gillespie v Civiletti (1980) 629 F2d 637, 30
FR Serv 2d 407, to conspire, through said conspiracy, to impede or
hinder, or obstruct or defeat the due course of justice in a State or
Territory, with the purposeful intent to deny the equal protection
of the law, under color of State law or authority, or other, Griffin v
Breckinridge (1971) 403 US 88, 29 L Ed 2d 338, 91 S Ct 1790,
depriving Claimant of having or exercising a Right, Federal Con-
spiracy to Obstruct Justice Act (Title 42 USCS Section 1985(2)),
by invidiously, discriminatory, class based animus, Rowe v Ten-
nessee (1977) 431 f Supp 1257, for political motivations, Grimes v
Smith (1985) 776 F2d 1359, Cameron v Brock (1973) 473 F2d
608, by ostensibly government actions, Gemini Enterprises v
WFMY (1979) 470 F Supp 559, deprivation of due process, even
by federal officials, Williams v Wright (1976) 432 F Supp 732.
OFFICIAL OPPRESSION Page 13

Being advised, as in Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908),


“The attempt of a State Officer to enforce an unconstitutional
statute is a proceeding without authority of and does not affect,
the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an ille-
gal act, and the officer is stripped of his official character and is
subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual con-
duct. The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity
from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
Official Oppression. A public servant acting under color of office
or employment (acting or purporting to act in an official capacity
or taking advantage of actual or purported capacity) who inten-
tionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention,
stop, frisk, halt, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that
the servant knows is unlawful, or intentionally denies or impedes
another in the exercise of enjoyment of any right, privilege, pow-
er, or immunity, when the servant knows the conduct is unlawful,
commits the Class E felony of official oppression (T.C.A. § 39-16-
403).
Official Oppression often begins with an inter-action with law
enforcement. Many times the acts of law enforcement are per-
formed against a person’s rights under “Color of Law” which is
not real law. When acts are committed against you under color
of law, the police officer can be lose his job, go
to jail and or be sued.
Following is “COLOR OF LAW”
information and description from the
Federal Bureau of Investigations;
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm
“It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law will-
fully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. "Color of
law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power giv-
en to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal).
Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by
local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their
lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their law-
ful authority.
Off-duty conduct may also be covered under color of law, if the per-
petrator asserted their official status in some manner.
Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforce-
ment officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in
some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting
state authority, such as private security guards.
While the federal authority to investigate color of law type violations
extends to any official acting under "color of law", the vast majority
of the allegations are against the law enforcement community.
The average number of all federal civil rights cases initiated by the
FBI from 1997 -2000 was 3513. Of those cases initiated, about 73%
were allegations of color of law violations. Within the color of
law allegations, about 82% were allegations of abuse of force
with violence (59% of the total number of civil rights cases
initiated).

The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States


Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in
the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provi-
sions does not require that any racial, religious, or other dis-
criminatory motive existed. Most of the FBI's color of law
investigations would fall into five broad areas:
 excessive force;
 sexual assaults;
 false arrest/fabrication of evidence;
 deprivation of property; and failure to keep from harm.
While some types of force used by law enforcement may be
violent by their very nature, they may be considered
"reasonable," based upon the circumstances. However, viola-
tions of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force
used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive" against indi-
viduals.

Sexual assaults by officials acting under "color of law" could


happen in a variety of venues. They could occur in court sce-
narios, jails, and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the set-
tings where an official might use their position of authority to
coerce another individual into sexual compliance. The compli-
ance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action
against the other individual if they do not comply.
Jurisdictions Page 15

Jurisdictions
You have no legal or moral responsibility to waive your right for
the convenience of the courts. Always remember that the court
system is supposed to be a long and tedious process.
Due process is supposed to be difficult; don’t ever make it easier
for the government to prosecute you. Once you challenge jurisdic-
tion in a criminal case, the courts have the burden of proof pursu-
ant to 5USC 556(d).
It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is
the first order of pleading, and that any plea which refers to the
court, or any other question, is a tacit admission that the court has
a right to judge in the cause, and is a waiver to all exception to the
jurisdiction. GIRTY Vs. LOGAN. 6 Bush Ky. 8
In other words, THE ONLY STATEMENT MADE TO A
COURT IS THE STATEMENT
C J
HALLENGING URISDICTION!
“Whenever it appears upon the record that the court has no juris-
diction, nothing which the parties may do or omit to do will give
it: but here the want of jurisdiction may exist consistently with the
record; a plea to the action is a waiver to any exception to the ju-
risdiction.” Lawrence Vs. Bassett, 5 Allen 140
CHANGING YOUR STATUS
If you are not a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States
Corporation, you are not subject to the Jurisdiction of the
State statutes (fake laws) and legislative process must remain
in Harmony with the
“Constitution for the United States of America”.
LEARN QUICKLY ABOUT YOUR TRUE INDIGENOUS STA-
TUS.
YOU WERE BORN A FREE MAN OR WOMAN, AND YOUR
TRUE STATUS HAS BEEN HIDDEN. WE MUST RE-EDUCATE
OUR COURTS, STOP JUDICIAL GENOCIDE, AND HOLD LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN YOUR
TRUE FREE-BORN STATUS IS VIOLATED!
Page 16 Jurisdictions
There are various types of jurisdiction which Lawful courts
must consider when weighing the merits of a case and deciding
whether or not to prosecute a criminal actions.
IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION
In Personam Jurisdiction simply means “jurisdiction over a
person”. As an American, the federal administrative courts
lack natural jurisdiction to adjudicate any matters involving
you. You are born free naturally, and legislative statutes used
by the federal and state governments to prosecute ignorant indi-
viduals do not apply to you, nor were they ever intended to.
“In common usage, the term “persons” does not include the
sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be con-
strued to do so.” Title 1 United States Code, Section 1, Note
12. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 91 L. Ed
884.

This is a form of diplomatic immunity. While you are not


excused from the real consequences of any legitimate crimes,
which you may commit against real parties, in which you cause
damage to another man or woman, as a Freeman / Freewoman,
you cannot be forced to comply with arbitrary administrative
regulations imposed by Congress on Federalized” 14th Amend-
ment Citizens, unless you are a 14th amendment citizen.
The courts charged with adjudicating matters stemming from
violations of these administrative statutes, rules, and regulations
lack “In Personam” jurisdiction over Free Natural Born Ameri-
can men and women.

The Federal and Corporate State courts are aware of this ‘want
of jurisdiction’, however, they will not freely admit their lack of
authority. When circumstances arrive, Freemen and Freewomen
have to inform the courts that the courts have no jurisdiction.
Jurisdictions Page 17

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION


Does the PROSECUTOR have Jurisdiction?

Subject Matter Jurisdiction is a different and more critical type of


jurisdiction. It goes directly to the question of whether a given
court has the authority to hear a matter, unlike “In Personam” ju-
risdiction.

Any party involved in a matter cannot waive subject matter juris-


diction, and if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has no
authority to proceed with a case. Subject matter jurisdiction may
be challenged at any time before, during, or after a trial. It may be
challenged even if the accused party has already pled guilty, been
duly convicted, and sentenced to jail.

On a conviction, a jurisdictional challenge of this type is never


limited, since it goes to the foundation of whether the court had
authority to incarcerate, or even try the individual in the first
place.

The federal administrative court system lacks “subject matter”


jurisdiction on all criminal charges used today! In other words,
every man and woman INCARCERATED today has a legitimate
challenge based upon lack of “subject matter” jurisdiction.

Once this challenge is learned, every law (Statute and Code) on


the books can be overturned. Of course, the basic common law
crimes (murder, burglary, assault, rape, arson, etc.) would remain
crimes, but the endless stream of regulatory crimes would disap-
pear.

It is essential to understand “In Personam” jurisdiction must be


challenged or the court will presume jurisdiction and may thereaf-
ter prosecute the matter against you. You must be diligent and
never waive any of your unalienable rights, regardless of the as-
sumed convenience of doing so.
Page 18 Jurisdictions

You can overturn any conviction, any proceeding, any action


brought against you by the state or federal government. A motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be denied
by the court, if the law in question lacks an enacting clause.

If you are outside of a law’s jurisdiction, that law does not apply to
you and you may ignore and dishonor it with impunity.

SUGGESTED READING:
The Authority of Law
Author: Charles A. Weisman

More Jurisdiction Case Law Citations


1. “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been
challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100S. Ct. 2502
(1980)
2.. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. “Hagens v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 533-see citation #4 below. Both of these rulings
indicate that when the Constructive Notice is used to challenge the
jurisdictional authority of a bureaucrat, then the bureaucrat must
prove jurisdiction before being able to proceed legally.
3. “Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judi-
cial proceeding are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection,
and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral
attack.” Put into plain language, this is what it means: Upon a Juris-
dictional Challenge by the defendant, a judicial action must cease
immediately. Before such action can proceed, the court’s jurisdic-
tional authority needs to be proven.
4 “No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.” Standard
v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558(b).
The Enacting Clause Page 19

The Enacting Clause


An enacting clause is the portion of a law, rule, or regulation that
identifies the relationship between the lawgiver and those who are
expected to obey the law. The enacting clause is used to identify the
authority of Laws. The statutes used to regulate American Citizens
lack enacting clauses. Every state uses its “Revised Statues,” and the
Federal Government uses the United States Codes as the law.
Every state constitution (except Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and
Delaware, and the Federal Constitution) mandates that a required en-
acting clause be part of each and every law properly enacted by the
state legislature.
In the case of the four states and federal government whose constitu-
tions lack such a mandate, state and federal Supreme Courts have
consistently ruled that an enacting clause is, never the less, a require-
ment of any properly enacted law. The Supreme Court has ruled that
any law, which lacks an enacting clause, is void on its face and need
not be obeyed. Example: The enacting clause for the Ten Command-
ments was “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of bondage
in Egypt.” Anyone hearing this message understands that it is God
who is laying down this law. The enacting clause informs the Citizen
of the authority behind the law. If the Citizen is subject to that au-
thority, then the law, which follows, has jurisdiction over him or
her.

Neither the United States Codes nor any State’s Revised Statutes
contain any enacting clauses. This means federal and state courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear any matters based upon the
United States Codes and State Revised Stat-
utes. Check the inside cover page of any State
Revised State or U. S. Code and you will find
a copyright notice.
You cannot copyright public law. This
means that all the codes and Revised Statutes
are bodies of private law or corporate law. If you are not a member
of the corporation (as identified by your possession of a non-required
social security number), then its laws do not apply to you.
OPEN YOUR EYES!
Page 20 CL & J SECTION I

COMMON LAW & JURISDICTION


SECTION I

BORN IN AMERICA

1. Common Law is the most represented law referenced in the


Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of
Rights.

2. In Common Law, we have recognized inherent Rights,


whereas in Equity Law we have no rights except those
granted by a judge at his discretion.

3. Common Law was designed to secure the Rights of people


to their property and to make it difficult for government
to take it away without due process of law.

Common Law is the basis for all law used in America.


4. When Equity, Maritime, or Admiralty law (contract law) is
used, it steals the power from the people through clever
contractual process. Common Law deals with the real,
tangible Substance; the Living Man or Woman; not the
fictitious or “Strawman”.

5. The judge inside a Common Law courtroom is a referee


of the dispute, and is bound to protect the Rights of the
parties, and the jury decides the law. But, in Equity court-
rooms,
the judge is the KING, THE RULER..

6. One can recognize Equity courts by the presence of the gold-


fringed flag. Where the gold fringe flies, there is no constitu-
tion, and you are standing in military jurisdiction under mar-
tial rule.
CL & J SECTION I Page 21

7. When a Freeman / Freewoman is compelled to do anything, ex-


cept upon the verdict of a Common Law Jury, this constitutes
enforcement of Equity Law or Roman Civil Law as practiced on
the Continent of Europe. All rules and regulations of our courts
must be in harmony with the constitutions in order to be valid,
and not null and void.

8. Common Law provides a jurisdiction where the people’s Rights


are protected. Common Law is founded and grounded upon sub-
stantive Rights (real property, your Body, etc.).

9. In Common Law, no city ordinance, code, rule, policy,


regulation, or law’ can override the absolute guarantees
provided in the Constitution.
10. Law Merchant or Admiralty is based on paper debt,
credit, checks and banking, which allow a summary
process; a process that does not allow a jury and gives
no due process of law.
11. In Volume 16. American Jurisprudence. 277, it states the
following: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional
statute, though having the form and name of law is, in
reality, no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation,
is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Since an
unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties (penalties, fines), gives no
rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on
anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed
under it.”
Page 22 Jurisdiction & Case Law Citations
Jurisdiction and Case law Citations
The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been chal-
lenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. "Hagens v. Lavine,
415 U.S. 533.
Both of these rulings indicate that when a Constructive Notice is used to
challenge the jurisdictional authority of a bureaucrat, then the bureaucrat
must prove jurisdiction before being able to proceed legally.

"Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial


proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and
afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack."
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9,
3L. Ed. 471.
Put into plain language, upon a Jurisdictional Challenge by the defend-
ant, a judicial action must cease immediately. Before such action can
proceed, the STATE’S jurisdiction as well as the court's jurisdictional
authority needs to be proven.
"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v.
Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). This means
that there can be no penalty or punishment, if there is no proof of the
plaintiff's jurisdiction in the class of case involved.

"The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof." Title 5 U.S.C., Sec.
556 (d). The proponent of the rule refers to the one who is trying to es-
tablish compliance to the statute. It is the attacking party, the plaintiff
(prosecutor or judge), that has the burden of proving that he has jurisdic-
tion over the class of case involved.
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910. This ruling says
that a Jurisdictional Challenge can be initiated at any time, even after
judgment has been rendered.
CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO BRING
THE CHARGE ALL THE WAY TO THE HIGH COURT;
the SUPREME COURT.
Page 23
Hearsay
Hearsay
Heresay is a term misunderstood by even lawyers and judges, yet its
explanation is really simple if you apply common sense and obey the
rules of the language of law. You may remember the children's story
about Chicken Licken, who said that Henny Penny said that Turkey
Lurkey said, "The sky is falling."
This is classic HEARSAY.

Hearsay testimony is not as credible as that of the


person who appears in the courtroom to testify on
his own behalf as to what was said.
If Chicken Licken said Henny Penny said Turkey
Lurkey said, “The sky is falling,” the hearsay rules
forbid judges or juries from inferring that the sky, indeed, is falling or,
even, that Turkey Lurkey or Henny Penny said it was—unless those oth-
er persons appear in court to testify on their own.
After all, Chicken Licken isn't reporting what he, himself, knows. He is
merely repeating an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not
in court and therefore is not subject to being cross-examined on the truth
of what the out-of-court declarant (in this case Turkey Lurkey) allegedly
said.We cannot be certain what Turkey Lurkey may have said about the
sky or even if he said anything at all about it, since Turkey Lurkey isn't in
court to speak in person and be cross-examined to determine the truth of
what he may or may not have said about the sky.
Such statements are hearsay and are generally inadmissible. They are
only generally inadmissible, however, because in all American
jurisdictions there are exceptions to the hearsay rules. These exceptions
go beyond the scope of this presentation, but can be found in the local
rules of evidence for your jurisdiction. The rules apply to statements
made by dying people, admissions made out of court by persons who are
defending themselves in court, and other situations, all of which are com-
mon sense to anyone who studies the exceptions. All are created to pre-
vent falsehood from prevailing, while allowing the investigative process
of evidence discovery to continue with certain controls set out specifical-
ly by the rules. Just remember that in general, Chicken Licken cannot
testify in court or in documents filed with the court about the sky condi-
tion unless he says so of his own knowledge. The attempt to establish a
fact on the basis of what someone else said when that someone else is not
in court and cannot be cross-examined is generally disal-
lowed by the hearsay rule (subject to limited exceptions).
IF THEY TRY TO FORCE
AN ATTORNEY ON YOU, SAY:
Faretta vs. California & Standard vs. Olsen
YOU: “For the record I want the proposed attorney to take the
stand under oath so I can question him and determine whether or
not he/she is competent to represent anybody.
If one does take the stand under oath just ask:
1. What is your name?
2. Are you a member of the State BAR?
3. What is your BAR number?
4. Are you a member of the American BAR?
5. What is your BAR number?
6. Are you an officer of this court?
7. Where does your first responsibility lie – with me or with the
court?
8. Is it a fact that a lawyer or attorney have a fiduciary Duty not to
be against his own client?
9. How can you possibly represent me in a fair manner as an of-
ficer of this court?
10. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
I RESPECTFULLY REFUSE TO ACCEPT
THIS PERSON AS COUNSEL.

STOP! NO ATTORNEY!
Say, “I do not wish
counsel at this time!”
Faretta vs. California 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
The Supreme Court of the United States holds that criminal
defendants have Constitutional right to refuse counsel and
defend themselves in state proceedings.
The Court must prove Jurisdiction…
DEMAND EVIDENCE!
CL & J SECTION II Page 25

COMMON LAW & JURISDICTION


SECTION II
Federal “Bill of Rights”
PLEASE PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING!!
1. As a protection against judicial corruption, the Federal “Bill Of
Rights” was drawn and adopted to guarantee estoppels to the ab-
horrent abuse found in Equity Jurisdiction of any factual or de
facto state, or federal equity jurisdiction. Equity jurisdiction, is
in fact, theft of our Rights and represents a vicious dictatorship
by those who exercise it
2. The Bill of Rights states that Federal, State and County govern-
ments, Legislative and Executive branches may not impose any
form of Equity jurisdiction upon the people, by commission of
fraud or otherwise, without the peoples’ knowledge and informed
consent; otherwise any such enactments become and are nullities,
and do not exist at Law. The Rights of Freemen and Freewomen
of America would be violated if forced to obey.
3. In 1935, the Fed created a contractual nexus for Citizens called
the “Social Security Number”.
4. In 1939, the Fed instituted the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939”.
This act is a municipal law for the District of Columbia for taxing
all federal and state employees who live and work in any federal
area.
5. The Fed could not tax outside the Fed area or Jurisdiction of Arti-
cle I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4 Section 3,
Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution, so in 1940 Congress
passed the “Buck Act” 4 USCS Sections 105-113. This act al-
lowed the Fed to create Jurisdiction for the purpose of taxa-
tion under the “Public Salary Act of 1939”.
Page 26 CL & J SECTION II

6. A federal area is any area designated by the Government as a fed-


eral area. This includes the Social Security areas designated by
the Social Security Administration, public housing areas that
receive federal funding, a home with a federal bank loan, a
road that has federal funding, and almost anything else the
Fed touches through any type of aid.
SPRINGFIELD vs. KENNY, 104 N. E. 2ND 65 (1951 App.)

7. All citizens residing in one of the several states of the Union are
classified as property, as franchisees of the Fed, and as an
“individual entity” as stated in Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox, 298,
US 193, 80 L. Ed.
8. IN 1997 PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON signed EXECUTIVE
Order 13037, where he declared the American citizens as
PROPERTY of the United States Government; review end of
this Section.

8. Under the “Buck Act”, every state has Federal areas, as evi-
denced by the gold fringe on the flag seen in schools, government
offices, and all courtrooms.
9. Under the “Buck Act”, you cannot:
 live on federal land;
 live in any federal area within any state;
 be involved in any activity i.e. 501c3 non profits; nor
 have a valid Social Security Number, a ZIP code, 911 services at
your dwelling, food stamps, a “residence”, a state or federal
drivers license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a feder-
al bank account, a federal Register Account Number relating to
individual persons, (as per Executive Order Number 9397, No-
vember 1943), or any known contract “implied or fact” that
would place you within federal jurisdiction of the municipal laws
of Congress. (American Banana Co, v. United Fruit Co., 213
U.S. 347, 356-357 (1990); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217,222, 94 L.
Ed, 3, 70S. Ct. 10 (1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v.
Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32,69 L. Ed. 828, 45 S. Ct. 402 (1925).
CL & J SECTION II Page 27

*The aforementioned information has always been presented to


us as information and services for our benefit. In actuality, all of
these “services and benefits” are tricks to secure jurisdiction over
us all.
10. A Fictional Federal “State within a State” was created, (see
Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624,73 S. Ct.
465, 476,97 L. Ed. 617 1953). Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School
Dist., 100A 2d. 621,625,375 Pa. 440).

11. The Fictional “State” is identified by the use of two letter abbrevi-
ations like “CA”, “AZ”, “TN” and “TX”, as distinguished from
the authorized abbreviations like “Calif.”, “Ariz.” “Tenn.” and
“Tex.” etc. This was accomplished by the “Buck Act”, 4
U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.

12. This fictional “State” uses ZIP codes, which are within the mu-
nicipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress (the
courts and law enforcement).

13. The “Buck Act” describes the term “State” as follows: “In This
State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the
State...and includes all territories within such limits owned ceded
to the United States of America. This definition concurs with the
“Buck Act” supra, which states:

110(e) The term “State” includes any territory or possession of the


United States.

110(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or
acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department,
establishment, of agency of the United States; and any Federal area,
or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of
any state, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such
State.

This is why in your “Constructive Notice” and “Declaration of Sta-


tus”, you must refer to your “State” as a “Republic”, which is recog-
nized by the Constitution.
Page 28 CL & J SECTION II

14. A Freeman or Freewoman born in America cannot be forced into


involuntary servitude through statutes and codes , that is, feudal-
istic performance on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any person,
real or juristic, against his 13th Article of Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States of America. Nor can he be
compelled by law, to accept, or to give, informed consent to ac-
cept an Equitable jurisdiction foreign to the Bill of Rights.
15. Thomas Jefferson said:

“Our rulers, can have no authority over (our) natu-


ral rights, only as we have submitted to them. The
rights of conscience we have never submitted. We
are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate
powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others.”

This points out the significance of the requirement of the procedures


of the Common Law, that there be an injured party, that the injured
party make a sworn complaint as to the injury that has been done to
him by the alleged Defendant. Unless this is done, the court does not
have jurisdiction over the Defendant.

We have been told, from childhood, that we have unalienable Rights,


and we do!“Unalienable” means that they cannot be taken from us,
and that we cannot be forced to give them up. There are those who
point out that, strictly speaking, we cannot even give them up volun-
tarily.
However, if we submit to those who would rule over us, it is true that
our Rights were not taken from us. As Thomas Jefferson said, we
have submitted to their rule. We have allowed ourselves to become
their slaves: There is one important fact concerning slavery, of
any sort; the institution of slavery depends upon the cooperation
of the slaves...
Without the cooperation of the slaves,
there can be no slavery!
CL & J SECTION III Page 29

COMMON LAW & JURISDICTION


SECTION III

In Common Law Our Rights are Protected

1. The Rules and Procedures of Common Law Courts were


established to protect our Property Rights making it diffi-
cult for Property to be taken from someone without Due
Process of Law.

2. We have the Right to require that an injured party swear


under oath as to damage or injury that he claims that an-
other entity / individual caused him; the right to a Corpus
Delicti, the body of the offence; “the essence of the
crime”. Under Common Law, the Courts do not have an
automatic jurisdiction.

3. Common Law Rules and Procedures specify certain


steps, or procedures, which must be done, and certain
things, which must not be done—all as a protection to
the Rights of the Accused.

4. Our Property Rights are inseparable from our Individual


Rights, and our Individual Rights are inseparable from
our Property Rights; both types of Rights are protected in
the Procedures and Due Process of the Courts of Com-
mon Law.

5. The Bill of Rights, in both U.S. and State Constitutions,


deals with matters that both governments, its agents and
agencies have no authority over at all. The govern-
ments cannot enact statutes or issue rules and regulations
binding on the individual, dealing with Rights included
in the Bill of Rights.
Page 30 CL & J SECTION III

6. The Ninth Amendment includes all of the Common Law


Rights, which are not listed or enumerated anywhere
else. The Bill of Rights are prohibitions against gov-
ernments, at any level, over the individual.

7. The Constitution authorizes Courts of Law and Courts of


Equity. When the Constitution says “Law” it means
“Common Law”, because that is what the Founding Fa-
thers meant when they said Law.

8. In Courts of Law, your Rights are protected by the Con-


stitution, and the Rules and Procedures of the Common
Law are known as Due Process of Law.

9. The Bill of Rights was adopted to avoid misconstruction


and abuse of powers by Judges; but in Courts of Equi-
ty, by the nature of Equity jurisdiction, you don’t
have any Constitutional Rights!

10. Within the existing Equity Courts, the only rights you
might acquire for yourself are the terrible so-called
“Civil Rights”, or the rights under the Uniform Com-
mercial Code. These are much lesser rights than those
of the Constitution, because the Constitutional Rights
are Natural Living Rights, whereas the former are grant-
ed privileges from an artificial government of bureau-
crats.
JURISDICTION CHALLENGES Page 31

JURISDICTION CHALLENGES
Common Law (Black’s Law Dictionary)
“As distinguished from law created by the enactment of
legislatures, the common law comprises the body of
those principles and rules of action relating to the gov-
ernment and security of persons and property, which
derive their authority solely from usages and customs of
immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and de-
crees of the courts recognizing, affirming and enforcing
such usages and customs.”
Simply put, common law is law derived from two sources:
(1) Usages and customs and (2) from the affirmations of the judgments of
the courts. In our work, we are primarily concerned with the latter part
of this definition, namely, the affirmations of the judgments of the courts.
This statement does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court must have
ruled on a particular matter. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court is the
highest court of the land, and its decisions overrule all lower court deci-
sions, if there are no U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the particular matter,
then common law simply means the affirmations of all the lower court
rulings.
Jurisdiction (Black’s Law Dictionary)
JURISDICTION: “The legal right by which judges exercise their au-
thority”. It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cog-
nizance of and decide cases. All the above definitions indicate that juris-
diction is the court’s legal right, authority, capacity, or the power to act.
When we say, “Jurisdictional Challenge,” it is the challenge to the court’s
legal right, authority, capacity, or the power to act.
Therefore, when you mount a Jurisdictional Challenge, you are challeng-
ing the prosecutors or the court’s right, or the attacking party’s court’s
right in determining the class of case involved. We are in effect saying,
“Show me proof that your court has the right to hear this case.”
Statutory law refers to legislated law: the acts of the U.S. Congress
and legislative bodies. Statutory law is within the jurisdiction of statuto-
ry agencies, whether they be statutes from Congress, the various states,
counties or municipalities. The point is, there are two different jurisdic-
tions, just as there are two different types of law: Common Law and
Statutory Law.
Page 32
7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction. Nothing can be more threatening, damaging, or demor-


alizing to a prosecutor or judge than the effect a jurisdictional claim can
have on the final outcome of a case. Imagine the plaintiff's anguish, if
after being awarded a favorable ruling, lost the case on a Jurisdictional
Challenge?
The words, "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even if you are in
prison, even on final determination” strikes a death blow to any agent,
law enforcement officer, prosecutor or judge who violates or operates
outside the prescribed jurisdictional authority.
The Constructive Notice is a Jurisdictional Challenge. It says, "If you
allege that this entity is subject to some statute, rule, or regulation, please
put that in writing, and furthermore, please state what jurisdiction the
statutory agency you represent has over this common-law constitutional
entity." This statement from the Constructive Notice is your Jurisdiction-
al Challenge to the bureaucrat and his statutory agency. In accordance
with all the foregoing, once you challenge someone's jurisdictional au-
thority, the burden falls upon them to prove that they have the jurisdic-
tional authority to proceed against you. This challenge can be used to
nullify a judgment previously made against you.
With competent legal study and support, the Jurisdictional Challenge
creates a different standing when used in court.

7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
1. The accused must be properly identified in such a fashion
that there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual
must be singled out from all others, otherwise, anyone could be sub-
ject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense. Al-
most always, the means of identification is a person's proper name,
BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID
IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITH-
OUT DOUBT. There is no constitutionally valid requirement you
must identify yourself; (see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown v. Tex-
as, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common
name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeop-
ardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regula-
tions, or even low-level bureaucratic orders. If a number were to be
deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charg-
es at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable
as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime.
7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION Page 33

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial honest


language and detailed so as to enable a person of average intelligence
to understand the nature of the charges, in order to prepare a defense.
The charge must not be described by parroting the statute. The nam-
ing of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense, whereas the
words of a statute describe only a general class of offense. Facts must
be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of
probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party,
but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse;
some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the
accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid
means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the
injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evi-
dence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard
another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury can-
not reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may
accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be
valid, the accused must be allowed due process. The accuser must
have complied with law, procedure, and form in bringing the charge.
This includes court-determined probable cause, summons, and no-
tice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated (made invalid) in
placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to de-
prive a man of his freedom, and all disagreement may be stifled by
using defective process. A defective warrant or defective complaint,
are not valid documents and MUST BE CHALLENGED. "The essen-
tial elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend."
Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid pro-
cess, a valid judge must be present (District Court, Supreme Court, or
Federal Appeals Court Judge).
Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, places an accused
in jeopardy of further prosecution (double jeopardy). It is the defendant's
duty to inform the court of facts alleged for Determination of Sufficiency
to support a charge or conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, if
the court does not provide proper documents / proper lawful notice, the
charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. The facts must
support the charge or conviction.
Research: REQUESTING an “Evidentiary Hearing”...
Page 34 7 ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all pro-


ceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the
seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts
by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary
knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional
due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have
been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven
elements. Today, official documents (also known as “informations”)
are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted practice" rather than
due process of law.
See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, At-
torney & client:
The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to
the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with
those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of
justice, the attorney must do what the judge orders him or her
to do.
Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their rela-
tionship with their attorneys. When an attorney is hired by you,
you have automatically given the court jurisdiction over you
and now the court can proceed against you in any manner it
chooses.
Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner
and if you, the accused, makes this assumption, you may learn, to your
detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including
the question of personal jurisdiction, CAN NEVER BE RAISED or ad-
dressed especially when you are represented by the BAR (attorney).
The court has to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S.
178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in:
MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2
Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424.
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, by the court or by
the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of
jurisdiction lies with the asserter; the STATE, the PROSE-
CUTOR, who is an ELECTED OFFICIAL.
Right to Travel Roads and Highways Page 35

DRIVERS LICENSE GIVES AUTHORITY TO


STATE PROSECUTORS USING POLICE
POWERS TO SUBVERT YOUR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS.
A Drivers License is a contract between the Driver and the State.
This contract gives State jurisdiction over the holder, which leads to
unlawful traffic stops, loss of freedoms and property under State
Legislated “Arrest Doctrines” . (Study U.C.C. Law of Contracts.)

The most basic laws of today are put in place to subvert peoples’
rights, which are protected by the Constitution. These laws are
called “TRAFFIC LAWS”, and they are all in violation of
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.

The following pages are Case Precedence court adjudicated travel


and highway case laws. These constitutional laws are superior to
City, County and State Legislative laws, which currently control
where we travel, when we travel, who and what we travel with.

All legislative travel laws are designed to control you and your
property under “search and seizure”, “racial profiling” and other
policies, which in most cases, violates constitutional protections.

LEGISLATIVE laws exist because the people allow the legislators to


establish and set new laws whenever they need a new way to control the
people. When the people don’t object to those new “POLICIES” put
in place by the Legislators, those policies become the LAW!

STOP CHOOSING CORRUPT LEGISLATORS


WHO DON’T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS
THAT PROTECTS THE PEOPLES’
RIGHTS!
Page 36 Right to Travel Roads and Highways
TRAVEL AND HIGHWAY LAWS in COMMON LAW
CASE LAW...

Our courts have stressed he basic right of the transient public, and abut-
ting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways
and the paramount function of travel as overriding all other subordinate
uses of our streets. State v. Perry, 269 Minn. 204, 206

A highway is a public road, which every citizen of the state has a right to
use for the purpose of travel. Shelby County Com’rs v. Castetter, 33 N.E.
986, 987, 7 Ind. App. 309; Spindler v. Toomey, 111 N.E/2d 715, 716
(Ind.-1963).

The public have a right of free and unobstructed transit over streets, side-
walks and alleys, and this is the primary appropriate use to which they
are generally dedicated. Pugh v. City, 176 Iowa 593, 599, 156 N.W. 892,
894.

 It is well settled law that every member of the public has a right to use
the public roads in a reasonable manner for the promotion of his health
and happiness. Sumner v. County v. Interurban Transp. Co., 141 Tenn.
493 500.

 A highway is a road or way upon which all persons have a right to travel
at pleasure. It is the right of all persons to travel upon a road. Gulf &
S.I.R. Co. v Adkinson, 77 So. 954, 955; 117 Miss. 118.

HIGHWAY: A free and public road, way, or street; one which every per-
son has the right to use. Black’s Law Dictionary, 2d Ed. (1910), p. 571

 The right to travel over a street or highway is a primary absolute right of


everyone. Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P.2d 721, 728

 A right is a passage, road or street which every citizen has a right to use.
Ohio, Indiana, & W. Ry. Co. v. People, 39 Ill. App. 473.

 Highways are public roads, which every citizen has a right to


use. Wild v. Deig, 43 Ind. 455, 458; 13 Am. Rep. 399.
Right to Travel Roads and Highways Page 37

All citizens of the United States of America have a right to pass and re-pass
through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in their own state.
See Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 12 L Ed. 702.
 Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public high-
ways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place
in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182
(Colo.-1961).
Definition of Passenger: “One who is traveling, as in a public coach, or in a
ship, or on foot. This is the usual, through corrupt orthography.”
SEE American Dictionary Of The English Language By Noah Webster, 1828.
It is thus well established that the right to travel by an American/ citizen
on the public roads is a fundamental and constitutional right and, in
fact, inalienable and natural right, one inherent in an American/ citizen
and secured by the Organic Law of the Land.

1. Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially merely ministe-


rial, having thus no judicial immunity, and unlike courts of law do
not obtain jurisdiction by service of process nor even arrest and
compelled appearance. Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348.
2. Service of a traffic ticket on a motorist does not give the court ju-
risdiction over his person... Service of a traffic ticket imposes no
compulsion on him, and no penalty
attached for failure to heed it... Purpose of traffic ticket is to secure
the motorist's voluntary appearance. Colville v. Bennett, 293 NYS
2d 685.

Your travel is commercial, Driver License is a commercial contract in


which you voluntarily give up many rights to liberty.

 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can


be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Mi-
randa vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, (1966). and…

 “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be convert-


ed into a crime.” Miller vs. United States, 230 V. 486,489, (1956).
and…

 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one


because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar vs.
Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946,(1973).
Page 38 Right to Travel Roads and Highways
TRAFFIC CITATION IS NOT A VALID SUMMONS
IT IS A SUBVERSION OF RIGHTS
The Bill of Pain offered by the government agent is not a Summons and;
if the STATE’S UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION is a Summons re-
quiring my appearance, the following defects must be corrected before I
will submit to the courts’ jurisdiction.

The mandate contained within Amendment V of the United States


Constitution requiring “due process,” i.e., meaning initiatives
through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, precedes the im-
position of administratively issued summonses, except where li-
censing agreement (DRIVERS LICENSE) obligate assets.

The normal STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” at


issue does not indicate on its face that a lawsuit is pending, nor
does it comply with the rules for “form and content” of civil sum-
monses and is defective in the following ways:

a. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does


not bear the signature of the clerk of the court.
b. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does not
have the seal of the court placed upon it.
c. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does not
contain the name of the court upon it.
d. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does not
contain the names of the parties to the cause of action with
their respective designations as plaintiff and defendant.
e. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does not
contain the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney or
plaintiff’s address per se.
f. The STATE’s “Uniform Traffic Citation Summons” does not
contain the proper default warning
language to defendant.
Due Process and Regulation Page 39

DUE PROCESS
1. “The essential elements of due process of law are.. Notice and
The Opportunity to defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 U. S. 427
(1901).

2. “There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liber-


ty...” Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885); Yick Wo
vs. Hopkins, 1l8 U.S. 356 (1886). and...

4. One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted defini-
tions of due process of law is that of Daniel Webster in his
Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 (1819), in which he
declared that due process means “a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judg-
ment only after trial.” (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P.
1020 (1910); Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

5. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there


can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491 (1966).
REGULATION
1. “In addition to the requirement that regulates governing the use of the
highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime
essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and defi-
niteness or certainty.” 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260. and…
2. “Moreover, a distinction must he observed between the regulation of
an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one
carried on by government sufferance of permission.” Davis vs. Mas-
sachusetts, 167 U.S. 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

SURRENDERING OF RIGHTS
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his Rights in the name of
regulation. “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right
should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons
vs. United States, 390 U.S. 389.
STOP SURRENDERING YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS!
Page 40 The Necessity of Evidence

The Necessity of Evidence


There are three forms of knowing:
1. What a man knows he knows;
2. What a man thinks he knows, but does not know for certain; and
3. What a man knows he does not know!
In court a thing is “known” only if the court “knows” it, too!

In order to be admitted in a true court of justice, evidence must be:


Clearly Seen , Competent , Credible, & Relevant
Our study of evidence and proof begins with the word evident, a term to
describe things we clearly see; things that are apparent and obvious.
At the other end of the spectrum are things our language of law deems
“impossible”. An example is water that flows uphill. The rules of evi-
dence prevent such testimony from being introduced in court proceed-
ings. Though it may be said, “Nothing is impossible”, a court of law may
not consider things the reasonable man believes are beyond the realm of
credibility.
Some things are not impossible. They are only so improbable as to be
beyond any “reasonable probability”. Yet, even the most preposterous
testimony has been found to be true in actual cases, even though no rea-
sonable person could be made to believe them without proof.
Two Kinds of Evidence:
A. Direct Fact Evidence B. Circumstantial Evidence
 Direct fact evidence is evidence of facts that tend to directly prove or
disprove a disputed issue.
 Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts based on inferences
taken from direct facts.

A. Direct Fact Evidence is evidence based on direct fact believed by


reasonable persons, without having to jump to any conclusions. It is ob-
vious and apparent. Direct fact evidence cannot be disputed by reasona-
ble persons. A direct fact is not inferred, nor surmised from other facts.

Example: There is a murder victim. The accused person has


been blind in both eyes since birth, and the victim was shot in the
back from a distance of 300 yards with a .30 caliber rifle. Such
direct fact evidence can be verified, and is therefore reliable.
The Necessity of Evidence Page 41

B. Circumstantial Evidence is an invention that reaches beyond the


boundaries of known truth into the realm of conjecture, imagination,
and hunches. To be admissible in court, circumstantial evidence must be
derived from direct fact evidence.
Courts are not allowed to enter judgments on mere opinions, or hunches
founded on intuition. Inferential circumstantial evidence must be reasonable,
or it is excluded for lack of credibility. The quality of the inference
[an act of reasoning, or drawing conclusion from premises or evidence] de-
termines the admissibility of circumstantial evidence. For example, if a
locked house is robbed without any visible signs of forced entry, a jury may
be persuaded to believe the robber had a key. At the same time, one could
infer the robber knew how to pick locks. Since such circumstantial evidence
is susceptible of two separate inferences, it is not as reliable as direct fact
evidence. In most jurisdictions, circumstantial evidence drawn from an infer-
ence susceptible of a contrary reasonable inference is not allowed to deter-
mine the outcome. As a further protection of innocence, most jurisdictions
forbid piling one inference upon another, e.g., inferring a fact from a preced-
ing fact.
Using the preceding example, these jurisdictions would forbid the jury from
concluding the homeowner must have robbed his own house because he was
the only one who had a key, because there is a contrary reasonable inference
that the robber picked the lock! In this example, the direct fact evidence is
the absence of any signs of forced entry. The first inference is that the robber
had a key. The second inference, built upon the first, is that the owner must
be the robber because he is the only one with a key. Such pyramiding of in-
ferences is wisely forbidden to prevent the obvious jumping to conclusions
without the necessary direct facts that make the thing evident. An example of
direct fact evidence in the preceding example is that there were no visible
signs of forced entry, a matter that needs no inference or conjecture but
stands on its own, because it is evident, clearly seen, apparent and obvious
to reasonable persons.

Proof
Proof is where the rubber of our justice system hits the road.
Proof is the purpose of courts. Proof makes things apparent to
reasonable persons. The purpose of courts is to prove the alle-
gations of one party against another, and this they should do according to
the language of law and its precise “way of thinking”. If a court is con-
vened for any purpose other than to find and establish truth on the public
record, that court is convened contrary to the will of man, and acts in
open contempt for all that human life aspires to. Proof is that singular
outcome resulting from logical analysis of facts in evidence. A true proof is
the only outcome that can result from a logical and just analysis of the
facts in evidence. Proper proof can only be established on a foundation of fact.
Page 42 The Necessity of Evidence / PROOF

Proof makes evidence of allegations. The fact that testimony seems


preposterous should not eclipse the possibility of its truth. Preposter-
ous stories abound and have a statistically improbable chance of be-
ing true, yet many are found to be true! Where the language of law is
carelessly used, innocent people get hurt. Therefore, our language of
law provides precise definitions that guide justice to the truth, and
this is especially true in the sometimes complicated realm of evi-
dence. If the statement contains even a single allegation that is not
true, the entire statement is deemed false.
 If facts in evidence do not support a particular proof, the proof must
fail.
 If facts in evidence support a particular proof and no other reasona-
ble conclusion can be reached from a logical and just analysis of
those facts, then and only then is the proof properly established.
 Only if no competent direct fact evidence exists to support a proof,
the proof may be established by inferences drawn from the circum-
stances (NOTE: Circumstantial evidence can never outweigh the
credibility of direct fact evidence). Moreover, a proof established
on circumstantial evidence alone must be quite completely as certain
as a proof based on direct facts. Only a single reasonable inference
can be considered. If multiple incompatible inferences can be rea-
sonably drawn from the circumstances, the proof must fail. The in-
ference offered must lead
 Unless absolute certainty of proof can be established, no verdict
should be entered.

FINAL THOUGHTS on PROOF


Any verdict entered without certain proof, properly derived from a logi-
cal and just analysis of the direct facts in evidence, is unjust by defini-
tion. When courts miss this distinction because of unnecessary confusion
in our language of law, untold misery results. Innocent people are caught
in the web of misinformation and intentional abuse of legal process by
parties more intent on getting their way, rather than seeing justice done.
Every courtroom should be a theatre in which the search for
truth is held to the highest possible standard.
Status in Jurisdiction Page 43

Your Status in Jurisdiction


A state citizen has the right to have any gun he / she wishes without be-
ing registered. A federal citizen does not. In the District of Columbia, it
is a felony to own a handgun unless you are a police officer, a security
guard, or the handgun was registered before 1978. The District of Co-
lumbia has not been admitted into the Union, therefore neither the Se-
cond Amendment, nor any other part of the Bill of Rights, protect the
people of the District of Columbia.
First, by registering gun owners, then renaming their guns ‘Assault
Weapons’ and ‘Handguns’, those in power can take away your lawful
Right to Bear Arms. The Right to Bear Arms is a natural right, but not
for a U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled that you, as an individu-
al, have no right to protection by the police. Their only obligation is to
protect “society”. The real protection for state citizens is their Right to
keep and bear arms; not the Second Amendment, but the
Ninth Amendment.
A state citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public
roads) without being registered (having vehicle registration). A federal
citizen does not have that right. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel
in any of the several states. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are a foreigner
in the state!!
The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in com-
merce (chauffeurs, freight haulers, etc.) to be licensed, insured, and to
have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over
Power of Attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a “motor vehi-
cle”. If it is not registered, then it is not a motor vehicle, and there are no
motor vehicle statutes to break. The common law rules of the road say,
‘if you don’t cause an injury to anyone, then you cannot be tried for
many road violations’.
The state provides a sticker to put on your vehicle every time you re-
register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your vehicle.
You may be surprised to see that it says “OFFICIAL USE ONLY”. You
do not own your vehicle. You may have a “Certificate of Title”, but you
probably do not have a “Certificate of Origin”. You are leasing the
state’s vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are
using their equipment, they can make up the rules concerning usage of
the vehicle. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you
have broken the contract, and an administrative process will make you
pay the penalty. OPEN YOUR EYES!
Page 44 Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction
INDIGENOUS means belonging to a place, originating in and natural-
ly living, growing, or occurring in a region or country.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on
Human Rights has adopted the following definition:

“Indigenous Populations are composed of the existing descend-


ants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a coun-
try wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different
culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the
world, overcame them and, by conquest, settlement or other
means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial situation;
who today live more in conformity with their particular social,
economic and cultural customs and traditions than the institu-
tions of the country of which they now form a part, under a state
structure that incorporates mainly the national, social and cultur-
al characteristics of other segments of the population that are
predominant: a) they are descendants of groups which were in
the territory of the country at the time when other groups of dif-
ferent cultures or ethnic origins arrived there; b) precisely be-
cause of their isolation from other segments of the country's pop-
ulation they have preserved almost intact the customs and tradi-
tions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterized
as indigenous; c) they are, even if? Only formally, placed under
a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural
characteristics alien to theirs.” (U.N., UNESCO, ref: E/Cn.4./
Sub.2/L.566, 1982)

The 14th Amendment tricked our ancestors, and us, into believing the
14th Amendment FREED the SLAVES; but in reality, it placed us un-
der 14th Amendment or Legislative Control, which means the politi-
cians can do anything they want with you, and through the STATE
LAWS and STATUTES and through the 14th Amendment, the UNIT-
ED STATES totally OWNS and CONTROLS “AFRICAN AMERI-
CANS, WHITES, and all IMMIGRANTS” in
the U.S.

ABNEKI MANDE people are a RACE of


PEOPLE and HAVE BEEN INHABITING
the AMERICAS since before 990 AD.
All cries of having “abolished slavery”, of having “saved the country”,
of having “preserved the union”, of establishing “a government of con-
sent”, and of “maintaining the national honor” are ALL LIES- and almost
all Indigenous People in this country think they are African American.
THE ONLY TRUE AFRICAN AMERICAN THAT I KNOW IS
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.
People mis-labeled Black, African American, Negro etc. are, in all truth
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THIS LAND and we have been in America
for thousands of years. WHEN WE KNOW AND CLAIM OUR TRUE
IDENTITY, WE ARE THEN PLACED INTO ANOTHER JU-
RISDICTION unaffected by 14th amendment SLAVE STATUS; and…
our children will and can be freed from their prisons.
“The practice of law is an occupation of common right”, Sims v. Ahrens,
271 S.W. 720 (1925); “A state cannot exclude from the practice of law or
any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due
Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment.” U.S. Supreme Court in
Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (1957)

SUMMARY
Here are some steps to assist you in DEFENDING YOURSELF:
1. NEVER HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO DEFEND YOU except after
“CAREFUL CONSIDERATION” or you just lost your case and will more
than likely be “plea bargained”;
2. CHALLENGE JURISDICTION! Make the Plaintiff prove jurisdiction;
3. Tell the court you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OR
CAUSE OF THE CHARGES;
4. DO NOT ENTER A PLEA! [Entering a plea means you agree to some
form of guilt.] Say you cannot enter a plea because you do not understand
the nature of the charges;
5. REFER to NATURE AND CAUSE. “Nature and Cause” of the Charges
is equal to requesting a Bill of Particulars, i.e. a demand for the Evidence,
Proof, Victims, etc. It is a call for the accuser to come forth and testify.
(No government, no corporation, no Fiction, no DEAD THING can come
forth to testify.);
6. Make sure any charge against you is signed under penalty of perjury;
7. Make certain you have been afforded “due process”; and
8. Make sure you establish your venue [The proper court: Federal, Com-
mon Law Court, etc.].
Page 46 The Reasonable Man

The Reasonable Man


“The Reasonable Man" is a concept critically es-
sential to the framework of the statutory judicial
system. The reasonable man is a fictitious person
often spoken of the courts. In real life, of
course, there are few, if any persons male or
female, who could be said to be “reasonable”
at all times, and in every regard.
Civil law invented the Reasonable Man to serve as a standard for
everyone because the language of statutory law requires the con-
cept of a “reasonable man” to measure what is reasonable. Either
we live up to the standard set by the “Reasonable Man”, or our
courts may adjudge us to be “unreasonable”.
By comparing individuals to the fictitious Reasonable Man, our
courts can determine which of the parties in a lawsuit are reasona-
ble, and which parties are not.
According to the court, an act is reasonable if a reasonable man
would do it. A thought is reasonable if a reasonable man would
think it. Anything a reasonable man would not do, according to the
court, is patently “unreasonable”. In fact, the Reasonable Man was
created to make the defendant appear unreasonable.

NOTE: “Due diligence” is a term seldom understood, but fre-


quently seen in the papers of civil lawsuits. In its plain meaning,
due diligence is the “diligence due to a particular matter”. A
reasonable man should be able to receive “due diligence” con-
sidering the circumstances. Due diligence is a duty the court
imputes [ 1: to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely
or unjustly 2 : to credit to a person or a cause] to us all; a duty
our courts have power to enforce. For example, if Green hires
White to supervise Black, and White takes naps in the afternoon
while Black leans on the broom handle, White failed to exercise
due diligence. If a guardian undertakes the care of his ward,
then permits the ward to die of malnutrition at the nursing
home, the guardian failed to exercise due diligence, since the
guardian acted unreasonably.
The Reasonable Man / Negligence Page 47

Negligence
In tort law, for example, negligence may be defined as the
“failure to act reasonably”, i.e. as a reasonable man would act.
The reasonable man exercises care not to injure others. To the
reasonable man some truths are self-evident. The reasonable
man knows the difference between direct facts and imagined
conjectures.

The reasonable man cares for his neighbor's welfare. He is re-


quired to act in a way that will not adversely affect the welfare
of others or the welfare of society as a whole. The reasonable
man exercises due diligence to ensure that his acts (including his
words both spoken and written) do not injure others. The reason-
able man sets the stage for civilized governments to establish a
system of justice and fair play. ‘Whatever is good for the reason-
able man is good for us all.”

Negligence may also be established in our courts when one party


breaches his duty to another. “Duty” is the obligation that gives
courts the right to order that one person pay for the damages he
causes to another. Similarly, it gives courts power to enforce
contracts, where one party breaches the duty created by promise.
Page 48 Duty of the Reasonable Man

Duty of the Reasonable Man


Duty gives rise to all causes of action. Every lawsuit arises from
the breach of a duty of one form or another. If one breaches his
duty to another, he may be liable in either a civil court or, if the duty
is serious enough, in criminal court. Not all duties, however, give rise
to a cause of action. The point is that duty gives rise to obligation,
and enforcement of obligation is what courts are all about.

REMEMBER: The court tricks us with the “REASONABLE MAN”!

For a court to enforce a duty, therefore, the duty must be rea-


sonable. The court stipulates responsibility is the consequence of du-
ty. Each of us, in exchange for the benefits of living in community
with others, owes a duty to all. That duty creates a responsibility in us
and gives our courts power to require us to answer for the damages
people say we caused them by breaching our duty. They must prove
breach of duty, and they must prove injury. However, if they prove
both ,we can be made to meet our responsibility by paying them for
their damages. It is the purpose of government to enforce our respon-
sibilities to each other. Negligence, then, is the lack of care or con-
cern for responsibility. No intent to injure is required. Careless acts
that damage others, may give rise to a cause of action, even when no
injury arises from intentional acts (e.g., when one slanders another),
or negligent acts (as when one rear-ends another on the highway).
THE WRIT
A writ (court order) directs a government official (regardless of
branch or level) to answer by what authority he is acting, in a particu-
lar situation, or requires him to act in accordance with lawful authori-
ty. If a mayor refuses to convene city council, an aggrieved citizen
can petition the court to issue a mandamus [a writ issued by a superior
court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty]
requiring the mayor to do his job. Or, if the mayor takes it upon him-
self to act as judge and jury, directing the police chief to put people in
jail at his command, the court can order the mayor to explain
the authority he claims to have to put people in jail
without due process of law; and if he has no such
authority, can command him to cease doing so
under penalty of being jailed himself.
Final Thoughts on Reason Page 49

WHEN actions that seems unreasonable are committed against


you, “you should object”. If your own attorney threatens some
action you believe is unreasonable, you should object, and, if nec-
essary, don’t be afraid to fire him! If the judge acts unreasonably,
you must demand to be heard objecting on the record,
Say ”I OBJECT”!

FINAL THOUGHTS ON REASON


 Rely on reason. Common sense can help direct you.
 Be informed, however. Don't rush into battle with your
mind frozen on one idea. Don't ignore weak spots in your
armor. Take time to doubt yourself. Try to poke holes in
your ideas. Put your theories to the acid test. Prod every
assumption. Ask others before you take any action in
court.
 Reason rules American courts. That which is unreasonable
opposes natural law and the common law of man. That which
is unreasonable denies common sense. To support the unrea-
sonable is unethical. Though both sides may be lying, there is
only one truth to be discovered, and the responsibility of our
courts is to find it. Anything else is un-reasonable. No court
should permit unreasonable verdicts.
 Unreasonable rule is tyranny; it undermines the security of
civilized life, for which purpose courts are established by law-
ful governments. Reasonable men and women should always
prevail over unreasonable people.

READ! STUDY!
Page 50 Facts and Facts Alone

Facts and Facts Alone


A fact is an established truth, something that is
evident, clearly seen, indisputable, beyond
doubt. Like many other words in our language of
law, this term is widely misused by lawyers today (Some lawyers
are more intent on winning their cases than sticking closely to the
truth). The court may take judicial notice of a fact or law on its
own, or it may do so on the motion of any party at any time. The
court may take judicial notice of any commonly known fact, e.g.,
that Monday regularly follows Sunday, or that the moon was full at
least once during the past 30 days. The court may also take judicial
notice of any law that controls the outcome of your case, whether
the law is statute, constitutional, or case law. Judicial notice is an
excellent way to establish a fact or law you need to establish to win
your case.
Facts are facts…. not guesses, hunches, beliefs, opinions, infer-
ences, or suppositions. Someone’s opinion, for example, is only an
opinion, not a fact ... regardless of the education or stature of the
person who holds the opinion.
Facts are not fanciful suggestions portrayed by outrageous per-
formances of lawyers who seek to lead juries to believe hypothe-
ses based solely on opinions, circumstances, or unsupported legal
rhetoric, and courtroom drama.
The court may take judicial notice of the fact, if it is widely
accepted to be true, and there is no reasonable room for doubt.
Also, the court (or jury) may rule that the thing is a fact after
hearing testimony and examining tangible evidence and
documents.
A thing "known" is not "believed" to be true, but is, in our
courts, an established fact on which the parties may rely.
What Is Truth? Page 51

What Is Truth?
This famous question may never be settled in the realm of philoso-
phy, politics, or science—yet in the language of law there are clear
answers upon which may be agree:
 Truth is that which is, what was, and what is yet to be. Truth
is the sum of all facts.
 Truth is not subject to interpretation or opinion though, cer-
tainly, there is no shortage of human views of what is truth
and what truth is not.
 In spite of all opinion, however, truth (as our language of law
sees truth) is not the stepchild of human views of truth.
 Truth was in the beginning and will endure beyond the end.
No truth is ever false.
A falsehood should never be admitted as evidence in our courts. A
false statement intentionally made by a witness under oath consti-
tutes perjury; a felony crime in most jurisdictions, punishable by
imprisonment, or in courts martial during time of war, by death.
Finding falseness in your opponent's case and putting it on the
record as admissible evidence is one of the master keys to win-
ning lawsuits. “Universal” Justice has so ordered that falsehood
often creates its own defeat, i.e., the party whose case is mere fab-
rication is usually found out.
Falsehoods in statements are like weak links in an otherwise
strong chain. It matters not how strong the other links may be; if
one link is a lie, the chain is worthless, and a wise court will reject
the whole. Just as a chain can be no stronger than its weakest link,
a statement can be no more true than the lie that lurks within it,
nor a man more trustworthy than his own word.

Truth is the most powerful tool we have in court


battles. Demand it from adversaries. Strive for
it. Permit no deviation. Justice is decided solely
on the merits of the law and proven facts. No lie
has any place in the deliberations of our courts.
Facts are the bedrock of American justice.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Consti-
tution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches
or seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority
provided under the "color of law" is allowed to stop individu-
als and even if necessary to search them and retain their prop-
erty under certain circumstances. It is in the abuse of that dis-
cretionary power that a violation of a person's civil rights might
occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal confiscation of prop-
erty would be examples of such an abuse of power.

An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating


evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual.
That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure
have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the
official would violate the color of law statute by unlawfully
obtaining or maintaining the property of another. In that case,
the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process


and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and
unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these
rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punish-
ment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person ac-
cused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial
and not be subjected to punishment without having been afford-
ed the opportunity of the legal process.

MOST ARRESTS ARE MADE UNDER


COLOR OF LAW!

When an officer makes a traffic stop without having valid


“Probable Cause” (valid reason) or has witnessed a violation of
the law (statutes and codes), he is operating under “Color of Law”;
he is operating in his / her “Personal Capacity” and is violating the
law.

Whenever stopped or arrested under “color of law” by law en-


forcement officials, demand his / her name, badge number and
insurance bond number , and if they refuse, go to the station or
contact the Secretary of States Office; now file a TORT!
Supreme Court Upholds 4th Amendment
Arizona v. Gant
For many years, the Supreme Court has permitted police to search
the passenger arae of a any time an occupant of the vehicle has
been arrested. The so-named "searches incident to arrest" were
authorized in New York v. Belton (1981) mostly based on concerns
about officers’ safety; for instance, in case a suspect tries to jump
in and retrieve a weapon hidden in the vehicle. Because of this,
police have become used to searching vehicles for "safety reasons"
even after the suspect has been taken into custody. This will not
and hasn’t protected police, but this may certainly encourage po-
lice to make more and more arrests so they can perform more
searches.

But, on April 21, 2009, the Supreme Court


ruled in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches
following an arrest are legal only if the sus-
pect has access to the vehicle or if officers
reasonably believe the vehicle probably has evidence in it related
to that arrest.
In plain language, police are now required to have a REAL reason
to justify the searching of a vehicle instead of being allowed to do
it automatically. This decision restores some logic and common
sense to the way many warrantless vehicle searches are evaluated
under the 4th Amendment.

A concern has always been prevalent concerning the ability of po-


lice to utilize arrests for minor crimes as a way of dominating a
citizen's refusal of consent. Since many states (and Supreme Court
precedent) allow officers to perform a full arrests for certain traffic
offenses, the officers sometimes strong-arm their way into a
vehicle by arresting the driver for a traffic violation instead of just
writing a ticket. The ruling Arizona vs. Gant creates an obstacle to
these "pretext arrests," because traffic violations are observed in-
fractions for which relevant evidence will not be within the vehi-
cle. In that sense, the ruling will likely result in some extra protec-
tion for those citizens who exercise 4th Amendment rights during
a traffic stop.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!


Page 54 PAPAL BULLS

Later through “Letters Pa-


tents of King Henry VII be-
gan granting lands to John
Cabot and others to discover and
claim all lands under the
crown. This colonization doc-
trine was sanctioned and au-
thorized to continue in effect
for approximately 500 years,
which has expired; lands and
rights are now to be given
back to the indigenous peo-
ple;
that time is now unfolding,
and many “Hard-line American poli-
ticians, Judges and Business Lead-
ers” are not letting go without extreme destruc-
tion to the continent called AMERICA… TUR-
TLE ISLAND…
Original Jurisdiction MOTHER
EARTH….
Executive Orders: COLLATERAL Page 55

Executive Order 12986


Bill Clinton signed over the Grand Canyon to the United Nations
(UN) as collateral on our national debt. The UN is functioning under
the guise of an environmental group (for our own ‘good’). This order
allows the UN to take privately owned land and prevents land owners
from suing. The UN lays claim to over 60% of the country.

http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/EXECUTIVE%
20ORDER.HTML

Executive Order 13037


“US Citizens Defined as Property of the Government
By American Kabuki

This reference to a UCC document is familiar to one mentioned to me


by a very connected financial person. The UCC filing statement from
2011 raised 14.3 Trillion in money under the Obama Administration
by using the people of the United States as "property improvement"
capital on the land for purposes of collateral. You can't file a UCC on
property, but you can file on property improvements.

Essentially they sold you for 14.3 Trillion dollars in borrowed


funds. This is quite separate and additional from the birth certificate
bonds.

I emailed my banking finance contact and they provided me with


President Clinton's 1997 Presidential Order, publicly defining the
people of the United States as Property of the United States.

Defining people as property has been going on since the 1930s but
was only declared publicly in 1997 by President Clinton.

Here's the quote from my anonymous contact:


“The UCC-1 filing that you posted is related to this matter however,
The executive order specifically mentioning publicly that we are
Human Capital was Executive Order No. 13037 March 4, 1997
(specifically section 2 subsection ( b ) ). Prior to this the registrations
of birth was secretly used in order to create a 'Bond' or debt on each
individual. This has been taking place since 1933 in private.”
Page 56 Executive Orders: COLLATERAL

PRESIDENT CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER


(PRESIDENT CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTINUED…)

Executive Orders: COLLATERAL


Page 58 CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION LOST

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ARE NEARLY


GONE FOR ALL AMERICANS!

MOST CITIZENS ARE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED


STATES GOVERNMENT, and because of this, the states
of the Union can manipulate the rules and policies in any
manner in-which they choose. Therefore most individual
cries for justice are ignored, and many people go to jail,
lose their property, their children, and many, simply lose
their lives; like Trayvon Martin (“African American”),
Keith Vidal (“Caucasion”) and many others. This can be
done because U.S. citizens are the property of the U.S.
government.

THINK: If you are someone’s property, they


(Government) can do with you (its property) whatever
they want to do with you.

CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION LOST


The United States banks deliberately crashed the sys-
tem in order to usher in a government of harmony with
international law. Without international law, the indige-
nous people will never regain
their international protec-
tions, which were taken away
with U.S. colonization. Ac-
cording to international law,
the Pope issued the “PAPAL
BULLS” which allowed colo-
nization and holocaust of
more than 100 million natives
in America.
NO HUMAN, CIVIL, OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Page 59

NO HUMAN, CIVIL, OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS


FOR ‘BLACKS’ nor ‘WHITES’ IN AMERICA
In May of 2009, after returning to Memphis, the search for infor-
mation to end illegal charges against this Author lead down a
road called “STATUS”. While researching “status”, I became
totally aware of SELF. I learned that my great grandparents were
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Shawnee and Cherokee descendants re-
named, “Negro”, “Black”, “Colored” and now “African Ameri-
can” by the United States Government.
In viewing life from this new perspective, my heart is heavy with
pain for the loss of the multitudes of negro who will never know;
this is truly a genocidal human rights catastrophe. The acts of
Slavery are illegal, unless it is voluntary, and the Negro has never
volunteered for any indenture, but has endured extreme hostili-
ties, destruction of culture, lands, heritage and history for more
than 600 years.
It’s time to reveal the fact that the Negro was the INDIAN who
was seen by the French, Spanish and European conquerors; and
that same Negro has endured ‘til this day, even after more than
50 million Negros were killed by the French with “SMALL
POX” blankets and coats in the “American Indian Holocaust”
Eastern America around 1430 AD.
Unfortunately, no announcement of this will be made, so many people
will never regain their birthright, and the remaining unclaimed econom-
ic property belonging to native people will pass on to the debt holders:
CHINA, RUSSIA and others.

Unfortunately for all U.S. Citizens, they are property


and the international conventions don’t apply to
property; therefore
PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE
HUMAN RIGHTS!
SEE: The United Nations International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 47/133 of
18 December 1992.
Page 60 Salvage Claim

UNITED STATES SALVAGE CLAIM


CLAIMS AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
In 2002 President George W. Bush and his administration filed
a complaint with the UNITED NATIONS against indigenous
people and immigrants in the United States. The complaint
stated that the United States was in danger of imminent eco-
nomic destruction caused by unpaid student loans, food
stamps, welfare, defaulted home-loans and other economic un-
paid debts levied against the numerous Indian groups, Mexi-
can and African American so-called immigrants. This re-
quest was uncontested and therefore granted to the United
States; this grant by the United Nations was called the
“UNITED STATES SALVAGE CLAIM”.
The “SALVAGE CLAIM” granted the United States the
international right to remove immigrants and non natural peo-
ple from the United States conquered lands in America.
Thanks to President Obama and his fight for proper immigra-
tion laws and reforms, these actions have not yet been imple-
mented.

The original time period for declaring your natural heritage


was set to expire in 2010, but because of a lack of notification
by the U.S. government to the people, that expiration date was
extended to January 2015. After deadline, there can be no
more land or economic claims made against the United States
by the “Natural, Original inhabitants of America”.
As seen by the subversion of laws against U.S. citizens on the
previous pages along with the enactment of the “Patriot Act
and Homeland Security”, it is clear that the United States has
plans of massive intrusions of liberty against all people on
American soil. The Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST)
has now given the United States Constitution and its
authority to the international governance of the United
Nations.
Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction Page 61

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR


THE ADVANCEMENT OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
NAAIP 2015 MANDATE
As a members of the indige-
nous community, the objective
of the NAAIP staff is clear; we
must promote acknowledge-
ment, rights and protections of
native, aboriginal, indigenous autochthons of America on Turtle Island.
It is my responsibility to aid and assist all my abused, neglected, kid-
napped, imprisoned, undereducated, spiritually and physically raped and
misled family members who are lost and held as a NATIONAL
CAPTIVES of the UNITED STATES under the 14th AMENDMENT
CITIZEN STATUS.
Now, with the U.S. Census on street patrol, it might get a little complicat-
ed. Most people are not aware of the true purpose of the CENSUS, which
includes the counting of property belonging to the United States. Once
the people are counted and documented, they can be included as collat-
eral and payment for the U.S. LOANS and DEBT BAILOUTS to foreign
countries, via bonds, stocks, PRISON BONDS, tax bonds, etc. etc. as
was shown with the Executive Order 13037 of President Clinton.
“AMERICAN SLAVES”
TH
14 AMENDMENT CITIZEN TRICKERY!
All District Attorneys are illegal; All Judges are illegal and do not
allow the REAL CONSTITUTION in the Courtrooms!
THEY ARE WAGING WAR… WAR AGAINST “WE, THE
PEOPLE”!

99% of ALL ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS


Violate the Constitution and are Illegal & Unlawful!!!
The United States did not free the SLAVES; the SLAVES were
re-classified as 14th Amendment citizens (property). To hide the
trick of reclassification, and to further monetize the citizens, near-
ly all U.S. citizens, “Black, White, and Others” are now classified
as 14th Amendment citizens or State Citizens.

As a 14th Amendment citizen, you are


the property of the United States, and
you are governed and controlled by
legislative Law Enforcement and Ad-
ministrative Courts. These adminis-
trative courts are Not REAL Constitu-
tional Courts; they are CORPORA-
TIONS PRETENDING TO BE COURTS of
LAW for the people. This illegal, un-
lawful 14th Amendment status means the Courts and Police
can control every part of your lives and your children’s lives.

The police and courts use state STATUTES and CODES (not RE-
AL LAW) to PROFILE, ARREST, ASSAULT, and send citizens
(like YOU) to PRISON anytime they choose. They swear OATH to
the “FAKE” ADMINISTRATIVE United States Corporate Consti-
tution- NOT the original Constitution For The United States. The
“Constitution For The United States of America” WILL PROTECT
YOU IN COURT; IF YOU’RE IN THE RIGHT COURT!!!
From coast to coast, many court cases result from BOGUS WAR-
RANTS and BOGUS COMPLAINTS FILED BY the POLICE
who are given immunity to lie and commit perjury, protected un-
der “BRISCOE vs. LAHUE”; they stop U, take U to JAIL and U
PAY them for locking U up!!!
That’s ALL ILLEGAL, But you do have REMEDY!!
Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction Page 63

DEFINITION OF AN ‘INDIAN’
BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TAKEN FROM DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
A Guide for DOE Employees December 2000
“WHO IS AN INDIAN?
It’s not always easy to define who is Indian and who is
not. Because of intermarriage between Indians and peo-
ple of other ethnicities, there are many people who by
blood are only partially Indian. So how can you deter-
mine who is an Indian? The simplest answer is that an
Indian is a person with some amount of Indian blood
who is recognized as such by the individual’s tribe or community.
WHAT IS AN INDIAN TRIBE?
An “Indian tribe,” is generally a community of Indians who are
ethnologically similar, but who also exist in a legal/political
sense.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEC 2000
NAAIP NOTE: If you have proof of indigenous or tribal standing
and bloodline in America, you have the right under American In-
dian law and international law to re-establish your historical nation
or a person can choose to start a totally new tribe or clan based on
historical connection to your indigenous family history in Ameri-
ca. If your family bloodline existed in America prior to United
States colonization of the original inhabitants and the governmen-
tal establishment of the United States of America, you are an Indi-
an.
If you or any of your ancestors Birth Certificates identifies you or
them as NEGRO, then you are a descendant of original people in
America and you may have protections and rights under Treaty.
Please contact:

National Association for the Advancement of Indigenous People


(NAAIP) for more information on indigenous standing and rights
for individual, tribal and nation development and acknowledgement:

Phone: (901) 800-8741 or Email:


naaip7@gmail.com
Page 64 Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction
United Nations Defines The INDIGENOUS
The United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on
Human Rights has adopted the following definition:

Indigenous Populations are composed of the existing


descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present ter-
ritory of a country wholly or partially at the time when
persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there
from other parts of the world, overcame them and, by
conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a
non-dominant or colonial situation; who today live more
in conformity with their particular social, economic and
cultural customs and traditions than the institutions of the
country of which they now form a part, under a state
structure that incorporates mainly the national, social and
cultural characteristics of other segments of the popula-
tion that are predominant.

Although they have not suffered conquest or colonization, iso-


lated or marginal groups existing in the country should be re-
garded as covered by the notion of "Indigenous Populations"
for the following reasons:
a) they are descendants of groups which were in the
territory of the country at the time when other groups
of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
b) precisely because of their isolation from other seg-
ments of the country's population they have preserved
almost intact the customs and traditions of their ances-
tors which are similar to those characterized as indige-
nous;
c) they are, even if? only formally, placed under a state
structure which incorporates national, social and cul-
tural characteristics alien to theirs.

(U.N., UNESCO, ref: E/Cn.4./Sub.2/L.566, 1982)

While this definition has met with general acceptance, there


have been some concerns voiced over its limitations.
*The United Nations declared 1993 the Year of the Indigenous.
Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction Page 65

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE


ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE, 112TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION
JULY 12, 2012

Federal recognition is the acknowledgement of an American


Indian Tribe by the federal government of the United States. It
affirms a federal trust responsibility for a “government-to
government” relationship between the United States and the
tribal government and establishes tribal eligibility for certain
federal American Indian programs.

Federal recognition is the correction of an error in the relation-


ship between the United States and the tribal nation receiving
the acknowledgement it was always due. Federal recognition
does not bestow sovereignty, but acknowledges a tribe’s in-
herent sovereignty. Federal Indian Policy holds that American
Indian Tribes have a sovereignty that predates the United
States and is not bestowed by any federal action. Further-
more, while the trust responsibility is formally acknowledged
by federal recognition, it exists even without such recognition.
This fact was included in a 1977 congressional report citing the
Pasamaquoddy v. Morton case:

Pasamaquoddy v. Morton presented an important decision


regarding the executive branch use of the distinction
“recognized” and “non-recognized”. The Department stipulated
for the purpose of the case that the Passamaquoddy were an
Indian tribe, but argued that it was not required as a trustee to
prosecute the Pasamaqoddy claim against the State of Maine,
since the tribe was “unrecognized”. The Court rejected the
[Department of Interior’s] position finding that that the United
States has a trust obligation to the tribe. The case makes it
clear that the executive branch cannot arbitrarily exclude
Indian tribes from its trust relationship.
ERASING HISTORY Page 66

HOW A STATE GOVERNMENT ERASED THE CREEKS,


SHAWNEE, KOASATI and YUCHI FROM HISTORY
TRUTH ABOUT THE CHEROKEES IN
NORTH CAROLINA
People of One Fire, A national alliance of Muskogean scholars
and their longtime friends, Creek – Seminole – Choctaw – Chick-
asaw – Alabama – Koasati – Apalachee – Yuchi – Houma –
Natchez – Shawnee
Quoted from:
PeopleofOneFire@aol.com www.peopleofonefire.com

Native American Brain Food No. 34


May 14, 2013
“Early in my career, while serving as the first director of the Downtown
Asheville Revitalization Commission, and later, as the first director of
the Asheville-Buncombe County Historic Resources Commission I was
eyewitness to callous fabrications of history whose impacts affect several
Native American tribes and the archaeology profession to this day. Yes, I
am proud to know that the beautiful Asheville you see today is the one I
designed as a young man, but I also carry the knowledge that some of
what students have been taught as the truth since then is unmitigated caca
de toro. The disfranchisement of the Chickasaw, Shawnee, Koasati and
Yuchi from the NAGPRA process and the diminished funding support
for the Creek tribes were a direct result of those events.

This article is part of a 20-part series on the Native American history of


the Southern Appalachians in my Native American history column in the
Examiner. Many of you have complained about the viral advertising cur-
rently cluttering the Examiner, so I am making this particularly one avail-
able directly.

There is something very unusual about North Carolina’s geography that


contemporary historians seem not to appreciate. Native American place
names are endemic in the United States. In such states as Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, Alabama and Florida there are
very few river names that don’t have a Native American origin.

If one looks at a map of North Carolina, a cluster of Native American


place names appear on the coast in the vicinity of the Outer Banks and in
the extreme western tip of the state, about 300 miles from the state capi-
tal at Raleigh. In between is the majority of the state’s land area that is
virtually devoid of Native American place names or detailed Native
American history. There is a reason.
Much of North Carolina’s landscape was swept of Native settlements
before many settlers arrived. During the late 1600s, the northern moun-
tain and Piedmont regions of the state were virtually depopulated by
Rickohocken Indian slave raiders from southwestern Virginia. After the
Tuscarora War ended in 1715 there were few direct contacts between
British settlers and indigenous peoples outside the extreme western
mountains.
In 1763 the Yuchi, Shawnee and Creek Indian communities in the state
were evicted, while the Cherokees were pushed to North Carolina’s ex-
treme western tip, where Cherokee and Graham Counties are now locat-
ed. North Carolina had no extended contact period in which the newcom-
ers learned the diverse cultures, languages and histories of the state’s
many aboriginal tribes.

As a result, for North Carolinians, the word “Cherokee” has become al-
most synonymous with “Indian.” Many North Carolina county histories
began with the statement, “Once the home of the Cherokee Indians . . . “
- when in fact the Cherokees never lived there. The Cherokee’s villages
in North Carolina were concentrated in a narrow band that roughly paral-
leled the Little Tennessee and Hiwassee Rivers.

For example, official state and local histories of McDowell County, NC


say that the county was originally occupied by Cherokee Indians. In the
book, The Indian Tribes of North America, highly respected, Smithson-
ian Institute ethnologist, John W. Swanton, specifically described several
large Yuchi Indian towns in present day McDowell County and said that
the Yuchi’s occupied the region until white settlers arrived. Between the
Yuchi’s and the Cherokee territory of the 1700s, was a broad swath of
mountains occupied by Shawnees and Creeks until 1763. Henderson
County, NC (south of Asheville) still states in its official history that
Creek Indians were its original inhabitants, despite this being a violation
of the state’s official policy.

In Search of a History
By the late 20th century North Carolina academicians desperately wanted
their state to have a Native American history. In 1955, prodigious author,
Wilma Dykeman (later Stokely) wrote her first book, The French Broad
River. She had grown up in the Beaverdam Community, north of Ashe-
ville, and was very familiar with the frontier tales passed down through
the generations of mountain families. All assumed that the Cherokees had
been the aboriginal inhabitants of the region. In her later years, I be-
friended Wilma while living in Asheville. She was a frequent customer
of our goat cheese creamery!
Dykeman was unable to find any archival proof of a Cherokee presence
in the Asheville area. The only recorded Indian village in the Asheville
area was a Shawnee village located on the Swannanoa River, where the
Biltmore Village shopping district is now situated. The 213 mile length
of the French Broad River only contains two Native American place
names, both of them Creek Indian in origin. There is the town of Etowah,
near Hendersonville, NC and the Swannanoa River (Shawnee River in
Muskogee-Creek) near Asheville.

There were NO Native American place names in the mountains north of


Asheville and all those due south of Asheville were Creek words. Sur-
prisingly, about 80% of the relatively few Native American place names
in all of the North Carolina Mountains are Creek or Maya words that
have no meaning in Cherokee, other than being proper nouns. That in-
cludes the main river through the Cherokee Reservation, the Oconaluftee.
That comes from the Itsate-Creek words Okvne lufte, which mean
“Oconee People, cut off.”

Unable to find any historical records about a Cherokee presence in Ashe-


ville, Dykeman pulled the names of two Shawnee villages with Creek
names that are mentioned in the De Soto Chronicles. The 1725 map of
western North Carolina shows them as being on the Little Tennessee
River between present day Franklin, NC and Bryson City, NC. In English
they were called Conestee and Conasaugua. Their real names were Kon-
este and Konosawagi. Wilma placed them vaguely on the French Broad
River near Asheville.

In the years since then, I have run across numerous books and archaeo-
logical reports that quote Wilma Dykeman’s book as an authoritative
reference on Native American history in the Appalachians. She was a
brilliant woman, but the truth was that her first book was much more of a
novel that people realize.

Cherokee History Project


In 1975 a team of historians and anthropologists at the University of
North Carolina were given a grant by the state to prove that the Chero-
kees had been in North Carolina for at least 1000 years. There was to be
no mention of the Creeks, Shawnee, Koasati and Yuchi living in North
Carolina. That approach may work for government departmental admin-
istrators, but to first design a state’s history then instruct researchers to
provide proof of it, is not exactly considered scientific methodology.
Explorers Johann Lederer and John Lawson, who explored the Carolina
Blue Ridge Mountains in 1669 and 1700 respectively, made no mention
of the Cherokees. No European maps show the word Cherokee or
Charaqui until 1717. All French maps before that time showed western
North Carolina occupied by several branches of the Creek Indians, the
Shawnee, the Koasati and the Yuchi. France claimed the region until
1763, hence the name, French Broad River.

By the time I got to Asheville, the Cherokee History Project had been
adopted literally as the law by the North Carolina General Assembly.
Those of us on the planning staff immediately recognized the stark con-
flicts between what the professors in Chapel Hill wrote and what was on
our colonial era maps and archaeological site files.

After official adoption of the Cherokee History Project in 1976, North


Carolina students, including Cherokees and anthropology majors, were
taught that the Cherokees had occupied all of the North Carolina Moun-
tains and Upper Piedmont for at least 1000 years in the past, perhaps
10,000 years.

In the four decades since this study, this inaccurate version of history has
permeated literature because historians and anthropologists typically cite
each other as references rather than going back to primary historical evi-
dence, such as colonial maps. To confront North Carolina scholars with
the facts of how their current Native American history came about is to
them an act of heresy. It is like telling medieval clergymen that the world
is round.

Anthropologists at the University of North Carolina and archaeologist


Roy Dickens of Georgia soon labeled the first proto-Cherokees to occupy
the North Carolina Mountains, the Conestee Culture. The good profes-
sors really should have borrowed someone’s Creek dictionary before
making that profound decision. Conestee means “Skunk People” in the
Itsate-Creek language. The word has no meaning in Cherokee. It still
causes Creek Indians in Georgia to roll in the floor laughing.

One of the more interesting 21st century impacts of the Cherokee History
Project is the change in the exhibits and literature at Town Creek Mounds
in south-central North Carolina. It is the only Native American village
site owned by the state. The heavily fortified village was abandoned
around 1400 AD.

For decades, the inhabitants of this Mississippian village were described


as Creek Indians, who pushed up the Pee Dee River from South Carolina
into Siouan territory. Now the archaeological site is presented as an east-
ward extension of the “Appalachian Mississippian Culture” even though
its architecture, pottery and art are clearly related to proto-Creek provinc-
es to the south. The implication now is that Town Creek was built by the
Cherokees. Probably, within a decade that statement will be released to
the press as a new discovery.

De Soto Slept Here


Into this intellectual terra incognito, freshly varnished with bureaucratic
authenticity, crept a team of professors from the Universities of North
Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. They were going to find the definitive
route for Hernando de Soto’s journey through the Southeast in the early
1540s. One evening in the 1980s the academic group roared into Ashe-
ville; spent the night then made a presentation to a breakfast meeting of
the Asheville Chamber of Commerce. They described their newly con-
firmed route of de Soto through Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North
Carolina and Tennessee.

My immediate impression was that these professors didn’t have a clue


about the actual topography of the North Carolina Mountains or the time
spans of known archaeological sites. They obviously had made their con-
clusions based on the study of highway maps in academic offices. This
was confirmed when some of them came to my office so I could show
them our inventory of colonial maps and site files. None were aware that
Shawnees, Creeks, Koasati and Yuchi had occupied Western North Caro-
lina in the 1700s. Later that morning, officials of the Asheville-
Buncombe Historic Resources Commission and the Western District Of-
fice of the state’s Historic Preservation Office informed the professors
that there were no occupied Native American villages in the French
Broad Valley during the period that de Soto and Pardo explored the
Southeast. Our archaeologists believed that around 1500 the French
Broad Valley had become a no-man’s land between two hostile Native
American provinces.

The professors ignored the advice and that afternoon announced at a


press conference on the grounds of the Biltmore Estate that de Soto had
stayed in what is now Asheville on his journey. Dr. Charles Hudson stat-
ed that a lump in a pasture on the grounds of the Biltmore Estate was the
site of Guaxule, the ancient capital of the Cherokees and that an island in
the French Broad River downstream was the site of Chiaha.

Guaxule is the Castilian spelling of the Creek word Wvhvle, which


means “southerners.” It was generally applied to the occupants of Florida
or the Yucatan Peninsula, and is the source of the name of the Spanish
province on the coast of Georgia, Guale. Chiaha was always located on
an island in the Little Tennessee River until moving to southwest Geor-
gia in the early 1700s to escape the Cherokees. There are no Cherokee
words mentioned in the De Soto Chronicles.

In a matter of days, the Asheville Chamber initiated an ad campaign and


new motto, “Asheville, Ancient Heart of the Great Cherokee Nation.” A
historical marker was placed on Biltmore Avenue in Downtown Ashe-
ville which announced that “de Soto Came Through Here.” To this day,
many references, including Wikipedia, state that de Soto passed through
Asheville, even though the De Soto Route team later changed their mind.

When finally published, Hudson’s book on de Soto had a different route


which did not go through Asheville, but through the northwestern corner
of North Carolina. This was done so that a two bit Native American vil-
lage site in Burke County, NC with a tiny, three feet high mound, could
be labeled the great city of Joara visited by Juan Pardo. Absolutely, noth-
ing about the Berry Site in North Carolina matches the Spanish descrip-
tion of Joara. Joara is not mentioned by the de Soto Chronicles anyway.
However, that Joara was located in Burke County permeates all refer-
ences. That is what you will read in Wikipedia.

NAGPRA
In 1990 the U. S. Department of the Interior created a map of traditional
Native American tribal areas that in the Southeast was heavily influenced
by the books by Roy Dickens and members of the De Soto Route Study
Group. Because of political influence by North Carolina and the Eastern
Band of Cherokee, the presence of Creeks, Shawnee, Koasati, Yuchi and
Siouans in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee were
erased from the history books.

The bureaucrats labeled a massive seven state territory as being occupied


by the Cherokees in the 1500s. The initial NAGPRA map showed all of
Georgia to have been Cherokee at the time of European Contact. The
revised map used today shows all of northern Georgia, including Etowah
Mounds, to have been always occupied by the Cherokees. The last two
tracts in western Georgia ceded by the Creek Nation is the only territory
in Georgia that is shown as being traditionally Creek.

Federally recognized Alabama, Koasati, Chickasaw and Shawnee tribes


have been completely disfranchised from NAGPRA review of their for-
mer town sites in the Southeast. The two federally recognized Creek
tribes only have jurisdiction over a small fraction of their original territo-
ry. The size of territorial responsibility directly affects grants made by
the Department of Interior to support Tribal Historic Preservation Offic-
es. The Muscogee-Creek Nation has undoubtedly been short-changed
well over a million dollars since the NAGPRA maps took effect.
Biltmore Mound
In 2003 archaeologists from Appalachian State University excavated the
Biltmore Mound site. It wasn’t much . . . an 18 inches high – 50 feet di-
ameter bump. The professor-student team was initially excited about
finding architectural proof of the Cherokee’s ancient civilization. What
they found instead was that the mound was not even a mound. It was the
ruins of a building. The organic residue from the structure was analyzed
by equipment that measures the deterioration of Carbon 14 radioisotope
absorbed by formerly living matter. A large round structure had first been
built there around 200 AD. Approximately every 50 years until around
450 AD, the structure was rebuilt. A brightly colored clay cap was ap-
plied to the remains of the previous structure. After five reconstructions
the combined clay caps probably reached the grand height of three feet.
Artifacts found in the round structure were typical of those produced in
the Middle Woodland Period (0-600 AD.) There was no budget to exam-
ine the area around the council house to determine if there was a village.

The “De Soto Slept Here” historical marker was quietly removed from
Downtown Asheville. Trying to save what face the city could from the
public relations fiasco, a young reporter for the Asheville Citizen-Times
announced that the Biltmore Mound was the oldest known Cherokee ar-
chitecture in the world. An Appalachian graduate student was quoted as
saying that their excavations proved that the Cherokees were the Cones-
tee People. It is unlikely that he knew that Conestee means “Skunk Peo-
ple.” The times are a-changing Richard Thornton, Editor”
PLEASE NOTE:
JURISDICTION & STATUS IS DEDICATED TO FINDING THE TRUTH
ALWAYS AND PRESENTING IT.

OUR INTENT WITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS NOT TO


INSULT OR DEGRADE, BUT TO ENLIGHTEN.
WE LOVE ALL OF OUR INDIGENOUS BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
THE FOLLOWING IS QUOTED FROM THE CHEROKEE NATION SITE:
“There are many theories on the meaning of the word Cherokee. For
example, the western dialect of the Cherokee does not contain an ‘r’
sound. The origin of this name is possibly from the word "atsila" or the
eastern dialect version, "atsira," meaning fire, thus the full meaning could
be ‘people of the fire.’ This has been documented from informants in the
1800’s. In the Cherokee language, it is pronounced anitsalagi, meaning
Cherokee people. The Cherokee people call themselves aniyvwiya,
meaning the Real People. The elders tell us Cherokee people historically
have also called themselves anigaduwagi, or Kituwah people.”
In fact, so many nations / tribes have been given “new” names. Why?
The best question to always ask is “Why?” Once “Why?” is asked,
then research is next; then the TRUTH IS TRULY REVEALED!
Indigenous Status in Jurisdiction Page 73

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA


ARE SLAVES TO THE U.S. DEBT
BECAUSE they are 14th AMENDMENT CITIZENS!

International Convention on the Elimination of All


Forms of Racial Discrimination Adopted by General As-
sembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965, entry
into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19;
BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA are NOT A RACE OF
PEOPLE. Unknown to most United States Citizens, people
around the world, in other countries recognize and exist as
members of the “FAMILY OF NATIONS” or a “FAMILY
OF RACES”- “NEGRO”, “BLACK”, “COLORED”,
“WHITE” and “AFRICAN AMERICAN” are NOT RAC-
ES! People known as “NEGRO”, “BLACK”, “WHITE”,
“COLORED” and “AFRICAN AMERICAN” are NOT a
part of the “FAMILY OF NATIONS”, and the laws and con-
ventions of the UNITED NATIONS do not protect such
“LOST and DEAD PEOPLE”!
WAKE UP PEOPLE! Your ANCESTORS DIED HERE!
THEIR BLOOD CALLS ON YOU TO WAKE UP!
At the request of the study group, I have provided amended notes of our
studies and research. Hopefully these notes and passages will enlighten
the reader as the GREAT GIVER OF LIFE has enlightened me.
PEOPLE in the UNITED STATES of AMERICA ARE LABELED
as “BLACK, NEGRO, COLORED AND AFRICAN AMERICAN”!
Those are titles created by the United States Government and ARE
NOT NATIONALITIES!
Tcee
“Tiara”
Page 74
The Empress

The Impact of Verdiacee “Tiara” Washington-Turner Goston has not yet been measured,
and decades will pass before another being can share her stage. Empress Tiara crossed over
to her true home in April of 2014. Despite all of the negative press, discredit and rumors
concerning The Empress over the many years, she is credited as being one of the first mod-
ern “Dark-skinned” Indian people to raise her voice against corruption concerning the pur-
poseful misclassification and human rights violations perpetuated on those labeled as
“NEGRO / BLACK / AFRICAN-AMERICAN” in America. The Cherokee Nation even
honored her as a leader for her people. During her years, The Empress was subjected to a
U.S. Federal Government assault and raid at her property in Louisiana. Soon after, she
became deathly ill and suffered a stroke leaving her physically immobile confined to a
nursing home. According to “The Empress”, the ‘FEDS’ took more than thirty years of
research documents and files. She was not afraid to voice her opinions and truth and She
taught us how to speak out and to not be VOICELESS!
IN HONOR OF
Empress Verdiacee “Tiara” Washington Turner Goston

After over 30 years of professional legal research, in 1992, this Ancient One, born May 4,
1927, stated that she and her bloodline were and are lawful heirs to the “The Louisiana
Territory”; more than 1,000,000 square miles of land, extending from the Appalachian to
the Rocky Mountains, and from Canada to the border of Mexico. For nearly 200 years, the
United States of America has alleged they acquired that land in The Louisiana Purchase,
1803. In case No. 191, U.S. Supreme Court, United States vs. Heirs of Henry Turner,
the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the lower United States District Court,
for the District of Louisiana, in favor of Turner’s heirs, (i.e. Case No. 32, June 19, 1848,
Heirs of Henry Turner vs. The United States), finding land once under ‘Special French
Land Grant’ Joseph de Maison Rouge to be the rightful property of ‘Henry Turner’ lawful
heirs. The Louisiana Purchase was actually a purchase of y the streets of New Orleans
and a Military Barracks, as they were in 1803 only. The U.S. Supreme Court decision
concerned one of several grants engineered by the King of France and the King of
Spain, for their mutual blood relation the Dauphin of France (son of the ‘de jure’ King of
France, Louis XVI and nephew of the then current King of France, Louis XVIII) and the
Nephew of King of Spain, Charles IV’s by “Royal Bloodline”.

This grant alone conveyed, to the ‘Dauphin of France’, a total of “thirty leagues” of land
in the Louisiana Territory of France, June 20th, 1787.
King Louis XII, aka The Marquis, Joseph de Maison-Rouge, the French Daughin, mar-
ried Empress Ayimareeyah; their son was Henry Joseph Turner, the Louisiana Dauphin.
Empress Verdiacee is the lawful heir to the Louisiana Territory grants engineered to
‘PRESERVE’ the Ancient Indigenous Empire of Mound Builders.

Empress Verdiacee is also Grand Daughter, and lawful heir to the


Imperial Throne of Empress Delphia Badger Kimms.
Page 75 Article from Emmanuel Afraka

Article from Emmanuel Afraka:


FIRST BLACKS OF THE AMERICAS ARRIVED ON THEIR
OWN, NOT IN EUROPEAN SLAVESHIPS

Not a single European nation, tribe, or kingdom is responsible for the


presence of Blacks in the Americas. The very first people of Negroid/
African race arrived in the Americas over thirty thousand years ago, ac-
cording to National Geographic's article on “THE PEOPLING OF
AMERICA”, and the revelation that more than fifty skulls representing
Africans and people of Africoid-Aboriginal type similar to that of Mela-
nesia and Australia were found in Brazil.

Furthermore, according to the Gladwin Thesis, the first Blacks may have
arrived in the Americas as early as about 75,000 B.C. and they were
called "Dimunitive Blacks" or people similar to the Pygmies of Africa
and Agta of the Philipines. A Black Australoid type, an Black African
type, A Black Melanesian type also migrated to the Americas according
to the Gladwin Thesis (see the text, "A History of the African-Olmecs,"
pub. by 1stBooks Library, www.1stbooks.com).

One of the most ancient Black nations of the Americas lives right here in
the State of Louisiana; they are called the Washingtons and Turners, and
before the Louisiana Territory was illegally sold by France for three
cents an acre, knowing that the Washington-Turner clans owned about
one million square miles, the entire region belonged to the Mound-
building Washington-Turner clans who were recognized by both Spain
and France.
Yet, the hunt for Black slaves in the Americas and for the "Descendants
of Ham" who were to be enslaved brought about the taking of the lands
of the Washington-Turner clans, and other Black nations, and the en-
slavement of many of them. According to I. Rafinesque, (American
Friends, 1833 "Black Nations of America”), a number of Black nations
existed in North America, and when Louis and Clarke explored west of
the Mississippi, some were seen.
Two well known Black nations were the Yamassee who had a sizeable
kingdom in what is today Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and North-
ern Florida. The Black Calafians of California (Black Mojave) also
owned lots of land and fought with the settlers up to the 1880's. Many
others existed as well and they are all listed in the logs of some of the
very early explorers who were either French or Spanish, or fur trappers.
Article from Emmanuel Afraka Page 76

So, the idea that the white man brought Blacks to this continent
after Columbus is one of the biggest lies of history. The fact is
they were looking for slaves in Brazil even before Columbus and
the explorers saw Blacks along the South American coast, in
the Caribbean, and in parts of the Southern U.S.

As for Black civilization in the Americas, it is a fact that the Olmec or


Mende-Shi, are of AFRICAN and ASIAN origins, and they con-
tributed to the building of the Olmec civilization in Central Ameri-
ca and Mexico. This occurred from about 3113 B.C. to about 400
A.D. While about half a million slaves were brought to the U.S.,
and many millions to Latin America and the Carib-
bean, there were large numbers of Blacks in the
Americas who had been here for thousands of years
and who also fell victim to slave raiders and in-
vaders.
*Read more: "A History of the
African-Olmecs". http://www.1stbooks.com
"BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA."

It doesn't matter whether Native Americans are Washington-


Turner from Louisiana, Yamassee from South Carolina, Lum-
bee from North Carolina, Chippewa from Michigan or Chak-
chiuma from West Tennessee; all tribes in America
have “Black” Roots. The phenotypes of Native Ameri-
cans point to the theories held by Diop and Van Serti-
ma. What this amounts too are further discrepancies in
what is written in our history books. Even though the evidence
is right here and pushed in a person's face,
there are those who still believe the "Old
Guard." It is nothing more than Revisionist
History. ..LIES.
ALSO READ:

“THE FIRST AMERICANS


WERE AFRICAN”
WRITTEN BY
DAVID IMHOTEP, PH.D.
Page 77 THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVES

THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVES


“THEY’ SAY between 5,000,000 to 20,000,000 slaves arrived in the
Americas between 1540 and 1850 over—a 310 year period (according to
US History books). If you look at the following facts of published mate-
rial, we are living under another fantasy and fraud of American Revi-
sionist History.
The following information undermines the whole breadth and depth
of what is written in American history books. By using simple calcu-
lations, the following information can be ascertained:
 Over a period of 300 years, is
it fair to say that 60,000 slaves
were transported annually to
the Americas- or has the
transportation of slaves to the
Americas been one big myth?
 The largest seagoing vessel car-
ried 400 slaves but not all of the ships were that large. Time of
passage was 3 - 4 months. That means 200 vessels/ships per
year would have to travel carrying 300 people. One ship could
make 3 passages per year.
 The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database says there were 1100 -
1400 voyages made over that 300 year period. If that is the case
and each ship carried 400 people, the total number would be
560,000 Africans transported to America. Does not add up.
 We already know that over 83% of all American Natives have
Negro blood type “O”. Did Native American tribes help slaves
escape because they were known to be Indians, already part
of the American Indian Nations?
According to the figures above, many more slaving companies would
have to be in the business of human trafficking annually to come up
with the numbers of slaves actually transported, but the published
material lists only three (3) major companies that dealt in the slave
trade and were given a 31 year monopoly by the British Government.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVES Page 78

The Royal Adventurer was later named the Royal


African Company, so it was one in the same compa-
ny. There were other independent companies en-
gaged in slave trade, but there were only three (3)
main companies engaged in human trafficking.

The Guinea Company--at its height--had 15 ships from 1618 - 1650. The
Guinea Company also dealt in gold, dyes, and also things other than just
the human trafficking of slaves. British, French, Dutch, and Danish par-
ticipated in human trafficking.
Statistics have not taken into consideration the Portuguese ships that
sailed at the time, but from what is out there, the Portuguese and Spanish
transported 81,000 slaves to the Americas. Following is a table from
"Slave Statistics" by Hugh Thomas published in 1997 by Simon and
Schuster:
Page 79 THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVES

After 20 years the Royal Adventurer--with its 15 ships


had transported between 90,000 and 100,000
slaves. That amount is a far cry from 15,000,000 to
20,000,000 slaves who were supposedly brought to the
Americas. So... where did over 14 million to 19 mil-
lion people come from?

THEY (DARK ANCESTORS) WERE ALREADY HERE!!

The calculated median of 15 and 20 million would be 17.5 million.


Divide it by 400 people—the amount held by the largest slave vessels.
That comes out to 43,750 trips. No record exists which can show
where this many trips occurred, or how the government calculated
such a large number of trips of which NEVER HAPPENED.

 The same thing happened with the holocaust in Germany during


World War II. Six million people were supposedly killed, but
there are not that many names referenced who died totaling six
million.
 The statistics state only .05% or 1/2 of 1% of all Indigenous peo-
ple of North and South America are in existence as a result of
Christopher Columbus and his European travelers' conquests.
 Ninety-five (95%) percent were massacred by Columbus and his
European crews shortly after 1492. Around 1900, it was thought
that Native Americans were on the brink of extinction with only
250,000 left.

This picture is of a Michigan Chippewa Indian from the Reservation


in Mt. Pleasant, MI, taken in the 1800's. It is
true that Native Americans harbored runa-
way slaves, but the lady pictured at the right
was already in Michigan before the slaves
migrated as free people.
NEGRO HERITAGE Page 80

History, Colonization
Black Indians are indigenous to America—North, South, and Central
before the so-called “Red Man”; before the Europeans, before the so-
called “Bering Strait crossings”. The Fuegians, Olmecs, and Mande
planted the seeds of civilization in the Americas—as BLACK
INDIANS! As “THE NEGRO”
The revolution and salvation of Identity of the dark man of America
must initiate where the identity of the dark man in America began, as a
NEGRO. What makes the term NEGRO important? The word NEGRO
was the original term used by the European invaders, which became a political
identifier of dark people in America during the mid to late 1700’s thru the mid
1900’s of European domination.
The word NEGRO is identified in U.S. treaties and on other valuable docu-
ments. Occidental College in Los Angeles, where Barak Obama attended
school, has a document which was circulated when Obama began his run for
president. The document is entitled “The Occidental History of NEGRO in U.S
History”. The document shows that before slavery began in America en-mass,
hundreds of thousands of NEGROS were living all across the Eastern United
States.
It reveals those same NEGROS in the late 1700’s were systematically dis-
enfranchised, separated from their homes and families, very much like the Jewish
Holocaust; the NEGRO was sold into slavery all across the southern U.S. During
these same time periods and during the 1800’s, provisions concerning NEGROS
were also being made within various Indian treaties all across the eastern U.S..

When we go back to the term NEGRO we find that the U.S. government owes
tremendous debt to the NEGRO and nothing to the African American. If your
birth record identifies you as NEGRO, you are entitled to numerous provi-
sions, but you must reclassify as NEGRO because it is a political identifi-
er, and a valid claim must be made in proper persona. The term African
American must be renounced and rescinded. The dark man in the
united states has only been an African American for less than 28 years,
and it appears according to research, African Americans became African
Americans because of a god-damn poem written by some guy named
Duncan and the promoted by Jessie Jackson and a few others, and like
magic … We now have the African American. The NEGRO has now
forsaken all that is owed to them and the NEGRO is now an IMMI-
GRANT and can be removed from his own homeland because the NE-
GRO has now chosen allegiance and birthright to another land-mass.
THE GREATEST DECEPTION OF THE
HISTORY OF AMERICA!
http://yamasseegov.org/main_site/
Documented presence on the North American
continent for over 52,000 years!
A Quote from the Congressional serial set United States Government
Printing Office, 57th Congress 1st Session, House of Representatives
Document 179 Report of the Industrial Commission on Agriculture and
Agricultural labor Washington Government printing Office, Year 1901,
page 824:
"Yamasee Indians were Negroes, what were known afterwards as the
fiercest of the Indians tribes of the South….”
The Yamassee were proven to have been present on this land mass before
the continental drift and the land mass was called by the Greeks “ Pan
Gia”. As Chief Sekhu and the Yamassee Nation of South Carolina states
on their site: “The Purpose by providing this information is mainly be-
cause it has been purported and rumored by some we are just “ Black”
and anyone can be a Indian, if they are. This cannot be further from the
truth and becomes an insult to our Tribe, only because ignorance is the
determining factor behind that type of thinking. For reference we are the
only tribe in history clearly Identified by congress, and history books. “

http://store.gibbssmitheducation.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=1074

Chief Sekhu Hidden Eagle Gentle

Chief Brenda “Red Crow” Webb


Grand Matriarch of the
Yamassee Indian Tribe
Page 82 The Forgotten Story of American Indian Slavery

The Forgotten Story of American Indian Slavery


When Americans think of slavery, our minds create images of
Africans inhumanely crowded aboard ships plying the middle passage
from Africa, or of blacks stooped to pick cotton in Southern fields. We
don't conjure images of American Indians chained in coffles and marched
to ports like Boston and Charleston, and then shipped to other ports in the
Atlantic world. Yet Indian slavery and an Indian slave trade were ubiqui-
tous in early America.

From the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico to
Canada, tens of thousands of America's native peoples were enslaved,
many of them transported to lands distant from their homes. Our histori-
cal mythology posits that American Indians could not be enslaved in
large numbers because they too readily succumbed to disease when ex-
posed to Europeans and they were too wedded to freedom to allow any-
one to own them.

Yet many indigenous people developed resistance to European dis-


eases after being exposed to the newcomers for well over a century. And
it is a racist conception that "inferior" Africans accepted their debased
position as slaves -a status that American Indians and Europeans presum-
ably could never have accepted. This is a gross misconception of history.
We are just scratching the surface of what this all means. For the enslave-
ment of Indians forces us to rethink not only the institution of slavery,
but the evolution of racism and racist ideologies in America. In the 17th
century, Europeans, Africans and American Indians all accepted slavery
as a legitimate social institution.

Treatment and status of the enslaved varied greatly from group to


group. War captives provided most slaves, though the Europeans made
slavery inheritable. Africans and Indians did exchange slaves as com-
modities, but Europeans introduced an international market economy for
labor, as colonial plantation societies developed an insatiable demand for
workers, spurring the African slave trade as well as various forms of
bond labor for impoverished Europeans.
The Forgotten Story of American Indian Slavery Page 83

In the American South, European traders, mostly British colonists operating


out of Charleston, South Carolina, engaged local and distant American In-
dian tribes to undertake slaving against their neighbors, who could be made
to walk to ships that would carry them to Barbados, New York, Antigua
and other ports in the Atlantic world, where they would work as slaves.

The South Carolinians used some of these slaves to work their own planta-
tions, but because of the ability of captives to escape over familiar territory
among familiar peoples, their captors preferred to export most of them else-
where. Capital from selling Indian slaves was used to fund plantations and
purchase Africans. It was as if one could create capital out of thin air: The
only effort lay in capturing the prey and transporting it to market. Native
peoples engaged in slaving for a variety of reasons. In exchange for cap-
tives, they received European trade goods. Many also hoped to forge closer
relations with the British. To refuse to become slave raiders, they risked
becoming categorized as potential victims, with their enemies then filling
the role of slavers.
The result: A frenzy of slaving infected the region, as natives captured not
only their enemies, but people they had never met. Some went farther and cap-
tured their friends and allies. Small-scale raids with attacks on fewer than a dozen
people evolved into large-scale wars, with the British and their American-Indian
allies seeking captives in the thousands. Extending southward from Charleston,
British and native raiders followed attacks upon the native peoples of Georgia
with a massive onslaught against Indians on Spanish missions in northern Flori-
da.

Systematically, the raiders extended all the way to the Florida


Keys. Simultaneously, the English established important ties with the
Chickasaw, who became the key slavers of the lower Mississippi Valley,
extending their attacks west of the Mississippi and south to the Gulf of
Mexico.
The Chickasaw, surrounded by enemies on all sides, used slaving as a way to
strengthen themselves at their enemies' expense, but great losses in slaving wars
weakened them immensely. The numbers are difficult to calculate, but an esti-
mated 60,000 to 80,000, perhaps more, American Indians were exported from
Charleston; sent to Africa. Thousands more were exported from ports in Boston
and Salem, and, on a much smaller scale, by the French from New Orleans.
Page 84

Right now in Memphis, Tennessee, a sort of “revolution” is going on. People


considered “black” are, and have been part of an “awakening” for a couple of
years now; many people have realized that they are this thing called
“indigenous”. Like new spring flowers everywhere, classes and lectures have
sprung up and courts are consistently filled with individuals and groups standing
up and speaking “TRUTH TO POWER”, defending themselves and being wit-
nesses for others pertaining to violations of human and indigenous rights that the
courts hardly ever recognize…purposefully.
That being said, Memphis has always had a quiet rumbling going on, with
“sleeping giants” in the midst; a 25-foot-tall, 5,000-pound fiberglass reproduction
of Ramesses II is a shadow of the truth that hides right below the surface. It is a
replica of a limestone original that Memphis was given permission by the Egyp-
tian government to reproduce. The statue was moved from “The Pyramid” where
it had been since 1991, then moved to The University of Memphis’ Institute of
Egyptian Art & Archaeology. A PYRAMID? In Memphis, TENNESSEE?
Yes….another shadow ….a glass building erected near the Mississippi River
used as a “toy”; a “cute” representation, first used for music concerts, now anoth-
er business; a smack in the face of all the indigenous people whose ancient an-
cient ANCIENT ancestors came from “the continent we now know as “Africa”
and China hundreds of thousands and thousands of years ago, whose ancestors
are now indigenous to North and South America. (Yes yall…China has pyra-
mids!!) (SEE: THE FIRST AMERICANS WERE AFRICANS by DR. DAVID
IMHOTEP.)
We have BEEN here in Memphis; the INDIGENOUS; and we have been perse-
cuted, assaulted, neglected, abused, harassed, kidnapped and murdered through-
out history as long as we have been here.
Many do not know of the atrocities that occurred in Memphis, at the Mississippi
River. The World says, “BBQ”, “ELVIS!!!” when Memphis is brought up in
conversation…Beale Street – Blues…Music…then a solemn, “Martin Luther
King, Jr. was murdered there too, right?” comes in second. This is why this writer
has decided to RE-MIND whoever wishes to read the following truth about be-
loved MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE…..

Indigenous History of Memphis and Tennessee


The earliest name that became the word Tennessee was recorded by Spanish
explorer Captain Juan Pardo in 1567 when Pardo and his men passed through an
Indian village named “Tanasqui” while traveling from South Carolina. Tanasqui
was located at the juncture of the Pigeon and French Broad Rivers near what is
now Newport, Tennessee. In the 18th century, British traders encountered a
‘Cherokee’ town called Tanasi in what is now Monroe County, Tennessee. The
town was located on a river now called the Little Tennessee River and is on
maps, including some from 1725. Areas around and in what is now Memphis
were first settled by the Mississippian Culture (Ancient Moundbuilders) who
inhabited the modern day Tipton, Lauderdale and Shelby Counties during the
time of first encounter with Europeans and at the time of the de Soto Expedition.
Tribes historically documented by countless sources as living in the Tennessee
and Mississippi areas are the Chikasha (Chickasaw), Chahta (Choctaw), Saktchi
Homma (Chakchiuma), Anikituwa (Cherokee), Muscogee (Creek), Yuchi and
others. Nine single mound sites and six small villages were located along the
levees and bluffs of De Soto County, Mississippi and Shelby County, Tennessee.
Some of the mounds still exist. The C.H. Nash Museum in Memphis, formerly
known as Chucalissa Indian Village (pronounced “chuck-ah-lizza”, a Choctaw
word meaning “abandoned house”) was the home of the Mississippian-period
(A.D. 900-1600) ancestors of Choctaw and Chickasaw indigenous peoples, and
others. Modern ancestors of these indigenous peoples and others discussed in this
initiative herein exist today living in Tennessee and Mississippi as “black”,
“negro” or “African-American” people, and others called “Native American”.
Also, many counties, cities, rivers, streets, parks, businesses etc. have names and
references derived from indigenous language, nations, tribes and individuals.
By the 1680s, French explorers built Fort Prudhomme in the vicinity of the
first European settlement that would become Memphis. Fort Assumption was a
French fortification constructed in 1739 on the Chickasaw Bluff on the Mississip-
pi River by the French Army. The fort was used as a base against the Chickasaw
in the Campaign of 1739. The land of present-day Memphis remained a mostly
unorganized territory through most of the 18th century while Tennessee evolved
from what would become North and South Carolina. This area became the west-
ernmost point of the newly welcomed Tennessee State of the United States. How-
ever, West Tennessee was at that time owned by the Chikasha (Chickasaw) tribe.
(Note: One map of Western Tennessee shows it being named CHAKCHIUMA
(Saktchi Homma – “red crawfish people”) The area of West Tennessee was
forcefully purchased from the Chickasaw Nation by the Federal Government in
the 1818 Jackson Purchase. During the enforcement of the Indian Removal Act,
which began in 1830, Memphis became a crossing point on the Mississippi River
for indigenous peoples expelled from their original lands and removed to “Indian
Territory” in Oklahoma and other places during on the “Nunna daul
Isunyi” (Cherokee for “Trail where they Cried”) or ‘Trail of Tears’. In Memphis,
Lamar Avenue, formerly known as Plank Road, is also known as “Highway 78. It
was part of the route traveled by the Chickasaw upon their removal on the Trail
of Tears, as was Poplar Avenue in Memphis traveled by the Cherokee during this
time.
Memphis became a major slave market during the 19th Century. The cotton
economy in the South depended on the forced labor of large numbers of slaves. A
point not widely known is that most of the slaves in Memphis and Tennessee
were not necessarily from the continent known as ‘Africa’; almost all were indig-
enous to the very land they were kidnapped from and forced to be slaves on.
(Check out the movie “12 Years a Slave”)
During the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, Indigenous Peoples (“Native Ameri-
cans”, “American Indians”) were the first to be enslaved in the United States by
European colonists; this enslavement became common practice. However, the
conditions of their enslavement were many times much worse than those of Afri-
cans who came later. The first African slaves were brought here by a wealthy
‘black’ slave ship owner. The owner claimed that most of the slaves were pur-
chased from their tribes and families or came on the trip freely, preferring slavery
to starvation, disease, and early deaths if they stayed in Africa. *Less than 20
percent of the ‘blacks’ brought here came from Africa. Note: During slavery
times, some indigenous people were exported to colonies in the North and to the
“sugar islands” of the Caribbean and other colonies off-shore. An estimate by
Historian Alan Gallay shows from 1670 to 1715,
British slave traders sold somewhere between 24,000
to 51,000 American Indigenous People from what is
considered the “South” in the United States. Before
the Civil War, approximately one-fourth of the popu-
lation of Memphis was slaves. Incidentally, a Mem-
phis home located on the banks of the Mississippi
River owned by German immigrant and anti-slavery
advocate Jacob Burkle was part of the “Underground
Railroad” on the slaves’ route to freedom from 1855
to the abolition of slavery.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, whose statue still stands in the medical district of
Memphis near downtown, was a slave owner and former
KKK Leader – the first “Grand Dragon”. Forrest allowed
forces under his command to conduct a massacre upon hun-
dreds of black Union Army and white Southern Unionist
prisoners at the Battle of Fort Pillow. The war crimes he was
accused of were investigated by Union Major General Wil-
liam T. Sherman who did not charge Forrest with any impro-
prieties. In postwar writings, Confederate President Jeffer-
son Davis and very famous General
Robert E. Lee both expressed that
the Confederate high command had
failed to utilize Forrest’s “talents”
At the onset of the American Civil
War, which started in 1861, Forrest
was a millionaire: One of the richest men in the South!
His fortune made literally off the backs of the indigenous
and few African slaves he “owned”. Before the Civil
War, Forrest also had plantations not far from Vicksburg,
Mississippi as well, and had been a boat captain making
runs between Memphis and Vicksburg. Many attempts have been made to re-
move his statue from Memphis, but to no avail….of course. —There were many
historically documented massacres and killings of indige-
nous people in Memphis. One example is what has been
dubbed the “1866 Memphis Freedman Holocaust” where an
investigation revealed that bitter feelings existed between the
“low” whites & blacks; there also existed special hatred
among the city police for the Colored Soldiers stationed
there who had been discharged from the service of the U. S.,
which of course, the soldiers were not going to tolerate. Ap-
parently, based on personal experience of this writer, the
Memphis City Police STILL carry this hatred of indigenous
people who exist here today.
I hope the information herein has illuminated the reader’s mind. I hope I have not
stepped on anyone’s blue suede shoes….on second thought, The Spirit of Martin
Luther and B.B. are the only Kings in Memphis.
SOME EXTRA INFO FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE:
*United States Census Statistics of culturally diverse groups in the Memphis and
Shelby County areas of Tennessee are listed as follows for 2012, and have in-
creased in the last couple of years: (SEE NEXT PAGE)
Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) 52.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2012 (a) 0.3%
Asian alone, percent, 2012 (a) 2.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2012 (a) 0.1%
Two or More Races, percent, 2012 1.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 (b) 5.9%
*http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/47157.htmlCulture of Memphis, Ten-
nessee. ***Note: Considering the truth concerning the mis-naming and classifi-
cation of “black” or “African-American” people in Memphis and Tennessee and
lost or hidden history, and considering the recent presentation of proof and asser-
tation of many “black” people showing they too are the “American Indian” or
“Indigenous People”, there is a high percentage of “American Indian” or
“indigenous people” in Memphis
alone.
NOTE: NEXT TIME THE
CENSUS COMES
THROUGH,
PUT AMERICAN INDIAN /
NATIVE AMERICAN!!!
...AND THEY TRIED
TO HIDE IT!

Images from Memphis Public Library


September 8, 1954
CHICKASAW CHOCTAW TREATY 1866 Page 89

“O” Type Blood is dominant in Indigenous People East of the Mississippi River in the
Mississippi-Tennessee-Arkansas Region and other Southeastern States, the historic home-
land to hundreds of thousands of DARK INDIGENOUS people, which the Spanish in-
vaders called “INDIANS” or “INDIOS”. Unfortunately, because they were “Dark” Indians,
the United States legally unlawfully classified them as “NEGRO”. According to Govern-
ment Agent Walter Plecker and Government Historian Jack Forbes, the NEGRO today
are the descendants of those people called and referred to as (Chatah) Choctaw, (Chikasa)
Chickasaw, (Shaktci Homma) Chakchiuma, Creek, Yamassee, Seminole,
Washita[w], Black Foot, Shawnee, Shoshoni and many other Southern and Eastern tribes.
The Chickasaw Choctaw Treaty of 1866 stipulates that all people of “African” descent and
Negros who were living within the territories of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations dur-
ing 1866 were protected by Treaty with the United States, and their descendants are still
protected under this same Treaty. When Negros, or a descendant of the Negro are reclaimed
back into the tribal community, that person’s identity and standing in law changes, and he
gains certain immunities as an Indian (Indigenous). She or he can no longer be treated as
property, a citizen or slave under the state laws. This person is now under Common Interna-
tional Law and Federal Law…EXISTING IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION.

The following is Article 4 of the Treaty with the Choctaw Chickasaw Nations
April 1866 ARTICLE 4: “The said nations further agree that all negroes, not
otherwise disqualified or disabled, shall be competent witnesses in all civil and
criminal suits and proceedings in the Choctaw and Chickasaw courts, any law to
the contrary notwithstanding; and they fully recognize the right of the freedmen
to a fair remuneration-on reasonable and equitable contracts for their labor, which
the law should aid them to enforce. And they agree, on the part of their respective
nations, that all laws shall be equal in their operation upon Choctaws, Chicka-
saws, and negroes, and that no distinction affecting the latter shall at any time be
made, and that they shall be treated with kindness and be protected against injury;
and they further agree, that while the said freedmen, now in the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nations, remain in said nations, respectively, they shall be entitled to
as much land as they may cultivate for the support of themselves and families, in
cases where they do not support themselves and families by hiring, not interfering
with existing improvements without the consent of the occupant, it being under-
stood that in the event of the making of the laws, rules, and regulations aforesaid,
the forty acres aforesaid shall stand in place of the land cultivated as last afore-
said.”
An example from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ashby_Plecker:
“As registrar, Plecker directed the reclassification of nearly all Virginia Indians
as colored on their birth and marriage certificates, because he was convinced that
most Indians had African heritage and were trying to "pass" as Indian to evade
segregation. Consequently, two or three generations of Virginia Indians had their
ethnic identity altered on these public documents. Fiske reported that Plecker's
tampering with the vital records of the Virginia Indian tribes made it impossible
for descendants of six of the eight tribes recognized by the state to gain federal
recognition, because they could no longer prove their American Indian
ancestry by documented historical continuity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Forbes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
Page 90 Indians and the Proper Court

FILING SUITS IN THE PROPER COURT


EXECUTIVE ORDER Establishing The White House Council On
Native American Affairs

In 2013, President Barack Obama found it necessary


to develop new initiatives to protect indigenous people in the
United states who have been continually subjected to the bi-
ased unconstitutional courts of the numerous States of the Un-
ion. It is understood that Indians are protected by the Indian
Commerce Clause under the United States Constitution, but
because of the erosion of constitutional protections the federal
government has begun promoting the establishment of tribal
courts on tribal land.
In the U.S. people have been tricked into believing that
claims filed in the federal court provided constitutional protec-
tions, but in reality U.S. Federal Courts are quasi state regu-
lated institutions and do not provide true constitutional pro-
tections. The perception was put in place to trick citizens into
believing they were filing claims in the true federal court;
Wrong!
The only true CIL under ATS, constitutional Article III court
is in Washington, D.C. and this is where the true constitutional
protections and powers are found.

The proper court is: The “DISTRICT COURT OF THE


UNITED STATES” (ARTICLE III), and not in the
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT” (ARTICLE I).
Indigenous People must file claims and suits in an
ARTICLE III JURISDICTION for
INDIAN and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ABUSES.
National Association for the Advancement of Indigenous People
NAAIP 2015 INDIGENOUS RECLAMATION PROJECT
The purpose and intent of the NAAIP 2015 Mandate is to assist as many
indigenous people, clans, tribes and nations in placing their existence, land
claims and cultural heritage information on the international public record
and data base before the public notice deadline of January 2015. It is im-
portant that the names and cultural lands be identified, declared and that the
recorded information reflects victims and descendant victims of atrocities
committed by the Europeans during the era of slavery, with effects existing
today as reflected by the plight of the descendants of the indigenous negro
who continue to suffer under colonial domination, races misclassification and
genocide in their own homeland.
The NAAIP 2015 Mandate includes the NAAIP’s National Reparations
Committee (NRC) comprised of indigenous people from all areas of North
America. The committee documents the effects of European genocide against
indigenous inhabitants of America. One of the tasks of the NRC is conduct-
ing thorough research and review of the effects of colonizing on the
‘indigenous negro’ in order to offer an accurate presentation of the true inter-
continental slave trade in North America. The culmination of NRC activities
assist in providing remedy to the descendants of those enslaved as ‘Negro’ as
reflected by United States birth certificates, census records, American Indian
treaties and other official government issued documents.
The attempt at the destruction of indigenous Negro people and culture is a
testament to supporting the destruction and genocide of indigenous dark peo-
ple of America. The NRC endeavors to reveal en masse that the indigenous
people formally called ‘Negro’ are the long term and oldest existing
‘indigenous’ inhabitants of North America and also endeavors to reveal the
dehumanization and the criminal actions of those involved in slavery of the
people of North America. What has become clear, but as yet not widely spo-
ken, is that the horrifying trade of the so named Negro began in America
where thousands of so named Negro existed for thousands of years prior to
their enslavement in America by colonizing Europeans.
The NRC has researched and examined the findings of leading archeologists
and historian reviews as well as other documentation on the issues of Ameri-
can Negro existence, slavery and reparations. The NRC findings in those
particular areas are applied to presentations, claims affidavits, proclamations,
constructive notices and declarations in the submission of indigenous filings
and claims made by NAAIP and its members. Such findings and conclusions
of the NRC are applied to all indigenous peoples of America, where necessi-
ty requires.
The formation of final initiatives utilized by NAAIP’s NRC frame the tasks
ahead by highlighting several issues to include taking intense notice to the
special State by State ‘1700 and 1850 era Negro Disenfranchisement’.
NAAIP has researched a number of Native American treaties where “Negroes”
are classified as a protected group and are treaty benefactors with the same or
similar protections and immunities as those classified as “Indian”. NAAIP has
also discovered that upon the abolition of slavery, the United States government
moved under United States Constitutional authority to further implement eco-
nomic and cultural disenfranchisement intended to subvert and annihilate the
treaty-protected Negro where the same tactics were applied to all unrecognized
Indian groups and tribes. These actions by the United States violated and contin-
ue to go against even the most basic human rights, including forced U.S. citizen-
ship and, fraud and identity theft violating the right to an identity.

These human rights violations having persisted for more than 200 years, and in
violation of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1948 Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights, along with numerous conventions and treaties. The United
States has now classified the descendants of these same indigenous Negros and
unrecognized Indians and tribal people as property of the United States govern-
ment under United States Presidential Executive Order #13037 as referenced by
the “Commission To Study Capital Budgeting 1997”. European slave owners
were paid reparations and zero has been provided to the indigenous Negro or the
unrecognized Indian tribe people.

The States of the United States perfected wealth gain through confiscation of
lands, misclassification of people, theft of resources and indigenous genocide as a
means of wealth generation, and this has lead to the destruction of sustainable
environments, indigenous depopulation, incarceration and discriminate processes
designed to purposefully under develop the Negro and unrecognized Indians and
tribal people for generations to come; this is just one example of the modern re-
sults of European slavery and colonization in America.

The NAAIP NRC is obligated to achieve the following aims and objectives:
 Establish the moral, ethical and legal case for the payment of Reparations by
the Governments of all the former colonial powers and the relevant institutions in
those countries, to the descendants of the American Negro people for Crimes
against Humanity, American Negro Genocide, the inter-continental slave trade
and a forced assimilation into a racially developed system of chattel property;
 Advise and make recommendations for coordinated NRC actions and human
rights claims made on behalf of indigenous membership in America seeking repa-
ration claim protections;
 Coordinate and support the work of NRC members and Task Forces and
encourage the development of Commissions in indigenous communities across
America;

 Develop and implement a regional strategy to pursue Reparations, in-


cluding the following actions:
 Coordinate and/or undertake relevant historical research at the national,
regional and international levels;
 Coordinate and/or undertake legal research, case preparation and litigation
strategies;
 Coordinate national and regional public education campaigns;
 Coordinate and/or conduct national and regional public consultations on
Reparations;
 Develop and recommend diplomatic strategies to advance the case for Repa-
rations in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, N’COBRA, sup-
portive governments and institutions;
 Identify and recommend the appointment of eminent spokespersons and
champions for the cause of Reparations among artists, attorneys, scholars, indige-
nous peoples and politicians;
Engaging and partnering with national, regional and foreign artist, attorneys,
politicians and civil society organizations involved in the support of indigenous
people reclamation rights acknowledging the ancestral heritage of the indigenous
American Negro;
Develop and recommend decisive political action at the national and regional
levels through Political interactions and resolutions under international protection
through common international law adopted as federal law;
Coordinate and/or undertake the preparation of a detailed brief on
the cost of the damages and current manifestations of such damage
on indigenous negro people and their descendants, in the following
and other relevant areas: Economic (including land deprivation),
Social, Cultural and Psychological, Spiritual and Religious, Demo-
graphic, Medical and Educational; and

Assume the responsibility for the preparation and presentation of the legal case
for Human Rights abuses, reparations and reclamations for all indigenous mem-
bers; requiring a consortium of experts in law, research and academia, combined
with the mobilization of members and an intensification of the political and dip-
lomatic outreach, which has already begun.
Membership in NAAIP is the first step into accessing and addressing claims
of heritage and reparations. NAAIP provides a series of lectures, conferences
and workshops necessary to the full understanding of the “NAAIP 2015
INDIGENOUS RECLAMATION PROJECT”.
According to the UNPFII (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indige-
nous Issues): “Indigenous peoples around the world have sought recog-
nition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional
lands, territories and natural resources; yet throughout history, their
rights have been violated. Indigenous peoples are arguably among the
most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of people in the world today.
The international community now recognizes that special measures are
required to protect the rights of the world’s indigenous peoples.”
— About UNPFII/History, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indige-
nous Issues (UNFPII), accessed October 16, 2006
NOTES
THE TIME HAS COME TO ILLUMINATE...
"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for
social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to
be the best of disinfectants; electric light, the
most efficient policeman."
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandei
In Our fight for JUSTICE & FREEDOM, we must
shed the worn rags of fear and despair, and firmly
wear the cloak of the Lord of all Universes, the
Cloak of Truth, Righteousness, and
SUPREME REVELATION...
WE FEAR NOT!
When the Disciple is ready, the M aster will appear.
For questions / information:

(901) 800-8741
naaip7@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/noaah’s ark
www.facebook.com/Naaip Naaip

National Association for the


Advancement of Indigenous People
Graphics by: simranbluegrafixx9@gmail.com