LEGAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO THE PUBLIC, Number Three

JUDICIAL POWERS OF ESTABLISHING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY: Investigating/Studying Issues Presented In Determining Actualized Harm and Ways And Means of Developing Equitable Relief in the Form of Reparations

By: Iron Thunderhorse
ACQTC Legal Sovereign/SAM-ACAT¹
July 2010

ABSTRACT

The legal and political strategies in developing QUINNIPIAC TRIBAL COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et. al., is a landmark test case on the issue of reparations to indigenous Peoples by way of equitable relief. It is a federal civil rights action for federal and state violations of civil and human rights as well as International Law violations of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to be defined, acknowledged and respected by Algonquian traditions rather than ethnocentric laws and policies and practices.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

Once original jurisdiction has been established by the federal court(s), and a reparations case is accepted on its merits the court has many means at its disposal to supplement its powers.Institutional capacity is one such form.

The objective in our case is not to even attempt trying to litigate past wrongs. That would be legal suicide for ACQTC. Instead, we will use those past wrongs and historical actions as a basis of historical reference showing an ongoing pattern of malfeasance, fraud and discrimination.

ACQTC will also demonstrate how current violations of CT General Statutes continue to cause QTC egregious harm and suffering and that all attempts to resolve our grievances have been ignored, sidestepped or trivialized.

These issues fall under background data and can be studied after the court has appointed a Special Master to conduct an investigative report and to monitor the compliance with the Court's ruling if and when ACQTC prevails.²

Additionally, the court can also conceivably ORDER the CT legislature to fashion a plan that would remedy past wrongs by devising, with the aid of ACQTC proposals and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the recent New Hampshire legislation modeled after the UN Declaration, with exhibits³ that work to restore respect and equal protection of Indigenous Rights under the law as applied by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The court itself will answer the question as to whether it has the powers to initiate its Institutional Capacity in such matters. ACQTC by and through its Legal Sovereign believes it does based on recent jurisprudence in the past 20 years in federal courts. In this way the court focuses on adjudication of the merits by analyzing the forms of discrimination that exists today and the legislature is ordered to focus on its administrative measures to develop an equitable relief model.⁴

The fact that the Quinnipiac as an Indigenous People have continued to exist despite ethnic cleansing, racism, and religious intolerance is now a matter of record. Ten years ago when ACQTC.COM first appeared there were only a few references on-line to the Quinnipiac. Today, thanks to our website, there are now thousands and it continues to grow. Facts of our existence has been translated in a dozen foreign languages and at least three novels so far by the public have been inspired by our website. Articles such as "Setting The Record Straight"⁵ have helped to focus public attention on a key fact of our identity. In order to divide and conquer the aboriginal people of this land we call Turtle Island governments developed "Indian Policies" that are based on totally alien principles of identity. Our bands were re-defined as "tribes" and pitted against us by empowering them as allies of the state.

PROPOSED MODEL OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS

Since late 2007 when the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was passed by the General Assembly ACQTC has taken steps to join our Algonquian Family in re-claiming our sovereign and autonomous rights as Indigenous Peoples.⁶ Our right to self-identity has been set under International Law and the recent action of New Hampshire to emulate that declaration sets a precedent we can use to seek redress. Add to this the fact that Canada recognizes the rights of Metis peoples and we show all the forms of discrimination that are ongoing and we have made a Prima Facie Showing.

Article 11 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ststes: that: "States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may provide restitution [or reparations] developed in conjunction with the indigenous peoples…"

Article 32 of the UN Declaration indicates: "Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development and use of their lands or territories…" Section 3 of Article 32 indicates: "States shall provide effective mechanisms for any such activities."

ACQTC.ORG will be posting a copy of our 12 page COMPLAINT to the CT CHRO which outlines the violations of state laws and our proposals for reparations.

ENDNOTES

¹ The acronym SAM stands for Sachem-Shaman, Advocate-Arbitrator, and Mentor-Mediator. It is similar in concept to a JAG (Judge Advocate General) of the US Military Tribunals. The acronym ACAT stands for The Algonquian Confederacies Aboriginal Tribunal. ⇑

² Special Masters are used in prison reform litigations. In the Swiss Bank Settlement a Plan of Allocation was developed by Judah Gribetz, Special Master. ⇑

³ A Motion, Proposed Order and exhibits is generally submitted for the Court's approval. ⇑

⁴ See: "Role of (For) Courts in Reparations" by Zachary P. Bookman, (Yale School of Law Student Scholarship) 2006 at page 42. ⇑

⁵ See Setting the Record Straight on this website. ⇑

⁶ ACQTC initiated its own Covenant and published our version of the UN Declaration which is a condensed version of basic Indigenous Rights. A copy has been provided to the CHRO as an attachment to our COMPLAINT. ⇑