Posted by Gary Patton
February 2013
I am going to begin this
with the comment that Floyd Davidson posted on ALASKA DISPATCH in
reference to the Yup’ik fisherman that were arrested for fishing
king salmon during a closure on the Kuskokwim River in 2012:
“So far the only
tradition the laws have been designed to maintain is that of money
for commercial fishing. It’s nice to see an attorney that has
actually learned something about Yup’ik culture and Indian Law, and
is willing to assert it.
Lets remember that until
Statehood ownership of those fish came under the sovereignty of the
Yup’ik people, and when the Federal government allowed the State of
Alaska to form a socialist government with common ownership of
natural resources it was literally stealing those resources from
their owners.
That was later made
“legal” by ANCSA, but there cannot be any justice if we do not
regulate that resource for the primary benefit of the people from
whom it was taken!”
[Yup'ik Alaskans on trial for violating salmon fishing restrictions claim religious rite (please click for Alaska Dispatch arcticle--)November 12, 2012"Davis counters that if conservation is truly a driving motivation, then the state and federal governments would do more to diminish salmon bycatch on the high seas, caught before salmon ever have a chance to return to the rivers."]
Gary Patton post continues:
There it is. Thank you Frank.
There it is. Thank you Frank.
In my opinion the Yup’ik
have a good chance of winning their case. They have “The Law of The
Sea” on their side, as well as the STATE OF ALASKA’S lack of
jurisdiction over the Yup’ic for the following reasons:
The Vote and the
Legality of “THE SALE OF ALASKA and THE STATEHOOD ACT”
FIRST: The big
question is did Russia own Alaska? Even under in temporal law of the
time, Russia had not fulfilled any obligation to be able to claim
title to Alaska. All Russia had in Alaska, was some trading rights
with some of the peoples of Alaska. That was it. Russia had not
established any form of Government, no cities, nor any of the things
required under the rule of law as a way to claim title. This is
important to understand.
SECOND: Before
Alaska became a territory, it was the DISTRICT OF ALASKA, then became
the Territory of Alaska, and was placed on a list of
“non-self-governing territories” with the United Nations under
article 73e. There was an obligation on the part of the United States
to see to it that the first peoples of Alaska would become educated,
and allowed to become self-governing. This did not happen. For all
the United Nations knew when the United States quit reporting to
them, Alaska’s people were of one. This was not true. This is
important to understand.
THIRD: A STATEHOOD
ACT requires a vote of the people. The question becomes, who were
these people, and what criteria is required to call upon a vote for
STATEHOOD? How many resident people are required to vote, are
transient people allowed to vote, such as military personnel? It was
a military vote that carried the STATEHOOD ACT! The VOTE for
STATEHOOD did not follow the rule of law; therefore, it should
nullify that ACT. This is important to understand.
FOURTH: Peoples of
Alaska listen up. Seeing how Russia could not sell what it did not
own, Alaska had to be a disclaimer state. Let me assure you that the
first peoples of Alaska are part of the Constitution of Alaska. The
Constitution of Alaska is supposedly the supreme law of land. Let me
refer everyone to:
Article XII, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, SECTION 12. The State of Alaska and its people forever
disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the
United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or
confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the
act admitting Alaska to the Union. The State and its people further
disclaim all right or title in or to any property, including fishing
rights, the right or title to which may be held by for any Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut, or community thereof, as that right or title is
defined in the act of admission. The State and its people agree that,
unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property as described in
this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the
United States. They further agree that no taxes will be imposed upon
any such property, until otherwise provided by the Congress. This tax
exemption shall not apply to property held by individuals in fee
without restrictions on alienation.
Fifth: The
original peoples of Alaska were subject to ARTICLE V SUFFRAGE AND
ELECTIONS (Qualified Voters) of the Constitution of Alaska.
Particularly, SECTION 1., where it states: “A voter shall be able
to read or speak the English language as prescribed by law, unless
prevented by physical disability. This has the appearance of an
apartheid clause, because the majority of the original peoples could
not fulfill that requirement, therefore were not allowed a vote for
STATEHOOD! This is important.
Sixth: The Alaska
Native Claims Settlement ACT. This ACT was never voted on by the
original peoples of Alaska in any form to either accept or reject the
ACT, let alone placed before the original peoples as a referendum as
it should have been. This should nullify that ACT, and gives us
reason to revisit these ACTS that resemble ACTS of Apartheid. This is
very important for everyone to know.
______________________________________END_____________________________________________
ACLU supports Yup’ik fishermen in trial
( http://kyuk.org/aclu-supports-yup%E2%80%99ik-fishermen-in-trial/ ) [The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska is joining the Yup’ik fishermen trials. The group has filed an amicus or “friend of the court brief” in support of the fishermen’s right to fish as part of their religious practice.by on FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ]
