TRIBAL LAND GRABS WITH FEDERAL ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT A RECIPE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD This writer lives in the West, owns and lives on leasehold property within the boundaries of a Federal Indian Reservation. Indeed the New York tribal land grabs are important to me and other non-tribal members living within any such reservation where the U. S. Government owns much of the land itself in fee, claims plenary control over tribes , operates under rules that distinctly treat tribal members one way and non tribal members another way when dealing with the same set of facts, and totally disregard many of the Constitutional requirements that are applicable to all of us living on such reservations much less any place in the United States. What is happening in New York, and the cause of these tribal land grabs, is happening all over our nation and is the result of a federal government exercising power well beyond the powers, jurisdictions and rights delegated to it by the U. S. Constitution and the failure of the several States to exercise their Constitutional duty to conduct oversight on the actions of the national government they created to assure that government does not usurp the powers of the various States and their own citizens Body-politics). What is this land grab all about? Lets look at the very guts of one of them the Oneida Indian tribe land grab. Here is a quote from the ONEIDA LAND CLAIM-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FILING 12-8-98. "Nature of the Action 1. This is an action to vindicate the longstanding federal policy to protect Indian land rights. The United States seeks (a) a declaration that the Oneida Indian Nation has a possessory interest in certain lands in the State of New York and that purported conveyances of that possessory interest violated the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177, and (b) relief for violation of the Tribes' possessory interests.". >From this quote we find that the real issue is.. did the federal government have the POWER, JURISDICTION OR RIGHT to impose rules concerning Indians and their tribes with in the boarders of the State of New York, then or ever ? Please consider the following quotes. 1. From the Articles of Confederation. Article IX. 1. "The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States --regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated--establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to another." 2 . Purpose of the Philadelphia ( Constitutional ) Convention of 1787. The following is an excerpt from MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, 1966, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 66-20798, page 4. "Congress, meeting in New York during the previous February, had sanctioned this Philadelphia convention " for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". 3. The following is an excerpt from The Constitution of the United Sates, by John Randolph Tucker, originally published: Chicago: Callaghan, 1899. Reprint available by W. S. Hein, ISBN 0-8377-1206-8 (1-800-4571986), page 300-301. "The Articles of Confederation established March 1, 1781, is the most authentic source from which we can derive the actual relations between the States. By the second of the Articles of Confederation each of these States retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence. The United States of America had none, and only such powers, jurisdiction and rights as by that confederation were expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. The sovereignty, freedom and independence of each State was absolutely retained, and also every power, jurisdiction and right not so expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. The deputies to the Federal Convention at Philadelphia, as we have seen, had authority delegated to them by their respective legislatures to revise the Articles of Confederation so as to make the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union. This was the extent of the powers of the delegates of the States to that convention. The convention, therefore, had no authority to surrender the freedom and independence of each State so absolutely retained by the terms of the second of the Articles of Confederation. The convention had no power to merge the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the several States into one sovereignty of one people of the United States." 4. The US Constitution, 1789. Article 1, Section 8(3). I. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; II. To borrow money on the credit of the United States; III. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. After reading the above four quotes there appears to be one simple answer to the question of federal authority over Indians and their tribes in New York State at the time of the Intercourse act of 1790, and there after… the answer is NO. Clearly all of the States specifically retained control over the Indians within their boarders under our current Constitution because of the specific language regarding that subject in Article IX of the Articles of Confederation. For those doubting Thomas's who think the Articles were outdated or not controlling in this matter.. again read the Bowen and Tucker quotes above. Without question the federal government imposed the Intercourse Acts upon New York without Constitutional authority which amounts to Constitutional fraud and those act, as applied to States, are void. If the reader finds a lawyer or history professor that disagrees with these finding then ask them to prove them wrong. To do so they must find an authority that all States agree with that takes those specifically retained (by the States) powers, jurisdictions and rights concerning Indians found in Article IX, of the Articles of Confederation, out of that document. There is no such authority. One more issue remains to be discussed and that has to do with tribes that purport to be legitimate governments-sponsored and funded by the federal government and who impose taxes and government regulations upon citizens of your State (any of the 50 States ). This is an outrageous attack on our Constitutional rights , as specified by Article IV, Section 4, of that document , by the federal government itself. You are urged to read Article IV, Sec. 4, yourself and to read what Tucker has to say on this subject (page 634-642-try the Library). You will find an earlier article on this subject , by this writer, TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ( not republican in form ) at . You will find several other article at that web site under letters. It is very important for you to understand the depth of the damage being done to citizens living on Indian Reservation by the federal actions that provide tribes the ability to tax and regulate citizens living and or working within such a reservation. This is a major violation of our Constitutional right as individual citizens and as citizens of our particular State. Were we (through our various associations) to band together in a class action specifically using the republican form of government argument and claiming damages for all of the unconstitutional results of the current federal Indian programs, to include the bogus land claims now developing in New York , the bogus taxing and regulating , against the federal executive and legislative branch incumbents who are designing and implementing these Indian programs, as well as certain State elected and appointed officers who have allowed those same programs to exist in their States, we could well stop this tyranny. Read the oaths of office that these elected and appointed officials sign and you decide if they have lived up to their sworn obligation. John A. Fleming May 7, 2000