53.) This is the United States and New York State's plan to destroy all Haudenosaunee people in New York State, using the Bureau of Indian Affairs land trust and the NY Federal-State-Tribal Courts. (15 min. read )

 The only way to stop this now, is to bring it to the United Nations as Human Rights Violations. Does anyone know how to do this?

This is why. Look up the following websites. When you search this first site, the other sites will be part of that search. There is also a YouTube video on the "Second Listening Conference". Here are the websites:

"Tribal Courts in New York: Case Study of the Oneida Indian Nation. Tuesday, November 20, 2018." This is a 282 page, PDF, 25MB's.

"The Second New York Listening Conference Report 'Working Toward Solutions'. Co-sponsored by: the NY Federal-State-Tribal Courts and Indian Nation Justice Forum, The New York State Judicial Institute and the Western Community Policing Institute."

Encyclopedia.com.- "American Indians and the Constitution. A law that satisfies the 'tied rationally' test is not constitutionally defective under the equal protection requirement of the Fifth amendment's due process clause simply because it's singles out Indians for special treatment. For example, congress may establish a preference for employment of tribal Indians with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or may subject Indians to harsher punishments than non-indians would suffer in State Court for doing the same act. Such legislation is held not to constitute an otherwise forbidden racial classification, because of the separate status of Indians under the Constitution (i.e., their subjection to Federal and tribal rather than state jurisdiction)."

( end of website list)

This plan to rid New York State of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, through this "NY Federal-State-Tribal Courts" is from 2018. From the first website document: "Tribal Courts in New York: Case Study of the Oneida Indian Nation", it gives a breakdown of how Tribal Courts have total jurisdiction over all indians- "As sovereign governments, Indian tribes retain the inherent authority to exercise jurisdiction over all crimes committed by Indians (members and non- members) against the person or property of another Indian in Indian country. United States v. Wheeler.

*Tribal Criminal Court examples from that website:

(Oneida Indian nation "is possessed of inherent self-governing power" and as such "it possessed and retain the police power to regulate its internal affairs including the power to prosecute the members of the nation for violations of its rules and ordinances.")

From the "Indian Civil Rights Act and Tribal Court Criminal jurisdiction. A -1. 'Indian Country' includes tribal reservations, Indian communities, and Indian allotments, including any rights of ways running through these lands." 

"If a defendant is convicted of more than one criminal offense in a proceeding, the tribal court may impose up to one year of imprisonment for each offense, up to a maximum of 9 years total imprisonment in a criminal proceeding."

The Second Circuit has held that "address[es] more than actual physical custody, and includes parole, probation, release on one's own recognizance pending sentencing or trial, and permanent banishment."

"The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, increased tribal court authority to impose criminal penalties of up to 3 years imprisonment and/or fine up to $15,000 for each offense." And " if a person is convicted of more than one crime by a tribal court exercising enhanced jurisdiction, the tribal court may impose up to 3 years for each offense; the total tribal Court sentence still cannot exceed a maximum of nine years total imprisonment for a criminal proceeding."

*Tribal Civil Court examples from that website:

"there is no general federal statute that limits tribal court civil jurisdiction over tribal members".

"Ordinance number 0-97-02 Membership and Good Standing in Nation. Oneida Nation Court shall not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine the requirements of eligibility for membership in the nation or the membership status or good standing of any individual. The written statement of the Clerk of the Nation, provided by a party or requested by the court, shall be conclusive and incontrovertible evidence as to membership in the nation, eligibility therefore or good standing thereof."

(end of NY Federal-State-Tribal Courts system examples)

These are just a few examples of how this "New York Federal-State-Tribal Courts" system is taking control of Haudenosaunee Territories in New York State. All Haudenosaunee Territories in New York State have been targeted and mapped out since 2018, as to how the federal and state governments are going to implement this New York Federal-State-Tribal Courts" system into all Haudenosaunee Territories. The United States and the State of New York have apparently come up with their "final solution," to their long discussed "Indian problem".

The plan appears to be simple- Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. This "New York Federal-State-Tribal Courts" system will have absolute, complete control over all aspects of any Indian person's life, within the land jurisdiction of that Federal Indian Court. And any indian can be charged and sentenced to prison or permanent banishment. And there is absolutely no recourse in the federal or state courts to stop this or reverse an Indian Tribal Courts decision. All the Federal and State Court decisions (annotations) are cited in these documents, that prevent any court or appeals court, federal or state, from reversing the Indian Tribal Court's decisions.

This is why all the Senators and the Secretary of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs stay silent. They all know this. They legislated and enforce, all the Laws and Acts to do this. It is a done deal. Now they just stand back silently and watch their plan unfold.

*Here's a few examples of these court decisions/annotations for your consideration:

This case shows that Indians can legally be placed in "Double Jeopardy" which is illegal for all U.S. citizens. "Indian Nation Tribal Court. Re: Oneida Indian Nation v. Preston R. Patterson". Defendant was charged in a Oneida Indian Nation Tribal court. Defendant was also charged with similar offenses in federal court. After hearing the evidence of the people, the federal district court dismissed the charges. Defendant then moved the federal court to dismiss the Oneida Indian Nation's charges on the grounds of OIN court prosecution places defendant "twice in jeopardy" for the same crime in violation of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution, both of which prohibit a person being charged twice for the same offense. That's called "double jeopardy," and it is absolutely illegal in New York State and the United States. But this federal court judge disagreed citing "inherent self governing power" and "Accordingly, the violations of the Penal Code charged herein are violations of Oneida Indian Sovereignty and may be prosecuted by the nation, the federal dismissal notwithstanding." The defendant's motion to not be twice prosecuted for the same crime was denied by this federal judge, Richard D. Simons.

This following case cites how the U.S. Supreme Court uses the "doctrine of discovery" and appears to give a rationale why all the Haudenosaunee territories are being forced to put their territories into trust, under the Department of  The Interior/ Bureau of Indian Affairs:

"Sherrille v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York". Supreme Court Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, giving the opinion of the court, citing the doctrine of discovery as follows: "Under the 'doctrine of discovery', County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York 470 U.S. 226, 234 (1985) (Oneida II), fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign- first the discovering European nation and later the original States and the United States. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974) (Oneida I)."

From that same supreme court decision: "Justice Ginsburg concluded that the proper way for the Oneida Nation to reassert its immunity over those re-acquired lands was to place the land in U.S trust under the Department of the Interior, as authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Justice Ginsburg reasoned that the mechanism behind the IRA would address issues of jurisdiction, tax revenue loss, and other pertinent issues. Shortly after the court published this decision, in April 2005, the OIN applied to the US Interior Department to place 13,000 Acres (20 sq mi; 53 km2) into trust."

This appears to be the rationale behind putting all Haudenosaunee Territories in trust under the Department of the Interior/ Bureau of Indian Affairs. And then the NY Federal-State-Tribal Courts, can be put in place to maintain complete control over all aspects of the lives of the Haudenossunee people, their children and all future generations. Some examples how these courts can legally accomplish this, by doing or threatening to do is: permanent banishment, complete control over membership and what Indians are "in good standing" with the nation, arrest and sending to prison, "double jeopardy", tearing down Indian homes and Longhouse, imposing harsher sentences on Indians than New York State or the US Government can. These and other legal mechanisms are designed to punish the indians who go against this genocidal plan.

The following quote is from Millard Fillmore, New York State Comtroller June 13th, 1848. From the book: Arbitration of Outstanding Pecuniary Claims between Great Britain and the United States of America, re Cayuga Indians. Supplementary Annexes to the Reply of His Britannic Majesty's Government Volume IV. 1925. page 72.:

"2nd. That a treaty made by the state with a part of a nation of Indians is void so far as it attempts to affect the rights of the other part of the nation, which never gave its assent to the treaty and probably such a treaty is a mere nullity from the beginning, as a nation in all its negotiations with other nations is a unit and from its very nature indivisible. It is a corporation and in its corporate rights are blended and unified into one, and as they exist only in contemplation of law, are indivisible- the whole constitute in law but one person."

"absolute power, corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton, MP 1887

As always, this is offered here just as a starting point for discussion in your circle.