American Indian Religious Freedom Act
PORTION, AS AMENDED
This Act became law on August 11, 1978 (Public Law 95-341, 42 U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a)
and has been amended once. The description of the Act, as amended, tracks the language
of the United States Code except that (following common usage) we refer to the “Act”
(meaning the Act, as amended) rather than to the “subchapter” or the “title” of the
Code.
42 U.S.C. 1996,
Protection and preservation
of traditional
religions of Native
Americans
Section 1
On and after August 11, 1978, it shall be the policy of the
United States to protect and preserve for American Indians
their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and
exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian,
Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not
limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred
objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials
and traditional rites.
42 U.S.C. 1996 note,
Federal implementation
of protective and
preservation functions
relating to Native
American religious
cultural rights and
practices; Presidential
report to Congress
Section 2
The President shall direct the various Federal departments,
agencies, and other instrumentalities responsible for administering
relevant laws to evaluate their policies and procedures
in consultation with native traditional religious leaders
in order to determine appropriate changes necessary
to protect and preserve Native American religious cultural
rights and practices. Twelve months after August 11, 1978,
the President shall report back to Congress the results of
his evaluation, including any changes* which were made in
administrative policies and procedures, and any recommendations
he may have for legislative action.
*One of the changes in administrative policy and procedure was Executive Order 13007,
Indian Sacred Sites.
Replies
Noelani:
I'm not sure still trying to locate Liko's letter:
Treaty 'appears unequal'
Miguel Alfonso Martinez of Cuba, the special chairman who prepared the report for the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations, wrote that Clinton's apology resolution recognizes the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy took place unlawfully.
"By the same token, the 1897 treaty of annexation between the United States and Hawaii appears as an unequal treaty that could be declared invalid on those grounds, according to international law of the times," said Martinez, who was appointed to head this project by the U.N. human rights commissioner.
"It follows that the case of Hawaii could be re-entered on the list of nonself-governing territories of the United Nations and resubmitted to the bodies in the organization competent in the field of decolonization," he said.
Hawaii was placed on the U.N. list in 1946 as a colony under the United States, but was removed in 1959 when it became an American state. Others on the list include Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, which was removed from the list previously, but returned, Trask said.
The General Assembly of the United Nations voted to put New Caledonia back on the list in the late 1980s over protests of the United States, France and Great Britain. But the political atmosphere has changed, Burgess said. "Now there is very little opposition to the U.S."
If Hawaii is returned to the list, he said, the first most important question will be: "Who are the people to be decolonized? Is it only native Hawaiians, or is it all of those who suffered as a result of the overthrow?
"The thing Hawaii needs to address is to see itself in the mirror and ask itself, who are we who have been decolonized? I don't think it's going to work to just limit it to the native Hawaiian race. It was a nation that was overthrown, not just native Hawaiians."
Then, if the matter reaches the voting stage, the question will be who votes, Burgess said. "The exercise of self-determination must be done by people who were colonized." And they must be given choices, he said, such as whether they want to maintain state status, or be independent, or have a free association with the United States.
The working group, which recently met, sent the Martinez report to the U.N. Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, where it will accept testimony from U.N. members and indigenous groups.
A final edited version goes to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and to the U.N. General Assembly, for adoption.
So far, the United Nations has accepted three progress drafts as official U.N. documents, including one that contained accounts by Queen Liliuokalani on the push by foreigners to limit the monarchy's power and to seek annexation. Liliuokalani's description of Hawaii's political climate during her time changed the complexion of the issue, Trask said.
'Give our people the choice'
Meanwhile, Ka Pakaukau's Kekuni Blaisdell told a U.N. decolonization committee seminar this June in Nadi, Fiji, that 17 colonies remain on the U.N. list, with three in the Pacific pressing for self-determination with an option for independence.
Blaisdell said colonialism in the Pacific, in various forms, has accelerated and intensified rather than declined. The United Nations in 1990 mandated to eradicate colonialism by the year 2000.
"It is imperative," he said, "that we indigenous peoples become more involved in the dominant, western decolonization process, that we generate our own initiatives and that such actions be recognized."
Entitled to vote
A U.N.-supervised plebiscite would entitle Hawaiians to vote for a form of government, such as incorporation as a U.S. state, free association or an independent or autonomous government.
Hawaiian groups will focus lobbying efforts on U.N. member nations that signed treaties with Hawaii before it became a state.
"We're not saying give Hawaii independence, we're just saying re-list Hawaii," Trask said. "Have the U.N. take a look at it, and give our people the opportunity to make a choice, which we never had in 1959."
This site was intended for Bronson to correct Kukuna o ka la's dirty cartoon of a bald white male rapping a native women.
But an alert from Kauai as been Kahea too:
Aloha Kaohi, I need to "parkinglot" this information from Liko on your page because I know that you will know what to do with it. I was told that It is very important that everyone, become familiar with the U.S Treaty Reports.
There is an; Affidavit of Complaint of Human Rights Violation(s) that needs to be submitted by January 7, 2011.
Can Pono help?
I'm not sure if Pono can help: There is a communication gap between nationals and native Hawaiians (on ceded lands) that we know is fake and that was 'idealistically' established by Nationals. It is the age old need for power, which I never like to do or play--the tug and war game. For me it is silly and very stupid to create that gap between players.
I compared Leon Siu to Susan Masten and all communications went dead fron then on. But Pono is also over whelmed and it's at the end of the year we are all trying to complete the things we didn't do and finish it before the new year. At least that is where I'm at cleaning out the mites and bugs from my house environment. I neglected daily cleaning ever since August of 2009 and wow--mites.
The schools are invested with mites in the poor schools and that didn't help either. During the vacations schools needed general cleaning--but because of budget cuts--I believe that is being neglected.
These mites (one of them) attacked bees and now they are on or in our houses. It's not that we are dirty people, it's because they multiply and there are different types. So out came my rug, painting and throwing things away seemed like the best thing to do in order to minimize the mites to where as I able to do quick daily general cleaning.
The mites looks like it attackes children only but that is not true they are on adults but the difference is they children have thin skins. Adults have thick skins so bathing several times during the day would help to rid or control the population growth. I can hardly wait till summer.
Sadly though this summer the Army and the fishermen (cause they stupid) are going to clean up the arsenal from maili beach in April of 2011. Project is bogus and it's just a campaign of friendly relationships with military and locals. This project will send Isotopes through out the water ways in Hawaii. Go figure, huh? Look up Ocean Hoppers that's Tad Daivs toy's, Mr. Buzz light year. Where's my horse, give me my sword and show me the windmills!
RESOLUTION NO. 90-01
JANUARY 3, 4, AND 5, 1990
PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
RECOGNIZING
RECOGNIZING
RECOGNIZING
NOW, THEREFORE,
RESOLUTION NO. 90-01
JANUARY 3, 4 AND 5, 1990
FURTHER AGREE,
FURTHER AGREE,
ARTICLE II--FOREIGN AFFAIRS/NEUTRALITY
ARTICLE III--COMMUNICATIONS
ARTICLE IV--IMMIGRATIONS
ARTICLE V--REPRESENTATION
ARTICLE VI--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ARTICLE VII--EDUCATION
ARTICLE VIII--GENERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE II--PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
ARTICLE III--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
ARTICLE IV--TRADE
ARTICLE V--FINANCE AND TAXATION
ARTICLE I--AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
ARTICLE II--DEFENSE FACILITIES AND OPERATING RIGHTS
ARTICLE III--DEFENSE TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS;TO WIT: DEMILITARIZATION AND NUCLEAR FREE ZONE
ARTICLE IV--SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
ARTICLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE II--CONFERRAL AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ARTICLE III--AMENDMENT
ARTICLE IV--TERMINATION
ARTICLE V--SURVIVABILITY
ARTICLE VI--DEFINITION OF TERMS
ARTICLE VII--CONCLUDING PROVISIONS
ARTICLE VIII--DISPOSITION OF ELECTIONS
_____________________
IRVIN BRINK CHAIRMAN
KASIGLUK ELDERS COUNCIL
KASIGLUK ALASKA 99609
RESOLUTION 88-01
APRIL 13,14, AND 15, 1988
WHEREAS, AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF INUIT, KNOWN AS THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE DEDICATED TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE INUIT RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, HAS BEEN CREATED BY A RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ON JUNE 15,1977, IN BARROW, ALASKA AND,
WHEREAS, THE INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE (ICC) IS THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING ALL INUIT FROM ALASKA.GREENLAND AND CANADA,THE ICC CONTINUES TO ENCOURAGE THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE SIBERIAN INUIT WITHIN THE ICC,
WHEREAS, INUIT MEANS INDIGENOUS MEMBERS OF THE INUIT HOMELAND,RECOGNIZED BY INUIT AS BEING MEMBERS OF THEIR PEOPLE,AND INCLUDES SUCH REGIONAL GROUPS AS INUPIAT, YUPIC(ALASKA/ RUSSIAN) INUIT, INUVIALUIT(CANADA) AND KALAALLIT,(GREENLAND) AND,
WHEREAS, THE ICC HAS ESTABLISHED AN INTERNATIONAL ELDERS CONFERENCE WHICH IS HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ICC GENERAL ASSEMBLIES IN WHICH THE ELDERS DISCUSS AND REVIEW ALL OF ICC'S RESOLUTIONS AND HAVE DIRECT INPUT INTO THE ICC DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
WHEREAS, ON APRIL 13, 1988, AT KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE (KASIGLUMI CUILIRNERET QUYURTELLRAT) REPORTED AND DEBATED UNASHAMEDLY REFLECTING THE INUIT VIEWS THAT THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT IS A BASIC POLITICAL RIGHT, THAT GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMATE ONLY WHEN GROUNDED ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, AND THAT GOVERNMENT THUS GROUNDED SHOULD NOT BE USED TO DENY LIFE, LIBERTY OR THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THAT INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIETY HAVE THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM GOVERNMENTAL VIOLATIONS OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE PERSON, TO ENJOY CIVIL LIBERTIES SUCH AS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, ASSEMBLY, RELIGION AND MOVEMENT, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, ANCESTRY, OR SEX AND TO CHANGE THEIR GOVERNMENT BY PEACEFUL MEANS.
WHEREAS, KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE FIND THAT THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS OF THE INUIT IS OFTEN CONFUSED, SOMETIMES WILLFULLY BY REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND RUSSIA CLAIMING THAT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THESE RIGHTS, THEY MAY DENY THE INUIT THE RIGHT TO INTEGRITY OF THE PERSON AS WELL AS POLITICAL,CIVIL AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OF THE INUIT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE EXPLOITATION OF OIL, GAS, AND OTHER MINERAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE HOMELAND OF THE INUIT.
WHEREAS, SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL THE KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE WISHES TO DISSENT THE NOTION THAT INUIT TRIBES LOST THEIR SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH;
<>(2) CONQUEST
<>(3) CESSION
<>(4) TREATIES
<>(5) STATUTES
<>(6) COURT ORDER,
<>(7) TERRA NULLIUS;
WHEREAS, KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE REFLECT THE INUIT VIEW UNASHAMEDLY THAT THERE EXIST A PROFOUND CONNECTION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT;AND
WHEREAS, KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE REPORTED AND DEBATED UNASHAMEDLY REFLECTING THE UNITED STATES VIEW THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875 CH 131 SECTION 15-16, 18 STAT 402, 420 (REPEALED 1976) (FORMERLY CODIFIED AT 43 U.S.C. 189 (1976) (STILL VALID FOR PRE-REPEAL PATENTS) ENTITLED INDIANS WHO ABANDONED THEIR TRIBAL RELATIONS TO CLAIM PUBLIC DOMAIN HOMESTEADS UNDER THE GENERAL HOMESTEAD LAWS, SUCH LANDS WERE TO BE RESTRICTED FOR FIVE YEARS. THE ABANDONMENT REQUIREMENT COULD STILL RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THESE LANDS, BUT IT IS PROBABLE THAT NO SUCH PARCELS REMAIN IN RESTRICTED STATUS TODAY. MORE SIGNIFICANT WAS THE ACT OF JULY 4, 1884, CH 180 SECTION 1, 23 STAT 76 (REPEALED 1976) (FORMERLY CODIFIED AT 43 USC SECTION 190 (1976) (STILL VALID FOR PRE-REPEAL PATENTS) WHICH ENTITLES ANY INDIAN TO UTILIZE THE HOMESTEAD LAWS TO OBTAIN LAND, AND REQUIRED THAT PATENTS SO OBTAINED BE PLACED IN A 25 YEAR RESTRICTED STATUS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT. 25 U.S.C. 348. CF.25 U.S.C. 335 (EXTENDING PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL ALLOTMENT LAWS TO LANDS PURCHASED UNDER AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS FOR INDIVIDUAL INDIANS.) THIS STATUTE APPLIED TO THE GENERAL HOMESTEAD LAWS AND TO NUMEROUS SPECIAL LAWS. AFTER ALL INDIANS WERE MADE CITIZENS IN 1924, SEE CH 12 SEC. A. INFRA, AN INDIAN HOMESTEADER COULD PRESUMABLY OBTAIN EITHER A FEE HOMESTEAD AS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN OR A TRUST HOMESTEAD UNDER THE 1884 STATUTE BECAUSE OF INDIAN STATUS. HOWEVER, THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RELATIONSHIP SUGGESTS THAT THE 1884 ACT PRESUMPTIVELY APPLIED TO TRIBAL INDIANS SEEKING HOMESTEADS UNLESS A CLEAR INTENT TO REQUEST A FEE PATENT BE TRIBAL U.S.C. 412 (A) (PROVIDING FOR TRUST STATUS FOR HOMESTEADS PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS.);AND
WHEREAS, THE KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE FULLY AGREES WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL IN HIS LETTER TO JAMES C. MILLER,III, CONCERNING H.R. 278 THE "ALASKAN NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1987." WHICH STATED;
WHEREAS; UNDER THE SUMMARY OF HIS REASONS THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FURTHER STATES;
WHEREAS, MR. PRESIDENT, THE NET RESULT OF THE FEDERAL LAND PLAN MANAGEMENT AND POLICY ACT OF 1976 AND THE ALASKA LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1987 IS DICTUM AND IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT STATED IN " THE KANSAS INDIANS " CASE "THAT A TRIBE ITSELF CAN END ITS LEGAL EXISTENCE BY A VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OF ITS TRIBAL ORGANIZATION"(72 U.S.(5 WALL) 737,757 (1867),HAS EXPOSED YOUR OFFICE TO THE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND THE PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE;AND
WHEREAS, YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN MISINFORMED OF YOUR POLICY,MR PRESIDENT,IN WHICH YOU STATED: "WHEN EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWERS BEGAN TO EXPLORE AND COLONIZE THIS LAND,THEY ENTERED INTO TREATIES WITH INDIAN TRIBES ON A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT BASED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, DESPITE PERIODS OF CONFLICTS AND SHIFTING NATIONAL POLICIES IN INDIAN AFFAIRS,THE GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIAN TRIBES HAS ENDURED.THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, LAWS AND DECISIONS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED A UNIQUE POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIAN TRIBES AND UNITED STATES WHICH THIS ADMINISTRATION PLEDGES TO UPHOLD.";AND
WHEREAS; THE UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUSTEESHIP AGREEMENT, THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM,HAS PROMOTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PEOPLES OF THE TRUST TERRITORY TOWARD SELF-GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENCE AS APPROPRIATE TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRUST TERRITORY AND ITS PEOPLES AND THE FREELY EXPRESSED WISHES OF THE PEOPLE CONCERNED;AND
WHEREAS; THE KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE SEEK OF THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RONALD W. REAGAN, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DONALD PAUL HODEL AND IN CONSULTATION WITH SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE SCHULTZ, TO INTRODUCE AND IMPLEMENT 48 U.S.C. 1681;AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN SUBMIT TO THE CONGRESS A COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ARCTIC TERRITORY AND THAT THE KASIGLUK ELDERS CONFERENCE HOST THE CONFERENCE SET FORTH UNDER SEC. 303 OF PUBLIC LAW 99-239- JANUARY 14, 1986.COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION ACT OF 1985.
THE FOLLOWING PREAMBLE AND ARTICLES WILL BE THE INITIAL AGENDA OF THE CONFERENCE. PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF PUBLIC LAW 99-239 JAN 14, 1986, 99 STAT.1772
PREAMBLE
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA;THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK;THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS;THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN; AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY:
AFFIRMING THAT THEIR GOVERNMENTS ARE FOUNDED UPON RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FOR ALL,AND THAT THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY HAVE THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY SELF GOVERNMENT,AND
AFFIRMING THE COMMON INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CANADA, DENMARK,UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS,JAPAN AND THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY IN CREATING CLOSE AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH FREE AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS, AND
AFFIRMING THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENTS UNITED STATES,CANADA, DENMARK UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND JAPAN IN PROMOTING THE ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY, AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THEIR PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIPS HAS BEEN BASED ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 76 OF THAT CHARTER, AND THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 76, THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY HAVE PROGRESSIVELY DEVELOPED THEIR INSTITUTIONS OF SELF GOVERNMENT; AND THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF DETERMINATION THEY HAVE,THROUGH THEIR FREELY EXPRESSED WISHES, ADOPTED A CHARTER APPROPRIATE TO THEIR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES,AND
RECOGNIZING THEIR COMMON DESIRE TO TERMINATE THE TRUSTEESHIP AND ESTABLISH A NEW GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT RELATIONSHIP EACH OF WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A NEW POLITICAL STATUS BASED ON THE FREELY EXPRESSED WISHES AS INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY ,AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY HAVE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY AND THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION,AND THE INHERENT RIGHT TO ADOPT AND AMEND THEIR CHARTER, AND THAT THE APPROVAL AND ENTRY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS INTO THIS COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION BY THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY CONSTITUTES AN EXERCISE OF THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION,
NOW THEREFORE, AGREE TO ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP OF FREE ASSOCIATION WHICH PROVIDES A FULL MEASURE OF SELF GOVERNMENT FOR THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY,AND FURTHER AGREE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF FREE ASSOCIATION DERIVES AND IS SET FORTH IN THIS COMPACT, AND THAT DURING SUCH RELATIONSHIP OF FREE ASSOCIATION THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ,CANADA, DENMARK, UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS,JAPAN AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF FREE ASSOCIATION OF THE ARCTIC TERRITORY ARE MAINTAINED.
DONE AT NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992 FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
DONE AT OTTAWA, CANADA, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 1992 , FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
DONE AT COPENHAGEN, DENMARK ,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992 , FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK.
DONE AT MOSCOW, UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLICS,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992, FOR THE UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLIC.
DONE AT TOKYO, JAPAN, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992, FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN.
DONE AT BARROW, ARCTIC, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992,FOR THE INUPIAQ OF THE ARCTIC.
DONE AT KASIGLUK AND PROVIDENIA, ARCTIC, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992 FOR THE YUPIC OF THE ARCTIC.
DONE AT NUUK, ARCTIC, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992 FOR THE KALAALLIT OF THE ARCTIC.
DONE AT KUUJJUAQ, ARCTIC, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1992, FOR THE INUIT OF THE ARCTIC.
TITLE II-COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION PURSUANT TO 99 STAT.1772 PUBLIC LAW 99-239- JAN.14, 1986 SEC. 201. COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION.
ARTICLE II-FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
ARTICLE III-COMMUNICATIONS.
ARTICLE IV-IMMIGRATION.
ARTICLE V-REPRESENTATION.
ARTICLE VI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
ARTICLE VII-GENERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE II-PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
ARTICLE III-ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE IV-TRADE,
ARTICLE V-FINANCE AND TAXATION.
ARTICLE II-DEFENSE FACILITIES AND OPERATING RIGHTS.
ARTICLE III-DEFENSE TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AGREEMENTS.
ARTICLE IV-SERVICE IN ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
ARTICLE V-GENERAL PROVISIONS'
ARTICLE II-CONFERENCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ARTICLE III-AMENDMENT.
ARTICLE IV-TERMINATION.
ARTICLE V-SURVIVABILITY.
ARTICLE VI-DEFINITION OF TERMS
ARTICLE VII-CONCLUDING PROVISIONS.
A Memorandum from the Kasigluk Elders Conference
September 19, 1991
Kasigluk, Alaska
The United States government has desired to characterize itself as the "Apostle of Democracy" for the world. However, the most recent developments in the Soviet Union, and the recognition of independence for the Baltic Republics by President Gorbachev on September 2, 1991 may surpass the United State's claim to democratic leadership.
By way of a historical comparison, the annexation of Alaska from the Russians to the United States is just as illegal as the secret protocol between Molotov of the USSR and Ribbentrop of Germany's Third Reich. There, Eastern Europe was carved into the familiar spheres of influence; Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia fell into the Soviet Union. The Soviet forces in June of 1940 and annexed by the USSR in August 1940. This Soviet annexation has never been recognized by the United States.
To continue the analogy, the Alaska Native Nations have never ceded or recognized the annexation of Alaska by the Russians for the United States. This military occupation of Alaska by the United States must come to terms with the Alaska Native People's Declaration for the creation of the Republic of the Arctic. This occurred on August 1,1991 by the Kasigluk Elders of Alaska.
This Inuit declaration is more sacred than the one which was declared by the Americans on the Fourth of July, 1776. the Inuit claim to the sovereignty is based upon the longest peaceful coexistence on the North American continent. In contrast, the claim of the colonist of the 1700's was an experiment which was untried. The United States claim to the sovereignty was written on a blank piece of paper. This fledgling experience of the landed immigrants created a design of self-governance based upon simple desire.
While the United States government improved upon itself over the course of three centuries, the Indians of the contiguous states lost their lands, their political rights, their cultural existence and often their lives by undeclared wars. This forced removal of the Natives from the lands which became the 48 states amounted to one of the greatest quantative displacements of one people by another in recent world history. However, in our northern world, the Eskimos and the Indians of the circumpolar regions were never fought, never conquered, and never signed treaties relinquishing their rights to the land.
Today, the territorial reaches of the Constitution of the United States of America are in question by the Inuit of the Republic of the Arctic. In a series of the insular case, the American courts considered whether the inhabitants of these newly acquired possessions in the north enjoyed the full protection of the Constitution.
According to Article III of the Treaty of Cession, 1867, the population of the Russian Colonies was divided into three categories.
(2) but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.
(3) The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.
However, the terms "inhabitants" was denied to the uncivilized tribes" by the United States. Therefore the Constitution of the United States is a mere propaganda instrument which created apartness and apartheid. The Native people were not Americans nor protected by the Constitution.
Freon 1867 to 1924, "uncivilized" tribes as well as the former "settled aliens" and the Creoles continued their right to obtain the rights of American citizens. Thus, for example, on May 16,1904, in Fairbanks the court denied the application of John Minook (whose real name was Ivan Pavlov) to be recognized as a citizen of the United States. John Minook was the son of a Russian trader employed by the Russian American Company in the Mikhailovskii Redoubt (on Norton Sound) and an Eskimo woman. The parents were both members of the Russian Orthodox Church and had been married according to its rites. Their son was born in the Mikhailovskii Redoubt in 1849. The parents lived in Alaska at the time of its sale by Russia to the United States, and remained there until their death. John Minook married a "native" woman after 1887. They raised and educated their children according to the principles of the Christian religion. John Minook became a miner and, as a reward for his services and integrity, one of the largest mining streams of the Rampart mining district was named "Minook Creek" in his honor. John Minook, according to the evidence presented by the witnesses in the court, had acquired a way of life, clothing and customs characteristic of the "civilized people"; he spoke English and obeyed the laws of the United States. This case started in August, 1900. and lasted more than three years. The court declined John Mimook"s suit on the ground that at the time of the signing of the Treaty of 1868,he belonged to the category of "inhabitants", who preferred to remain in the ceded territory"; therefor, he was "not admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of the citizens of the United States." To John Minook this meant that he lost all rights to the gold he had discovered at Rampart, Alaska. Today there are may of his and his wife's descendants still in the Rampart area.
In review of another insular case, "In re Sah Quah" District Court of Alaska, May 8, 1886, there is further proof of separate sovereignties. Sah Quah was a Tlingit slave. Here is text from re Sah Quah: "What then, is the legal status of Alaska Indians? Many of them have connected themselves with the mission churches, manifest a great interest in the education of their youth, and have adopted civilized habits of life. Their condition has been gradually changing until the attributes of their original sovereignty has been lost and they are becoming more and more dependent upon and subject to the laws of the United States, and YET THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS WITHIN THE FULL MEANING OF THAT TERM."
The court was not silent in re Minook, Naturalization of John Minook (2 AK Rept., 200/1904), Tee-Hitton Indians v.United States (348 U.S. 272), Edwardsen v> morton (369 F. Supp. 1359 D.D.C. 1973), United States v. Seveloff (1 AK Fed. Repts. 64, Fed. Case No. 16, 253 D Oregon 1872), and in Re Sah Quah (1 AK Fed Repts., 136 D. Alaska 1886).A study of these cases will make it clear that, for the purposes of citizenship and the Fifth Amendment of the COnstitution of the United States, Alaska Natives are not "inhabitants", "people" nor "citizens".
Following the American court's logic in these five cases, it is conclusive that Alaska Natives and their territories are not part of the territory of the United States. Instead this congressional appropriation of the territory of Alaska and original Native peoples is highly immoral and unconstitutional in today's context. These self-fulfilling opinions by the United States, as to the legal rights of the Alaska Natives, cannot be justified at all.
The interlocutory process by the United States for their desired claim to Alaska is now challenged by the Inuit people and for the Inuit peoples' political and social fulfillment within the context of the longest peaceful coexistence and occupation of the Territory of the Arctic.
The constitutional relevance of the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence is of final significance for the Declaration of Independence by the Inuit for their Republic of the Arctic. Here it is in full:
Aloha Kaohi, I need to "parkinglot" this information from Liko on your page because I know that you will know what to do with it. I was told that It is very important that everyone, become familiar with the U.S Treaty Reports.
There is an; Affidavit of Complaint of Human Rights Violation(s) that needs to be submitted by January 7, 2011.
Can Pono help?
Memorandum For State Governors.wps
Noelani,
Unable to open the memorandum for State Governors.wps, 13 KB
But, found this--does the letter have similar words. This a 1989 written letter
Ohana O Hawaii
Sovereign Nation to the Kingdom of Hawaii
Special Commissioner on International Intergovernmental
and Administrative Affairs (Liko-O-Kalani Martin)
430 West Kawili St.
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
United States Secretary of Interior
Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Department of the Interior
Attn: Stella G. Guerra, Assist. Secretary
(Territorial and International Affairs
Dear Secretary,
There exist an urgent need to discuss, in full, the events that took place at Iolani Palace,on January 17,1893, and the irregularities that exist regarding indigenous sovereign Hawaiian rights and titles.
It is well documented historical fact that, not only were U.S. Military forces 'conspiringly and illegally coerced but a 'provisional government' was illegally proclaimed by a U.S. Foreign Minister, without presidential or congressional authorization, and in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Sec. III, which prohibits the recognition of a "...state... within the jurisdiction of another state".
Furthermore, the Joint Resolution (Newlands Resolution) of Annexation of 1898, between the United States Congress and the illegally proclaimed republic of Hawaii, was completely illegal and fraudulent, and does not qualify, under the U.S. and International Law, as a legal transfer of indigenous Hawaiian sovereignty, as purported in a 1947 letter from the U.S. Secretary of State to the United Nations General Assembly, as a requirement of the U.N. Charter, Sec. 73 (e) to report on the status of Non-Self-Governing Territories, of which the Hawaiian Islands and its indigenous inhabitants are classified.
Since those heinous acts of 1893, and the violations of U.S./Hawaii treaties, and the fraudulent '1898 joint resolution', the United States Government has been occupying, colonizing and exploiting the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians and their exclusive territories, without proper 'Ohana' consent, and without just compensation, by an imposition of authority and power, under a masquerade of illegalities, semantic distortions of historical fact, and false assumptions.
Due to those irregularities in Hawaii/U.S.'political status relations', the U.S. Federal Government, the U.S. Congress, and the limited liability "state of Hawaii,do not legally posses nor have they ever been granted the 'plenary authority' to create statutory enhancements and special laws for the management and disposition of the indigenous sovereign inhabitants of the Hawaiian Archipelago, and their private and public lands and natural resources.
In keeping with the intent of U.S. Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975, and the policy commitments of the United States of America to the sovereignty with self-determination, and the decolonization of the Hawaiian Islands, it is formally requested of the U.S. Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to initiate communication with the various and respective 'Ohana' organizations, who have recognized those 'unalienated and uncontestable indigenous titles and rights', and who have also diligently and courageously rebuilt the foundations of the Hawaiian Nations, a "Nation" whose'honor and dignity, among nations, was insulated and criminally violated.
To assist you, in your responsibilities to provide"...all necessary administrative support to accomplish the requirements of Sec.2, 303, of U.S. Public Law 99-239 (Compact of Free Association of 1985), we, the Traditional Elders and Administrative Council of the Ohana O Hawaii, request the following actions be initiated: the commencing of liaison between the Office of the President of the United States of America and official representatives of the reconstituted governmental and administrative entities of the sovereign indigenous Hawaiians, the results of these actions being to effect an 'Executive Settlement Agreement' recognizing and declaring the independent sovereign status for the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians within the Hawaiian Archipelago: with an additional directive to the United States Congress to implement an officially sanctioned Compact of Free Association, so that the U.S.Congressional and 'state legislative enactments can be expressly amended or abrogated to conform to the highest levels of internationally
recognized laws between nations based on international declarations and covenants on human rights and environmental protection.
It should be clearly understood by you, the U.S. secretary of Interior, that any forthcoming political status negotiations be formatted as government to government negotiations to discuss foreign affairs within our indigenous Hawaiian non-contiguous Pacific Basin Territories, to establish control over the promulgation of rules and regulations, intergovernmental liaison, subsistence/inter-bioregional and foreign economics, social health and welfare and the organizing of an indigenous sovereign Hawaiian management authority with autonomous (plenary powers) over all organic and inorganic natural resources within the territories of our archipelago home.
I must remind the secretary that the after effects of those atrocities and illegal acts of piracy and terrorism of 1893, upon the friendly "Nation of Hawaii" have a devastating effect on the health of the indigenous Hawaiian population as a whole. Accordingly a U.S. Senate Report 100-580, substantially documents the 'class' as having the highest mortality and declining health statistics and standards of any ethnic group in the United States.
To further substantiate our call for action , it would behoove you and the Secretary of State, to carefully review the official record and testimonies from two hearings conducted in the Hawaiian Islands; one on August 26,1988, under the direction of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, as chairman of the U.S. senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Within these testimonies lies the documented proof of the existence of 'numerous entities performing governmental functions, under consensus as well as democratically and constitutionally promulgated rule and regulations. Within these groups, there exists ' entities' that have been specifically organized to accommodate the restoration of an independent national sovereign status, complete and unfettered for the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians. the second set of official testimonies,that are pertinent, were gathered under the auspices of U.S. Senate oversight hearings (Aug.7-11,1989). I am sure that you and the Secretary of State , will find those records to be a testimonial to the appalling and tragic inequities of the 'state ' of Hawaii, in its faithless and breachful administration of the 'sacred trust obligation of the United States of America.
The continued illegal occupation and colonization and breaches of trust by the United States, under its United Nations
'administrating authority', constitutes a host of violations of the U.N. Covenants an the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which the U.S. is a signatory, and U.S. Public Law 100-606, the Proxmire Act Nov. 4, 1988 (ronald Reagan), a statute which codifies definitions and punishments for committing and/or inciting genocide.
The corrupted concept of the U.S. Native Hawaiian, especially under the auspices of the Hawaiian Home Act of 1920, as amended, has been misused and abused long enough. The genocide that has permeated from the paternalistic and self discriminating institution, with its has literally infected and undermined the group as a whole, with bitter and incestuous racism, and is in direct violation of U.S.Public Law 100-606. Nevertheless and despite the continual interference and meddling into our internal affairs by third parties, the roots of our indigenous culture, language ,subsistence economic, and internal politics, are in full renaissance, after nearly a 'century' of invasion, exploitation and desecration; a true testament to the cultural resiliency of the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians.
At this juncture, in our continuing 'struggle for sovereignty' the only way the U.S. and its corporate sub-state, and the multinational corporates can maintain their illegal control, is to affect a 'statutory extinguishing or legal conquest, of outstanding indigenous sovereign Hawaiian rights and titles . This trickery and administrative maneuver, amounts to nothing less then a 'genocidal conspiracy', to continually develop 'administrative programmatic and economic dependency, in ignorance of U.S. public Law 93-638.
Another aspect of this interference, meddling and manipulation, has been the psychological and force assimilation of the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians, into the U.S. Native Hawaiians, so as to entice the special group, and other groups, into accepting monetary loans, and free grants, in exchange for a 'limited U.S. recognition of indigenous Hawaiian sovereignty , upon the extinguishing all indigenous Hawaiian claims against the U.S. and entities operating under the 'illegally assumes sovereign authority'.
The crime that were committed in 1893, are no less outlawed, then the crimes being perpetrated today. A full
reassessment,reconciliation and reparation to these crimes against humanity,is not only long over due, but crucially necessary to maintain peaceful relations between the United States of America and the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians.
The recent U.S. Senate 'over-sight' hearing of Aug. 7-11, 1989, while attempting to address long standing inequities, fraud an inept administration, may unfortunately be constituting another chapter in the genocidal application by 'state and U.S. Federally licensed third parties, of management rules and regulations, over the internal affairs and exclusive entitlement, and natural resources within the inherent jurisdiction of the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians.
Like our 'southern Polynesian cousins', and more recently, the Alaskans, we too, have outstanding entitlement and rights to ' ride the tide if independence', and take full responsibility for our sovereignty and inheritances. To the indigenous Hawaiians, their own independent Hawaiian government, with all the privileges and amenities afforded to a full 'sovereign nation', including the autonomous authority, over all natural resources within the 200 mile jurisdictional limits of our international boundaries.
With all due respect to the 'U.S. Native American Indian' models of sovereignty, there remains a distinct uniqueness in the indigenous sovereign Hawaiian claims, and the historical events of 1893,1898,1920 and 1959, that reflects such a gross level of mis-administration, mismanagement and fiduciary impropriety,that there exists an unprecedented set of circumstances, to which the United States of America and the indigenous sovereign Hawaiians, should immediately proceed to address and reconcile.
It is suggested that direct and frequent communications be instituted, to insure that your reports and information retain a level of credibility worthy of note by the Office of the President and the U.S. Congress. We are hopeful that our immediate concerns be attended to, at the proper levels of government within the United States Government, and that every effort be made to prioritize our situation, so that immediate action can be taken and favorable results achieved.
Thank you for your attention to these serious matters. We look forward to laying a new foundation that will fulfill the dreams of ancestors, the promises of our inheritances and the opportunity to keep alive the 'true spirit of democracy, freedom,liberty and justice.
Sincerely Submitted
Liko O Kalani Martin
Ohana O Hawaii
cys:
United States Secretary of States
U.S. Readies Missile Defense Before N. Korea Test
by JJ Sutherland
The United States has deployed missile defense systems in anticipation of a possible North Korean missile test that may be aimed in the direction of Hawaii. Missile defense has had problems over the years, with failed tests or tests that employed only easy scenarios.
Now, the Obama administration and the military seem confident that missile defense is up to the task.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made it clear that the military is alarmed by a potential North Korean missile test in the coming weeks.
"We're obviously watching the situation in the North, with respect to missile launches, very closely. And we do have some concerns, if they were to launch a missile in the direction of Hawaii," Gates said.
As a result of those concerns, Gates has ordered the deployment of a number of missile defenses — and he seems confident they will do the job.
"Without telegraphing what we will do, I would just say, I think we are in a good position, should it become necessary to protect American territory," he said.
John Pike is a defense analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org. He says that confidence may be justified.
Against a single incoming warhead that is not accompanied by decoys, U.S. missile defense would, more likely than not, be successful, Pike says.
But, he adds, any real attack — with multiple warheads and decoys, rather than a one-off test — would be very different.
The U.S. would not have the capability to do that soon, he says.
One of the systems deployed in Hawaii is called THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
Philip Coyle of the Center for Defense Information previously oversaw missile defense testing for the Pentagon during the Clinton administration.
Since about 2006, Coyle says, THAAD has passed six tests, in six tries.
"Back when I was at the Pentagon, it had a terrible record — six failures in a row," he says.
Other systems have been deployed off Hawaii as well, such as the Sea-Based X-Band Radar, known as the SBX. It looks like a giant, 10-story-tall golf ball that sits on a modified floating oil platform; at sea, the radar will provide better "eyes" for missile defenses.
There are also ground-based interceptors in Alaska that are designed to hit missiles in midflight.
However, none of these systems has ever been used in a real attack.
But deploying missile defenses isn't just about actually shooting down missiles, it is also about conveying multiple messages.
Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, says the U.S. is also signaling the Japanese that they should trust their missile defense system because Washington does as well.
"Because if the Japanese decided they didn't trust their missile defense system, then they'd start looking around to get nuclear weapons, and that would set off a regional arms race, both nuclear and conventional," Pike warns.
Some North Korean missile tests have flown over Japan. Estimates vary on how fast the Japanese could manufacture nuclear arms, but the process almost certainly wouldn't take long since they have plenty of plutonium from their civilian nuclear program.
But Pike says there is one more player the defense secretary may be talking to as well: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who will meet with President Obama next month.
The U.S. wants to deploy missile defenses in Central Europe, which the Russians have said is a nonstarter in any arms reduction talks.
"I think that this is a way of sending a message to the Russians that missile defense is something that the Americans believe in as an appropriate response to threats from North Korea and Iran," Pike says.
Those other audiences may, in a way, be more important than North Korea. As Coyle, of the Center for Defense Information says, an actual attack on the U.S. is unlikely.
"If they did, it would justify massive retaliation," he says, adding he doesn't think North Korea is that suicidal.
Aloha Bronson,
I posted this information to show where, we who are Christians merged with the Native Americans way back in 1978.
If you sense, the touch of spirit this is when we those of us that are/were fully Christians --looked at our culture values and its' omnipotence.
We came together as praying people. Keep in mind my grandparents were the founders of 'Gospel of Salvation' I believe there is or was a church in Molokai may or may not be open for church services. My point is I understand the power of prayer and responsibilities to our people.
When we stepped out of our comfort zone, and it was a bit scary--we knew nothing about our culture and it's religious practices. We were white in our thinking and we wanted to know who we were, so we ventured into our Na Kanaka values. All thinking mind you, that we were going against our Christian beliefs. Fortunately, we had our na Kupuna with us therefore that was not the case.
Many of us became involved with the whole enchalata and we bounced all over the universe. It was a lot of fun at first and than it got boring. So, we all came home with our Christian beliefs and our culture beliefs.
Sadly, some Christians manipulative as is-- decided to use their heads, mouth, and dance on the edge. I believe it's because they never bounced around the universe but had remained in their comfort zone.
We, who was there during those pryor years of 1978 came into the agreement of freedom of religion with our Native American brothers and sisters walked across and back again in a round trip on O Kanaloa Kohe Malamalama in 1978 from Kealaikahi to Honokanaenae over to Hakioawa. We made this trip to join hands with first people of the world. Keep in mind, non of us knew what the hell we were doing.
But, we came home and ever since hold beliefs that are connecting and all powerful. So when we pray we understand the power of omnipotence. That is what our ancestors knew and now we know that too.
Politics is a whole different practice--if this is not your forte--I have no problem with that, however, those of us that lead and stand the jerk in order to protect our yet unborn are 'broke mask' so to speak.
That haole bald head man just got through planting his 'haloa' into a 'kohe' by weapon force called power and fear!
In the omnipotense of our freedom of religion practices we stand together without fear and cowardice. That is why Na Kanaka came out of their homes to join together and take a willful stand against the rape of our ancestors, their land and their future generations. This is the power of prayer outside of our comfort zone.