Those that refuse to respond to our email this time, Except those that are not in environmental law, We are simply including you as a courtesy, will be noted, and not contacted for assistance, nor Opinions further. There are even some that are involved with Our Group, this does not apply to you, sorry you will continue to hear from us forever ,
Protect The Wolves® calls on our followers
to support us on our path
Protect The Wolves® Calls all Large NPOS
to Join them in speaking out for Wolves, Grizzlies, Bison, Wild Horses
As Well as PUBLIC LANDS
using the Indian Trust, Public Trust, Natures Trust Aspects.
Protect The Wolves® has been researching the Indian Trust, The Public Trust along with Natures Trust by Mary Christina Wood. These three important tools tell us that under not only our Religious Rights but also our sovereign property rights granted by the Indian trust clearly states Tribes remain co-owners, in effect, along with the states.
As co-tenant trustees, not as guardian-ward as some attorneys have approached it… which by the way needs to stop immediately.
Trust documents tell us that not only do tribes, as well as Tribal members have legal standing to enjoin states from diminishing the shared assets which include our lands, wildlife, resources, that wildlife in general also encompass our sacred species also gains extra protections under our Native American Religious Rights, as well as the public lands that are held in trust for the people.
These trust documents also tell us that the majority of public lands in the United States are actually held in trust for the American people by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),. the United States National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior, or the United States Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture. Other federal agencies that manage public lands include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Department of Defense, which includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In general, Congress must legislate the creation or acquisition of new public lands, such as national parks; however, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President may designate new national monuments without congressional authorization if the monument is on federally-owned land.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties (Tribes Hold The Supreme Law according to this statement it Appears) made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.” A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
For example, A 1983 California Supreme Court ruling held that the State has an “affirmative duty to take the public trust into account” in making decisions affecting public trust resources, and also the duty of continuing supervision over these resources which allows and may require modification of such decisions. More recently, the definition of the doctrine has been further refined by the California courts as providing the public the right to use water resources for: navigation, fisheries, commerce, environmental preservation and recreation; as ecological units for scientific study; as open space; as environments which provide food and habitats for birds and marine life; and as environments which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.”
The Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that certain lands and resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain it for the public’s use. The ancient laws of the Roman Emperor Justinian held that the seas and the shorelines were open to all the people. In the Magna Carta in England centuries later, public rights to the waters and shorelines were further strengthened. These public rights became law in England and subsequently became the common law of the United States. This was firmly established in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois in 1892. In that case, the Illinois legislature had granted a large portion of the Chicago harbor to the Illinois Central Railroad. A subsequent legislature sought to revoke the grant, claiming that the original grant should not have been permitted in the first place. The court held that the public trust doctrine prevented the government from alienating the public right to the lands under navigable waters. In subsequent cases it was held that this public right extended also to waters which were influenced by the tides regardless of whether or not they were navigable. This concept has also been found to apply to the natural resources, mineral or animal, contained in the intertidal sediments and water over those public trust lands. Private ownership does not take precedence over the rights of the people under the public trust. Source: http://www.caseinlet.org/Public_Trust_Doctrine.php
It makes us ask why the legal minds of today have not attacked these crooked politicians when they try to sell of these said public lands from the trust aspect. We as a Native American 501c3 feel that our Trust is in fact the most powerful tool that we have available, well next to our religious rights. These Crooked politicians are not only violating your rights as the American Public, but also Our Rights as Native Americans in attempting to do so. The legal challenges being brought forward need to take in and use the full power of protections granted the American People as well as the Tribes in this outrageous attempt by our elected officials to sell these lands and resources off for the benefit of Greed. People PLEASE READ THIS WELL …… The People, The Tribes HAVE THE POWER GRANTED THEM by the forefathers to call their actions illegal while also making it impossible for these CROOKED POLITICIANS to do! If WE THE PEOPLE, and WE THE TRIBES STAND UP AND TELL THEM NO!!! Please call us with any questions.
To All that have made it this far, please take note here, that this public trust also protects all resources which in essence also protects all of our Wildlife.
Simply due to how the Trust was written “The trust reposed in the state is not a passive trust; it is an active trust … this active trust it would appear requires that the lawmaking body to “act” in all cases where action is necessary, not only to preserve the trust, but to promote it.” Individual States are all violating Tribal Trusts, as well as The Public Trust Doctrine throughout their actions by “negligently” failing to protect our resources adequately, as the Trust not only requires but also states. These Lands, Resources as well as wildlife do not have to reside on a Tribal Reservation to fall under the Protection of one of these Trusts…. be they on or off reservations as the Trust not only requires but also states.
Further perhaps, we have a bit of help in that the assigned primary judicial function is to ensure that legislative enactments comport with constitutional expectations. Recognized as a constitutional doctrine, “The public trust” empowers courts to invalidate executive and legislative acts that violate the public’s property rights in natural resources, with that being said it appears that Tribal Protections come even before those if I understood the beginning correctly. As one federal court declared: “The very purpose of the public trust doctrine is to police the legislature’s disposition of public lands.” Which needs to be applied in our current time frame simply due to the amount of Agriculture special interest influences, not to mention these states that seem to think that they can make changes that affect out public resources and then somehow prevent judicial review. After studying the Trust doctrine, I truly fail to 1 see how or 2 understand how it is even legal for them to do so.
Protect The Wolves® in researching our sacred animals under the trusts, have discovered that all resources including wildlife fall under “OUR” own protection that we as ONE GROUP can bring to pass. Please Join Us in this Fight For All WILDLIFE, as well as our Public Lands held in Trust for you the American People!
The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is a fundamental precursor to modern environmental law and continues to be an integral principle of natural resource management. The doctrine has often been characterized as an attribute of sovereignty that carries constitutional force. As such, courts have held both legislatures and agencies accountable to fiduciary standards.
To further our position we are add the below:
Historically the trust doctrine secured Native American tribes’ essential material needs. 24° Courts generally protected the natives’ right to their land,2 4 ‘ their right to hunt and fish,24 2 and their right to protect their tribal assets.243
In doing so, courts have construed the terms of treaties broadly to include rights that constitute an integral part of native culture and survival.2 44 In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 245 construed the Non-Intercourse Act 24 6 broadly and concluded that it created a general trust relationship between the Federal Government and all native tribes, regardless of whether a specific treaty exists which creates such a relationship. 24 7
Therefore, it appears that government action that adversely affects Native Americans’ basic needs violates the government’s fiduciary duty owed Native Americans. Analysis of the rights and interests protected by the trust doctrine raises the question of whether the doctrine would also encompass protection of a tribe’s intangible and spiritual needs.248 So long as those needs rise to the level of needs essential to the tribe’s continued existence, the trust doctrine should also protect those needs.