My Senator (McCaskill) has introduced S. 1948 titled “A bill to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter partes review of patents.” [TribalImmunity]
The Bill provides one simple statement as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe may not assert sovereign immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted under chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code.
As discussed previously, Tribal Nation Sovereign Immunity is not Constitutionally protected and may be eliminated by particular acts of Congress. Thus, this Bill would seem to be effective to eliminate the ongoing concern regarding tribal immunity assertions. The proposal does lack an effective date and so the only missing element would be whether the Bill would retroactively veto pre-enactment claims of immunity.
More on Tribal Immunity: Is a Tribal-Owned Patent Immune from IPR Challenge?
Allergan: Creating Sovereign Immunity with Tribal Pass-Through
…
anon October 15, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Scotus Rule 37 is simply not material.
You need to answer the very simple – and very direct question put to you.
What IS the question that the Court has accepted?
REPLY: Your comment regarding “SCOTUS Rule 37 is simply not material” makes the balance of your post irrelevant as you clearly have no understanding of Rule 31 and that further makes your question irrelevant…the answer has been asked and answered…Amicus are relevant to any question before the Court. Period.
“Amicus are relevant to any question before the Court. Period.”
What IS the single question that the Court agreed to let before it?
Your lack of a direct answer to what it possibly the easiest question that you have to handle is most telling.
Again, you have yet to read Rule 37.
Unless you have submitted an Amicus to SCOTUS, you have no room to complain!
link to scotusblog.com
Issue: Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.
“Again, you have yet to read Rule 37.”
Again – just answer the question, Paul.
(and compare that answer to MY answer and your errant view of what is before the Court).
Do more than block quote.
APPLY some reasoning to what you are block quoting.
Joachim Martillo
We’ve been around this merry-go-round Paul, and your accusations STILL fall flat.
It is YOU that does note understand that a mere act of Congress can have Constitution changing power.
It is YOU that refuses to unclench your eyes to the actual change in law brought on by the Act of 1924 – what that act did – and critically – did NOT do.
I have provided these things to you in black and white, and yet you insist on persisting in plain error.
Only when you are willing to unclench your eyes will you be able to see where YOUR errors get in the way of what you think the law is.
REPLY: I agree. We have plowed this field very well.
I rest my position on the United States Constitution’s protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship to be free from abuse by politicians and free from (a) fraud upon the Constitution ie. Title 25-INDIANS. The Indian Citizenship
Act of 1924 provided U.S./State citizenship with folks having “Indian ancestry/race!”
What is your position asserting…the common law of the Act cannot change the Constitution’s references to “Indians?”
These newly minted U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are entitled to “what” that is different from all other non-Indian U.S./State citizens? Land…what land?
Other than the Cherokee and Choctaw noted in the federal letter provided in my posts, what land are you referring-to? Treaties…no such thing under the Constitution…no treaties with constituency.
To hold to your position that Indian ‘treaties’ still exist (and other Constitution references to “Indians” stayed the same post the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 requires an Amendment to the Constitution whereby We, the People of the United States have ‘treaties’ with other We, the People of the United States because of the ‘others’ Indian ancestry/race”)…that makes a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable from all other non-Indian U.S./State citizens and that requires an Amendment.
You have provided no such Amendment.
You position relies on the notion that ‘citizenship’ did not change the Constitution’s reference to “Indians” when the Constitution clearly states (as do the 3-SCOTUS decisions provided) that once citizenship is achieve, the Constitution is controlling…you can’t have it both ways and still be in compliance with the Constitution absent an Amendment.
“You have provided no such Amendment.”
I need not.
As has been pointed out to you, your view of the Act of 1924 remains in error.
Still.
It is YOU that seeks to violate the Constitution with your mere act of Congress changing it.
Once again, you clearly have no understanding of the United States Constitution’s fierce protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship including citizens with “Indian ancestry/race, ” or “ex-slave ancestry/race,” et al.
Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (the Act has not be repealed nor can it be repealed as that option is foreclosed by the Constitution itself absent U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” renounceing their U.S./State citizenship in which case, they are in this country illegally) and the United States Constitution all by itself did all of the rest in extending the mantle of protection to such U.S./State citizenship contrary to your position that U.S./State Citizenship made no changes to “Indians status” before or after their Citizenship which cannot be further from Constitutional truths!
You don’t get law, do you?
Your latest post affirms you have no idea how an Amicus works for the United States Supreme Court even with its purposes are put under your nose.
…
anon October 14, 2017 at 8:35 am
Paul,
Your ramblings about “Amicus Curiae” are off point.
Return to the DIRECT point at hand with this sliver of the thread and realize that there is ONLY a single question before the Supreme Court.
Do NOT engage in ad hominem.
Do NOT engage in non sequiturs.
THIS sliver is extremely simple: what did the Court say it will do? What is the single question that the Court said it will take on?
Why are you broadcasting your ig nor ance Paul?
Let’s make it easy for you: find and reprint the single question that the Court granted cert on and compare what each of us has said in regards to that granted single question.
This won’t take a wall of a block quote to provide.
Can you stay on point that long Paul?
Once again, you are not paying attention to the United States Supreme Court information on presentation of an Amicus Curiae…read it for yourself insure you don’t miss anything or ‘twist’ any text to serve your agenda :
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES › PART VII. Practice and Procedure › Rule 37. Brief for an Amicus Curiae
..
Rule 37. Brief for an Amicus Curiae
The information on presentation of an Amicus Curiae is immaterial as to the question that the Court has agreed to hear.
You remain off-point (and badly so).
Clearly, you did not read SCOTUS Rule 37: Brief for an Amicus Curiae. That makes your post un-informed as has been all of your posts.
Paul,
You strive (repeatedly) at points nor pertinent, and then want to label as “un-informed” anything that does not fit your wayward mantra – ALL THE WHILE refusing to even bother acknowledging the points presented.
Why is it then that you refuse to unclench your eyes?
The simple point here: the Court accepted only one question for cert.
Please tell me what that ONE question was.
And then realize that our sub-exchange – ON THAT SINGLE TOPIC of what question was accepted gives a very black and white answer as to which of us have been in the weeds (hint: that would be you).
Yet, you want to rail on and on and on….
You have yet to read SCOTUS Rule 37.
link to scotusblog.com
Issue: Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.
An (My) Amicus brings to the attention of SCOTUS essential U.S. Constitutional Standards and information regarding the issue(s) before the Court.
My question that sparked our current back and forth addresses a United States Constitution Article III tenant. That being, can any Article III Court (including SCOTUS) adjudicate a dispute at the bar turning on assertion of a common law in Patchak #1 (flowing from Title 25-INDIANS) that does not exist? Patchak #2 turns on the question above which is moot given the original issues flowing from Title 25-INDIANS does not exist under the Constitution to begin with (“promptly dismiss”) which leaves Congress with no common law to deal with to begin with that ficticious common law being Title 25-INDIANS!
In short, the judges involved in the original Patchak #1 case did not fulfill their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution in performing due diligence in affirming that the common law at the core of the dispute conforms to the United States Constitution and Title 25-INDIANS does not do that. (It is irrelevant whether any of the parties attorneys raised the issue of the common law at the center of the dispute-Title 25-INDIANS-was in compliance with the Constitution as that duty falls to the Article III judge succinctly stated by CJ Marshall in Marbury) My question: “Where is the proclamation”….raises that issue in my Amicus in support of Patchak #2.
United States Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, (1803)Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:
“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.”
Scotus Rule 37 is simply not material.
You need to answer the very simple – and very direct question put to you.
What IS the question that the Court has accepted?
The Patchak case before the Supreme Court raises substantially the same issue Professor Karshtedt raised in his Amicus in Oil States, namely, that Congress unconstitutionally directed that one side win in pending court case without otherwise changing the law. This usurps judicial power. link to scotusblog.com
The Patchak case before the Supreme Court raises substantially the same issue Professor Karshtedt raised in his Amicus in Oil States, namely, that Congress unconstitutionally directed that one side win in pending court case without otherwise changing the law. This usurps judicial power. link to scotusblog.com
I briefly reviewed the Oil States case and the questions posed for adjudication.
My question posted below I have posed in a number of my replies challenges the Constitutionality of U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS from which all progeny on “Indian issues” flow as being merely a ‘drop-file,’ ‘hodge-podge’ ‘catch basin’ of all related “Indian issues” post passage of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 AND, no one can provide the Statutes at Large of Title 25-INDIANS. Once citizenship was achieved, there is no Constitutional authority anyone can provide for Title 25-INDIANS to exist and as can seen from posts to this thread, the hoax is alive and well that politicians can pass common law to regulate a U.S./State citizen because of their “Indian ancestry/race” all without a shred of Constitutional authority to do so. Patchak’s case involved Title 25-INDIANS common law…but, there is no such thing under the Constitution as Title 25-INDIANS post citizenship. Ergo, the federal courts are attempting to adjudicate a common law dispute at the bar based on the core element of Title 25-INDIANS and that common law does not exist under the Constitution.
I can find nothing in the United States Constitution’s Article III were a court-state or federal-can adjudicate a dispute at the bar turning on the assertion of a common law (or progeny thereof) that does not exist under the United States Constitution.
This federal letter explains why Title 25-INDIANS does not exist…the Code is in violation of the Constitution:
“United States Code
The U. S. Code is not law, and has no meaning outside the “courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States”, even if “positive law.” According to the law enacting the original U. S. Code (44 Stat.), no new law is enacted or amended by revision of the U. S. Code. Subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged if a charge is brought only citing the U. S. Code, and not a real law behind the code.
Preface to Volume 44 of the Statutes At Large (which first adopted the present U. S. Code)
P R E F A C E
This Code is the official restatment in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925, now scattered in 25 volumes–i. e., the Revised Statutes of 1878, and volumes 20 to 43, inclusive, of the Statutes at Large. No new law is enacted and no law repealed. It is prima facie the law. It is presumed to be the law. The presumption is rebuttable by production of prior unrepealed Acts of Congress at variance with the Code. Because of such possibility of error in the Code and of appeal to the Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large, a table of statutes repealed prior to December 7, 1925, is published herein together with the Articles of Confederation; The Declaration of Independence; Ordinance of 1787; the Constitution with amendments and index; tables of cross references to the Revised Statutes, the Statutes at Large, the United States Compiled Statutes, Anotated, of the West Publishing Co., and the Federal Statutes, Annotated, of Edward Thompson Co.; an appendix with the general and permanent laws of the first session of the Sixty-ninth Congress; and finally an exhaustive index of the laws in the Code and appendix.
The first official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States was made in 1874 and followed by a perfected edition in 1878. From 1897 to 1907 a commission was engaged in an effort to codify the great mass of accumulating legislation. The work of the commission involved an expenditure of over $300,000, but was never carried to completion. More recently the task of codification was undertaken by the late Hon. Edward C. Little as chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, who labored indefatigably from 1919 to the day of his death, June 24, 1924. The volumes which represented the result of his labors were embodied in bills which passed the Hose of Representatives in three successive Congresses unanimously but failed of action in the Senate.
* * *
Scrutiny of this Code is invited. Constructive criticism is solicited. It is the ambition of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives gradually to perfect the Code by correcting errors, eliminating obsolete matter, and restating the law with logical comleteness and with precision, brevity, and uniformity of expression.
Address criticisms to Chairman of the Committee on the Revision of the Laws of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
WASHINGTON, June 30, 1926
ROY G. FITZGERALD, Chairman.
No one has yet answered this question publically:
“Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
You still are getting the Act of 1924 wrong.
I have shown you where and explained why.
You will have to unclench your eyes Paul to be able to grasp anything else going on about you.
Paul R. Jones seems not to understand that the USA has a common law legal system and not a civil law legal system (except for Louisiana substantive law between private sector parties).
US citizens can have different rights or obligations relative to local citizenship or residence according to the definition by a domestic sovereign of the laws within its jurisdiction. In the US Constitution a domestic sovereign can be a state or a tribe.
The wiki page on state law is adequate.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Tribes do not have state sovereignty exactly, but their form of sovereignty is analogous to state sovereignty.
Paul needs to read a basic text on US law. I’ve done it mostly because I don’t want to appear a blithering idiot when I talk with American lawyers. (Lawyers in this forum should feel free to correct me. There is a lot about US law that I do not know.)
No such thing exists under the United States Constitution you can provide to make this sentence true: “In the US Constitution a domestic sovereign can be a state or a tribe.”
This statement is true: “(Lawyers in this forum should feel free to correct me. There is a lot about US law that I do not know.)” You have yet to provide anything from the United States Constitution post the passage of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to make any of your posts true.
Your post citing Wikipedia fails to provide the U.S. Constitutional source by Article and Paragraph…it has no validity citing the U.S. Constitution post the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Nice try but no cigar…you are missing the U.S. Constitution’s source…provide that simple measure of where in the Constitution is the authority make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” distinguishable from all non-Indian U.S./State citizens and you have legitimacy. No Constitutional source, no legitimacy
Article I Section 8 lists various sovereign authorities of which the US Constitution (and therefore the US government) takes cognizance.
The passage lists as sovereigns: foreign Nations, States of the United States of American, and Indian Tribes.
I suspect Paul R. Jones may base his comments on some theory of natural law jurisprudence, but outside of rights to abortion, contraceptives, and sodomy the justices of the Supreme Court have been reluctant to invoke natural law concepts as the basis for decisions.
Once again, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made null the Constitution’s reference to “Indians” in the documents original text…they are U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. The words in the Constitution you cite were not removed but made null by U.S./State citizenship. Plain and simple. And, your post jumps over the 14th Amendments’ protection of one’s U.S./State citizenship and my already posted SCOTUS decisions defining one’s U.S./State citizenship you failed to understand.
The balance of your post is merely sophistry and off topic.
Once again you are trying to make a mere act of congress have Constitution changing powers…
Sophistry indeed.
You continue to trumpet the Indian Commerce Clause that was made null by citizenship…period. Proofs from SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment debunk your post.
The words in the Commerce Clause were not removed…they were made null by citizenship.
You have provided no amendments to make any of your posts true.
“ that was made null”
And you continue to pretend that a mere act of Congress has Constitution changing powers…
Clearly, you STILL have no knowledge of the United States Constitution…once U.S./State citizenship was achieved at the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, they are now U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than all non-Indian U.S./State citizens.
That Act made null any assertion of treaties as well as removing any authority for poliliticians-state and federal-to regulate U.S./State citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race!”
Once again for your benefit, Osborn defines citizenship. That citizenship made null the Constitution’s reference to what, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, WERE NOT U.S./State citizens…the Act made them citizens and the Constitution is controlling on their citizenship. The Constitution makes for no provisions to have it your way and the Constitution’s way. Period.
What is it you believe these U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are entitled-to that their U.S./State citizenship already provides?
We’ve been around this merry-go-round Paul, and your accusations STILL fall flat.
It is YOU that does note understand that a mere act of Congress can have Constitution changing power.
It is YOU that refuses to unclench your eyes to the actual change in law brought on by the Act of 1924 – what that act did – and critically – did NOT do.
I have provided these things to you in black and white, and yet you insist on persisting in plain error.
Only when you are willing to unclench your eyes will you be able to see where YOUR errors get in the way of what you think the law is.
A post script to my earlier post:
1. Find the Statutes at Large for Title 25-INDIANS.
2. Review the legal precepts of ‘stare decisis’ in any of the legal dictionaries…I used this source posted below. My point being, that citations of any “Indian court cases”-state or federal-pre-passage of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 carries no weight as Citizenship ‘changed’ the “…certain state of facts,” permanently altering the criteria of Stare Decisis; and therefore, these cases are merely of historical note and carry no weight in court post 1924 Citizenship ie. Marshall’s Indian Trilogy often cited by U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” and their advocates a legitimate decisions ignoring the fact that Stare Decisis debunks that thinking. Adhering to stare decisis that are in conflict with the United States Constitution promotes and perpetuates a ‘fraud upon the Constitution!’
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1406:
Stare decisis. Lat. To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases.
Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 388, 390, 391. Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, when facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. Horne v. Moody, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 505, 509, 510. Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary to the determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy. State v. Mellenberger, 163 Or. 233, 95 P.2d 709, 719, 720. Doctrine is one of policy, grounded on theory that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed, through later found to be not legally sound, but whether previous holding of court shall be adhered to, modified or overruled is within court’s discretion under circumstances of case before it. Otter Tail Power Co. v. Von Bank, 72 N.D. 497, 8 N.W.2d 599, 607. Under doctrine, when point of law has been settled by decision, it forms precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from, and, while it should ordinarily be strictly adhered to, there are occasions when departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued injustice. The doctrine is not ordinarily departed from where decision is of long-standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless consideration of public policy demand it. Colonial Trust Co. v. Flanagan, 344 Pa. 556, 25 A.2d 728, 729. The doctrine is limited to actual determination in respect to litigated and necessarily decided questions, and is not applicable to dicta or obiter dicta. See also Precedent; Res (Res judicata).
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1406]
How is recognizing the Cherokee, Wampanoag, or Mohawk Tribes as domestic sovereigns comparable to states an issue of race? It is not a matter of race to be a citizen of Massachusetts. Why is it an issue of race to be a citizen of the Wampanoag Tribe? As far as I know, one can be a citizen of the United States of America, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and of the Wampanoag Tribe all at the same time.
Your first sentence places the balance of your text in the ‘fraud upon the Constitution’ catagory: “How is recognizing the Cherokee, Wampanoag, or Mohawk Tribes as domestic sovereigns comparable to states an issue of race?
There is no such thing under the United States Constitution as a ‘… Cherokee, Wampanoag, or Mohawk Tribes as domestic sovereigns comparable to states an issue of race?”
The United States Constitution recognized no such thing as “Indian citizenship” as there is no such thing under the Constitution as a “Indian nation/state” from which “citizenship” as you have discribed would arise. There is no U.S. Constitution nor International recognition of any “Indian nations” in the United States! It is a myth foisted off by U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” and their advocates lacking any Constitutional support.
There is no such thing as France, the UK, or Massachusetts in the text of the US Constitution, but the USA can make a treaty with France or the UK, and Massachusetts is allowed to collect state taxes from residents and those that work in Massachusetts. For a time homosexuals had more rights in Massachusetts than in other states because their marriages were recognized in Massachusetts but not in other states.
And your point being…
France and UK are internationally recognized nation-states and are foreign; U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are neither. The balance of your post is off topic.
link to lexrex.com
The object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external.”
An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments),
[Section 52.] “Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation . . . 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.”
Another fallacious statement is that a treaty “can override the Constitution;” which defies historical truth, as we have seen. A related and most preposterous allegation is that a treaty “can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights”–than which nothing could be further from the truth, partly for two reasons: the Constitution does not authorize any such treaty and, secondly, the people are, of course, given their rights by God and not by themselves through their own creation: the Constitution (including its Bill of Rights, or Bill of Prohibitions, Amendments). The quoted statement is farcical.
…
anon October 12, 2017 at 6:40 am
(only question one is before the Supreme Court, Paul)
Stupid comment. You desperately need to brush up on the United States Constitution and certainly brush up on the United States Supreme Court procedures in adjudicating a dispute at the bar regarding presentations of Amicus Curiae regarding the Plaintiff(s)/Defendant(s) position and in particularly Amicus that address Constitutional protections of We, the People, For the People and By the People from being abused by politicians-state and federal-specifically housed in Title 25-INDIANS.
“(only question one is before the Supreme Court, Paul)
Stupid comment. ”
Why is it “stupid” to point out that you are incorrect in your statement of which question is before the Court?
Ad hominem – and errantly applied at that – only highlights YOUR lack of understanding.
What exactly do you think it means when the Court states that it will only address a particular question among a plurality of questions presented for cert?
You want to lecture me on learning civil procedure in the face of your own egregious error?
Anon: Had you done any investigation of SCOTUS procedures in adjudicating a dispute, you would have discovered Amicus Curiae…my question is in my Amicus in support of Patchak. The balance of your post affirms your lack of SCOTUS amicus curiae as well as the United States Constitution.
n. Latin for “friend of the court,” a party or an organization interested in an issue which files a brief or participates in the argument in a case in which that party or organization is not one of the litigants. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union often files briefs on behalf of a party who contends his constitutional rights have been violated, even though the claimant has his own attorney. Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club may file a supporting amicus curiae brief in an environmental action in which they are not actually parties. Usually the court must give permission for the brief to be filed and arguments may only be made with the agreement of the party the amicus curiae is supporting, and that argument comes out of the time allowed for that party’s presentation to the court.
(Source: law.com)
Great – you STILL have not hit on the key point here: the Court accepted ONLY question 1.
There are NO OTHER questions from the cert before the Court.
Anon: You STILL are not doing any meaningful investigation. And, you lack any knowledge of what is presented to you from legitimate outside sources on what an Amicus Curiae!
You are confused about what the ‘cert’ question is and what the purpose of Amicus Curiae are regarding the core issues before the Court Amicus raises to assist the Court in deciding the dispute. Read and re-read if you have to this independent text on the purposes of an Amicus:
Source: link to thefreedictionary.com
Amicus Curiae
“Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.
An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An amicus curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.
The most common arena for amici curiae is in cases that are under appeal (are being reconsidered by the court) and where issues of public interest—such as social questions or civil liberties—are being debated. Cases that have drawn participation from amici curiae are those involving Civil Rights (such as 1952’s brown v. board of education), Capital Punishment, environmental protection, gender equality, infant Adoption, and Affirmative Action. Amici curiae have also informed the court about narrower issues, such as the competency of a juror; or the correct procedure for completing a deed or will; or evidence that a case is collusive or fictitious—that is, that the parties are not being honest with the court about their reasons for being there.
The privilege that friends of the court are granted to express their views in a case is just that: amici curiae have no right to appear or to file briefs. Unless they represent the government, amici curiae must obtain leave (permission) to do so from the court, or consent of all parties in the case, before filing. No court is obligated to follow or even to consider the advice of an amicus curiae, even one it has invited.
The principle that guides the appropriate role of a friend of the court is that he or she should serve the court without also acting as “friend” to either of the parties. Rules of court and case law (past court decisions) have attempted to spell out the sometimes tricky specifics of how an amicus curiae should—and should not—participate in a case.
For example, Missouri’s supreme court in 1969 distinguished the role of amicus curiae from the normal role of the attorney in assisting the court. In this case, the court requested the attorney who had formerly represented the parties in the case to help elicit testimony and cross-examine witnesses. The lawyer also made objections and argued objections against the city, which was defending the lawsuit over Zoning. In seeking the payment of attorney fees for his services, the attorney argued that he had served as amicus curiae due to his acting at the court’s request. The supreme court found that “in the orderly and intelligent presentation of the case, he rendered assistance to the court, the same as any attorney who contributes to the orderly presentation of a case. He was appearing, however, not as an adviser to the court but as a representative of private litigants … advancing their partisan interests … and is not entitled to have the fee for his admittedly valuable and competent professional services taxed as costs” (Kansas City v. Kindle, 446 S.W. 2d 807 [Mo. 1969]).
The amicus curiae walks a fine line between providing added information and advancing the cause of one of the parties. For instance, she or he cannot raise issues that the parties themselves do not raise, since that is the task of the parties and their attorneys. If allowed by the court, amici curiae can file briefs (called briefs amicus curiae or amicus briefs), argue the case, and introduce evidence. However, they may not make most motions, file pleadings, or manage the case.
Whether participating by leave or by invitation, in an appearance or with a brief amicus curiae, a friend of the court is a resource person who has limited capacity to act.
You spin nonsense Paul.
This subset of the thread is on one single topic: what was the question before the Supreme Court.
I showed you that only one single question was accepted by the Court.
All I see from you in reply is vacuous (and excited) arm waving.
I am not the one confused on the legal matter of what specific question is in front of the Court.
Clearly.
Clearly, you did not understand what an Amicus Curiae is even when provided information as to what an Amicus Curiae does.
Paul,
Your ramblings about “Amicus Curiae” are off point.
Return to the DIRECT point at hand with this sliver of the thread and realize that there is ONLY a single question before the Supreme Court.
Do NOT engage in ad hominem.
Do NOT engage in non sequiturs.
THIS sliver is extremely simple: what did the Court say it will do? What is the single question that the Court said it will take on?
Ned Heller October 11, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Can one believe this? Congress passed a bill of attainder? Can you believe it?
They take petitioner’s property. He sues. Congress passes a bill ordering the lawsuit dismissed.
Reply: The President has to sign it to make it actionable. Then, the injured party can sue citing the very same point you made: Bill of Attainder. Now, that will be a suit to watch.
anon
October 11, 2017 at 9:06 am
The request of
“Provide the explicit Article and paragraph source in the United States Constitution to prove your post: “The issue does not seem to be the citizenship status of native American Indians. The issue relates to the status of Indian tribes as domestic sovereigns comparable to the states. The US Constitution has recognized the tribes as domestic sovereigns from its first introduction, and there is considerable case law on the subject.”
Is exactly the point being made to you Paul.
You are simply off in the weeds (legally speaking) as to what needs to be “proven.”
Joachim’s post was geared to distinguish the context of the issue at hand.
You take that as some “legal point to be proven” and on top of that mistake, want that legal point to be proven with some Constitutional source.
Joachim’s post was merely pointing out that your walls of citations and other voluminous copyings are preoccupied with something that is not the issue at point. You continue to want to make the “individual is a citizen” (change in law that was by an Act of Congress) into some larger Consitutional directive.
First (and perhaps foremost), you continue to “get it wrong” in that you still have not grasped the limitations of that very Act of Congress.
Second (and persistence here is no virtue), you continue to attempt to make a mere Act of congress have Constitutional-changing power, even as it has been pointed out to you that one of the Supreme Court (wall) quotes you provided says that such is not to be, and even after it has been shared with you that there are indeed other separate mechanisms that must be engaged to change the Constitution.
Reply:
Neither of you would survive in a court of law when presented my single question:“Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
After an objection, the judge would disallow the question as irrelevant or immaterial.
You clearly are not a lawyer. Why don’t you go read about courtroom procedure? I’ve done it.
Please Pardon Potential (re)Post…
You nailed it Joachim.
Paul R. Jones for whatever reason believes that his position is “air-tight.”
So much so, that he refuse to visit the actual law passed by Congress in order to see that he has that law incorrectly understood (his error in the first instance that thus requires no further “proving” of anything).
You are wrong. The question is currently sitting at the United States Supreme Court.
“The question is currently sitting at the United States Supreme Court.”
Which question is that – specifically?
“Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
You are saying that specific question is right now sitting at the United States Supreme Court?
In which case?
IN THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DAVID PATCHAK,
Petitioner,
V.
RYAN ZINKE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit
Case No. 16-498
Can one believe this? Congress passed a bill of attainder? Can you believe it?
They take petitioner’s property. He sues. Congress passes a bill ordering the lawsuit dismissed.
“On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit”
That is NOT before the US Supreme Court.
Your statement of “ The question is currently sitting at the United States Supreme Court.” at 14.1.2 is not correct.
Argument will take place Nov. 7.
link to scotusblog.com
(only question one is before the Supreme Court, Paul)
Anon> Wrong again. Brush up on how the United States Supreme Court works before you make such a post.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
No. 16-498
Title: David Patchak, Petitioner
v.
Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, et al.
Docketed: October 13, 2016
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Numbers: (15-5200)
Decision Date: July 15, 2016
Rehearing Denied:
Discretionary Court Decision Date:
Analyst:
Questions Presented
Date Proceedings and Orders
Oct 11 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2016)
Nov 11 2016 Brief of respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish band of Pottawatomi Indians in opposition filed.
Nov 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 14 2016 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Courts Scholars.
Nov 28 2016 Opposition of intervenor-respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, to motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief of Federal Courts Scholars filed.
Nov 30 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.
Dec 15 2016 Response Requested. (Due January 17, 2017)
Jan 12 2017 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 16, 2017.
Feb 15 2017 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 20, 2017.
Mar 20 2017 Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed.
Apr 03 2017 Reply of petitioner David Patchak filed.
Apr 05 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.
Apr 24 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.
May 01 2017 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Courts Scholars GRANTED.
May 01 2017 Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
May 16 2017 The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits is extended to and including July 13, 2017.
May 16 2017 The time to file respondents’ briefs on the merits is extended to and including September 11, 2017.
Jul 12 2017 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jul 12 2017 Brief of petitioner David Patchak filed.
Jul 19 2017 Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts Scholars filed.
Aug 31 2017 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Sep 07 2017 CIRCULATED
Sep 11 2017 Brief of respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians filed. (Distributed)
Sep 11 2017 Brief of Federal Respondents filed. (Distributed)
Sep 12 2017 Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.
Sep 15 2017 Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians on 09/15/2017
Sep 18 2017 Brief amici curiae of Wayland Township, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2017 Brief amicus curiae of U.S. House of Representatives filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2017 Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2017 Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts and Federal Indian Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Edward A. Hartnett filed. (Distributed)
Sep 18 2017 Motion for divided argument filed by respondent.
Oct 10 2017 Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Attorneys for Petitioner
Scott E. Gant
Counsel of Record 1401 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20005 202-237-2727
Party name: David Patchak
Attorneys for Respondents
Noel J. Francisco
Counsel of Record Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov 202-514-2217
Party name: Federal Respondents
Pratik Arvind Shah
Counsel of Record Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
pshah@akingump.com 202-887-4000
Party name: Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians
Conly John Schulte Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP
1900 Plaza Drive
Louisville, CO 80027
cschulte@ndnlaw.com (303)-673-9600
Party name: Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians
Other
Ruthanne Mary Deutsch
Counsel of Record Deutsch Hunt, PLLC
300 New Jersey Ave., NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
rdeutsch@deutschhunt.com (202-868-6915
Party name: Federal Courts and Federal Indian Law Scholars
Thomas G. Hungar
Counsel of Record Office of the General Counsel
U.S. House of Representatives
219 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
Thomas.Hungar@mail.house.gov (202) 225-9700
Party name: U.S. House of Representatives
Robert Allen Long Jr.
Counsel of Record Covington & Burling, LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
rlong@cov.com (202) 662-6000
Party name: Wayland Township, et al.
Ethan G. Shenkman
Counsel of Record Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
ethan.shenkman@apks.com 202-942-5000
Party name: National Congress of American Indians
Erik R Zimmerman
Counsel of Record Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
1450 Raleigh Road, Suite 100
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
ezimmerman@rbh.com 0919-328-8826
Party name: Professor Edward A. Hartnett
Stephen I. Vladeck 727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX 78705
svladeck@law.utexas.edu (512) 475-9198
Party name: Federal Courts Scholars
Your reply misses my clarification.
I am not the one needing to brush up here, good sir.
Good luck in convincing a judge-state or federal-to disallow a question turning on Constitutional core tenants! Clearly, you missed the part in your patent law courses about the simple fact the United States Constitution controls everything transpiring in a court beginning with Article III of the Constitution. And, there can be no activity in the Court in conflict with the United States Constitution.
My question will stand-up in an Article III court
anon
October 10, 2017 at 6:37 am
“…cite the Constitution error of my posts regarding the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?”
Another massive wall of meaningless text and another request that simply need not be answered because it is simply not on point.
Paul, how much more simple can I make this for you? Your premise is flawed in what you are holding the Act of 1924 to be doing. It is rather odd that you keep on ignoring the critical flaw in your foundation and want others to “prove” something on a Constitutional basis.
The oddity is that NOT ONLY do you have the Act wrong – you then turn around and want to have a mere act of Congress have Constitution-changing powers…
Reply:
You remain all bluster….produce your Constitution-based proofs my posts are in Constitutional error! It is simple: Put up or shut up! Provide the Constitutional proofs you claim that proves my posts are in Constitutional error or withdraw from the discussion as having nothing to contribute but bluster and Ad Hominem
“You remain all bluster….produce your Constitution-based proofs my posts are in Constitutional error!”
You are having a difficult time reading what I have actually posted.
I am beginning to suspect that this is on purpose – but let’s try one more time:
Your understanding of the Act of Congress in the Act of 1924 is deeply flawed.
As to “proof” with your attempted reading of an Act of Congress “nullifying Constitutional sections, YOU have provided previously a Supreme Court case cite backing up what I am saying, as well as I have already pointed you to how our Constitution is actually amended.
I am not the one “having nothing to contribute but bluster and Ad Hominem” – that would be you.
anon October 10, 2017 at 6:44 am
“ You have provided no Constitution Amendment(s) to change that citizenship”
Not needed, as it is YOUR premise that is flawed.
You have provided no Constitution changing power from a mere Act of Congress (and yet, that is what you want to happen with the Act of 1924). I wonder why this dichotomy continues to escape your attention….
Reply:
Excuses, excuses, excuses. You offer nothing to support your post…typical of you and your colleagues…all bluster and no substance.
Joachim Martillo October 9, 2017 at 2:18 pm
Maybe I lack some understanding because I am a non-lawyer, but I don’t quite understand why an individual American Indian’s citizenship status has any relevance to the question of Indian tribe’s status as a sovereign.
Reply: Excellent question. I encourage you to read my other posts and answers to questions regarding the Constitutional validity of my posts:
1. As of passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution ie. Treaty and Commerce Clause. They are U.S. State citizens entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. They are a ‘citizen’ of no Constitutionally or Internationally recognized ‘nation-state’ to which ‘citizenship’ can be attributed. The Mohawk attorney is merely claiming ‘Indian citizenship’ with nothing to support the assertion citing the United States Constitution. The Mohawks can call themselves anything they want but a ‘nation-state’ isn’t in the United States Constitution.
2. There is no such thing under the United States Constitution as a ‘sovereign Indian tribe!’ No one posting to this thread has provided any authority citing the Constitution post the 1924 Citizenship Act to make the health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizen distinguishable from all other U.S./State citizen because of their “Indian ancestry/race.”
Therefore, the Mohawk Indian tribe is in name only and has no U.S. Constitutional authority to proclaim they are a ‘sovereign Indian tribe!” It is a political/Indian advocate myth foisted off on non-Indians to dumb down as gullible into believe that they-politicians state and federal like the Senator in this article-can pass common law the makes the health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race!”
The U.S. Constitution forecloses politicians from passing common law that regulates a select group of U.S./State citizens with “slave ancestry/race” and yet, politicians tell gullible non-Indian U.S./State citizens they can regulate U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” all without a shred of Constitutional authority to do so.
This answers your question.
Regarding Paul R. Jones@11,
Is it being claimed that the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not exist or that it should have ceased to exist with the passage of Indian Citizen Act of 1924?
Paul R. Jones continues to commit to his fundamental misunderstanding of how law works.
First he does not understand – nor care to understand – what exactly the Act of 1924 did – and did not – do.
Second, he elevates the error of what he believes that Act to do to have Constitution-changing power.
With these two points, he then turns and asks others to provide things that simply need not be provided in order to prove some point that need not be proven.
His basic premise is simply – but fundamentally – flawed, and it is HE that needs to account for the laws as they actually are.
(and yes, Paul R. Jones does believe that the Act of 1924 was and does things that it does not, and in truth, cannot)
Once again, you stake out your position but provide nothing from the Constitution to support your position…a typical tactic of yours and your colleagues…deny my posts as ‘errors’ while failing to provide proofs citing the Constitution my Constitution-based posts are in error. Again, all bluster and no substance. You are merely carrying out an Ad Hominem string of un-supported remarks my Constitution-based posts with proofs are in error. Provide proofs my posts are in error citing the United States Constitution or withdrawn from the discussion as having nothing to contribute but Ad Hominem.