🚀 go-pugleaf

Morgoth <morgoth@nome.net> wrote:

>Doyon from the best I can see was doing much the same that the
>Feds/US Military acted to take the lands away from the Indians,
>so in the end, who is right?
>
>Doyon is a Limited CORPORATION not a INDIANS COUNTRY Entity no
>matter what they like to think. 

And no matter what the courts think?

>They have only that sovereignty
>that they have been granted by the State of Alaska 
>or by the
>Federal Government and that is not Indian Country sovereignty.

<irrelevant personal/idiosyncratic definition of legal principles
snipped>
>
>If the lands had been turned over to Doyan by the Feds/State and
>the processes of Eminent Domain had been adhered to,

Eminent domain is the power to take property from its rightful owners,
on payment of just compensation.  You assume a) that the principle
applies to relations between Native groups and persons with land
claims within a reservation (not necessarily true) and b) that Peltola
was the rightful owner, which begs the question everyone's been
asking. 

>gentleman had not left the land, then the Feds/State would move
>in and remove him physically. Since Doyon is not a soveriegn body
>it can not act as one, such as acting as police/etc. Even the
>VPSO/VPO have to maintain STATE/FEDERAL LAW on native corporation
>lands and if so delegated local laws (delegated from the
>Feds/State).

Actually, the troopers, VPSOs etc. enforce state criminal law on
native corporation lands because they ARE Indian country.  Alaska is
one of six states governed by 18 USC 1162, which provides that state
criminal law applies on Indian lands.  In the other 44 states federal
criminal law applies.   As to why federal criminal law applies to
otherwise sovereign territory, "sovereign" is not the same thing as
"wholly independent."  Indian lands are generally thought of as
dependent communities in a trust relationship  (hollow mocking
laughter).   

>
>Wonder why they call them Boroughs? Municipalities? Cause they
>are chartered by the Feds/State as such (normally the State).
>
>If the land is private property 

Well, there you go: was it?  Not if it belonged to an ANCSA
corporation, it wasn't. 

>the private security can remove
>the person, but only as CITIZENS not as police.
>
>But as far as I have heard, the land was the man and not Doyon
>LTD. Therefore the acts of Doyon are basically the same as any
>KLAN cross burning/lynching.
>
>EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW GOES BOTH WAYS!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>