 MNN. August 10, 2005. Some people were afraid that by bringing this case into Canadian and American ?top? courts, we would be subjecting ourselves to the shortcomings of these colonial legal systems. They asked, ?Are you happy that one black man, six white men (maybe seven) and one white woman (maybe 2) might be deciding the rights of Kanien’keha:ka people??Free from politics. We brought our constitutional jurisdiction question to U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts into a neutral forum, free from politics. We wanted to confront their false assumption that we have no rights except what they give us. This is totally false. Decisions made outside constitutions. Keeping the question out of these two ?top? courts does not solve the problem. Both countries are making decisions outside the constitution anyway. Unless these two courts bring their constitutions into line with the rule of law, our sovereignty and possessions will continue to be lost. By what we?re doing we hope they will have no choice but to respect our sovereignty and return our possessions. Narrow question of law. The courts have restricted us to a very narrow question of law. Political questions are irrelevant. Is your constitution in force and effect? If so, why aren?t you obeying it? Our sovereignty is not ?political?. Constitutional law confirms its existence. There have been no constitutional amendments. Law can?t be ?created? by a judge. Law must exist before they can judge. Otherwise, it is political lobbying by a judge to create law. The judge can?t do this. The judge can only recognize a previously created statute, precedent or unwritten customary law which has always existed. Judges cannot repeal or amend existing constitutional law. ?Rule of law? means the law rules, not the political feelings of the judges. Housecleaning needed. U.S. and Canada must clean their constitutional houses. It?s time they got rid of their colonial cobwebs. They should sweep their old federal extermination laws and policies into the dustbin. They can tear down their moldy old strategies and USSC Justice Clarence Thomas? point. The law as it is written has to rule without political considerations. Politics belongs in the legislative branches of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies. We always say, “Never mind the political questions. Let’s look at the law”… Pierre George and Iokerononh file in Canada. On August 10, 2005, Kanion?ke:haka and Pierre George filed in the Supreme Courts of both the U.S. and Canada. Both courts were put on notice about the law, summarized by Iokenononh, in his affidavit to the Supreme Court of Canada: ?The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence/Hudson River Drainage Basin of Northeastern North America is subject to the Kaianereh?ko:wa. The Kaianereh?ko:wa continues to govern. Since 1871 in the U.S. and 1876 in Canada the federal, state and provincial courts have intentionally applied federal, state and provincial law. The Kaianere?ko;wa is the governing law. All previous attempts to stop the genocide were stopped by the combined chicanery of the non-indigenous legal The Court?s task in evaluating a claim for an aboriginal right is to examine the pre-sovereignty aboriginal practice and translate that practice, as faithfully and objectively as it can, into a modern legal right.? This means the judges can make the laws as they go along according to which side of the bed they got up from. Read 05-165 ?In the Supreme Court of the United States In re Kanonion?ke:haka Kaianereh?ko:wa Kanon?ses:neh as a ?Non-party?, The Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians as ?Plaintiffs? vs. The State of New York as ?Defendants??. No self-defeat here. At this point we entered a new age of having a fuller understanding of our legal situation. Had we undermined ourselves at this point, we would have been beat before we started. Kahentinetha Horn |
| poster: Thahoketoteh |
