Lawlessness

Doctrine of Discovery. A fraud.

The Doctrine of Discovery is a fraud, at least after 1537 it was. Yet it has been used to justify the annexation of entire lands, the deracination of entire peoples, and anything else that its “inventors” wanted. It was the “catch all” phrase that made “legal,” but not “lawful,” all manner of hostilities, treacheries and crimes. It was used as a foundation to enslave innocent people, steal lands, and “act in the name of the church.” See, the Doctrine of Discovery finds its “roots” in Christian dictates from sundry Catholic Popes. They started in 1452 or 53, and went on unabated until 1537. After 1537 the former “dictates” that the Doctrine of Discovery utilized as a foundation, that all became void. The Doctrine of Discovery had reached its limit. However, those who were “hell bent” on conquest, they had other ideas.

The “greedy ones,” they decided to “not tell anyone” that the 1537 edict had come down from the Catholic church prohibiting crimes against “Indians of the Americas.” The greedy ones decided that fraud and crimes, ab extra, or outside of the church was the preferable route after 1537, and manifestly they felt that if they said nothing then nobody else would know. They were right, and the Doctrine of Discovery was used as a justification for land theft all the way into the 1800s on this land. Below is a list of legal decisions that relied wholly, or in part, on this “Doctrine” based in fraud.

“The doctrine of discovery was established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823, which ruled that American Indians did not have legal title to their lands, as the discovering European powers claimed sovereignty over these territories. This decision has had lasting implications for Native American land rights and sovereignty.”

• 10 U.S. 87 (1810) FLETCHER v. PECK

• 21 U.S. 543 (1823) JOHNSON AND GRAHAM’S LESSEE v. WILLIAM M’INTOSH

• 31 U.S. 515 (1832) SAMUEL A. WORCESTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA

• 34 U.S. 711 (1835) COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CA

• 35 U.S. 303 (1836) THE UNITED STATES. APPELLANTS v. STEPHEN D. FERNANDEZ AND OTHERS

• 38 U.S. 195 (1839) MERIWETHER L. CLARK, EXECUTOR, AND WILLIAM P. CLARK, GEORGE R. H. CLARK, AND JEFFERSON KENNERLY CLARK, AN INFANT UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND NEXT FRIEND, THE SAID GEORGE R. H. CLARK, HEIRS AT LAW OF WILLIAM

• 40 U.S. 52 (1841) COLIN MITCHEL AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEES

• 41 U.S. 367 (1842) MERRIT MARTIN AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE LESSEE OF WILLIAM C. H. WADDELL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

• 45 U.S. 567 (1846) THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS, v. WILLIAM S. ROGERS

• 57 U.S. 203 (1853) HENRY CHOUTEAU, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. PATRICK MOLONY

• 78 U.S. 616 (1870) THE CHEROKEE TOBACCO

• 84 U.S. 211 (1872) HOLDEN v. JOY

• 84 U.S. 253 (1872) TYLER v. MAGWIRE

• 92 U.S. 733 (1875) LEAVENWORTH, LAWRENCE, AND GALVESTON RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES

• 92 U.S. 760n (1875) MISSOURI, KANSAS, AND TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES

• 95 U.S. 517 (1877) BEECHER v. WETHERBY

• 111 U.S. 768 (1883) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO & ANOTHER v. SCOTT

• 119 U.S. 55 (1886) BUTTZ v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD

• 175 U.S. 1 (1899) JONES v. MEEHAN

• 242 U.S. 434 (1916) WILLIAMS, CHIEF, et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

• 324 U.S. 335 (1944) NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS v. UNITED STATES

• 329 U.S. 40 (1946) UNITED STATES v. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS ET AL.

• 348 U.S. 272 (1954) TEE-HIT-TON INDIANS v. UNITED STATES

• 397 U.S. 620 (1969) CHOCTAW NATION et al. v. OKLAHOMA et al.

• 414 U.S. 661 (1973) ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK et al. v. COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, et al.

• 442 U.S. 653 (1978) WILSON et al. v. OMAHA INDIAN TRIBE et al.

• 470 U.S. 226 (1984) COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, et al. v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK STATE et al.

• 544 U.S. 197 (2004) CITY OF SHERRILL, NEW YORK v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, et al.

Again, in 1537, which is 200 or so years before any court usage of the Doctrine of Discovery, the “Doctrine” was vacated by the authority that created it. Meaning anyone using it, with knowledge of such, was committing a fraud, and official church policy was seeking to distance itself from what became insalubrious for the populations being abused under the previous “Dum Diversas,” or edicts.

“The said Indians and all other peoples who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property... even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ.”

“They are not to be enslaved or in any way harmed.”

“They are to be invited to the said faith of Christ by preaching and the example of a good life.”

— Sublimis Deus, 1537

I covered this in detail previously here:

Why does the fraud from way back matter? It matters because nothing can result from fraud but fraud. It matters because fraud is being used, and has been used, as a basis for the Monroe Doctrine and the continued subjugation of the regional nations. This being evidenced most clearly recently in Cuba and Venezuela.

At this point in the historical record it appears that most of the “stuff” the people are being told and taught is based in fraud. Mostly all of it. In politics historically it’s been a lot of fraud. Messianic religion is based on Jacob’s fraud. The medical industry has proven it’s a fraud. Housing loans, banking, “corporation courts,” property taxes, auto registration, all and sundry, “societal,” based in fraud. Frauds that are unrecognizable to the general public because they have been educated in that way. So, the general public incorporates the frauds in their normal lives.

It’s “all legal,” but not lawful. There is a difference. “Legal stuff” does not always comport with the constitution and includes, but is not limited to, administrative law. “Lawful stuff” is in alignment with the constitution. It’s legal for a cop to give someone a traffic citation, but it’s not lawful because it violates the separation of powers. This is why in my state I get them thrown out. For those who have trouble comprehending this concept I will explain.

The police officer, sheriff, or state patrol officer are all part of the executive branch of the city municipality, county and state in which they operate in. They are a separate branch from their state courts and legislators. The citation issued is from the Judicial branch. It cannot be issued, nor is it valid unless it is FIRST SIGNED by a Judge or Court Officer. Without court seal, file stamp and endorsement PRIOR TO ISSUE the citation cannot “command appearance” or command anything. It is just a piece of paper with no judicial enforcement capability. Some people “act upon the citation” because they have been hoodwinked into believing it is something that it is not. Public school did that to them.

Courts are called, “Courts of Law,” not, Courts of Legal.” This is why one must be very careful when reading or endorsing things that are “legal.” Most of them, especially if money, minerals, or real property are involved, they are not “lawful.” One clear example is Johnson v. McIntosh. That was a “legal” precedent that stole our “stuff.”

Lord have Mercy