The Scottish Land Thief

The Scottish Land Thief

The Scottish Land Thief the White Mans Indian

Alexander McGillvary 1750-1798

Misrepresentative of State Representative

Signing Treaties on the behalf of the Muschogee ‘Creek’ Nuwaupian Nation

 

Alexander McGillivray, born in 1750 to a large family of wealthy Scottish on Muschogee Nuwaupian territory on the plantation of his father Lachland McGillivray, educated under the tutelage of Scottish relative,[1] not as a Muschogee ‘Creek’ in traditional native education. His father was one of the largest landholders of and holding about 10,000 acres and began enslaving the Muschogee (Creek) nationals being a business partner with a profitable mercantile firm that dealt in slaves, among other commodities.[2]  McGillivray often presented himself as a leader in of the Muschogee Munwaup-u nation as well as an American and Spanish official[3]. This conflict of interest undoubtedly arose suspicion throughout our nation, as the Muschogee nation did not agree that he was any leader. The significance of the ‘Treaty of Paris’[4] was of no significance to us, as we didn’t rely on foreign treaties to dictate the destiny of our land holdings.

Treaty Of Paris

Signed September 3rd 1783

 

Because McGillivray’s maternal line was linked to the ‘Wind Clan[1]’ of our nation he was indeed a national though he was alienated from Muschogee traditions and from the majority of the Muschogee Nuwaupian in the southeastern area.[2] His rise to prominence in the Creek country was the signaling of thirty years of change for our nation as his corruption, fraud and enslavement[3] was a major component in the ability of the United States to procure land cession through treaties from his misrepresentation and greed.

In 1790 when this self-proclaimed Muschogee (Creek) Nation Chief never having been accepted by our nation as such, ceded lands to the United States not only through fraud, and misrepresentation of our nation but also by keeping silent on secret articles of an agreement of the United States which forced religious and social assimilation along with agreed upon infiltration for the purposes of colonization, the acceptance of such was not consented upon by our nation.[4]

The area colored bright orange is the Treaty of New York 1790

This was the first treaty with the U.S. after federal authority was firmly established over treaty making with Native Indigenous nations.

When Alexander McGillivray misrepresentation and negotiated on behalf of our nation taking bribes in this secret article, it gave him complete unilateral authority to conduct inside trading as a misrepresentative. The Muscogee Creek nation would never have entrusted authority to a representative who would have procured a treaty as a ‘conductor’ whose conduct were pernicious to our state.[1]

The facts concerning other circumstances of the treaties are included in each examination of the forthcoming instruments individually. The facts will reflect that in general practice the United States in its conduct regarding treaty negotiations and conclusions between the Muschogee (Creek) nations has in each instant in conduct contributed constituent elements constituting defects of consent, the legal effects of the fraud and corruption, enables the state victim the United Nuwaupian nation to invoke these acts as vitiating its consent.

We will glance at the eight treaties included in the section detailing specifically four prominent treaties[2], chosen primarily being historically known for allegedly large land cessions from the Muschogee nation which in where the evidence of coercion[3], fraud[4], bribery of state representative and coercion of a State by the threat or use of force[5] to procure these treaties is immediately detectable and overwhelmingly convincing by the facts presented and recognized as being by law defective of consent. Thus the government of the United Nuwaupian Nation is invoking the invalidity of the treaties procured by these illegal means, declaring them null and void, ab initio. The acts in each instance are grounds for nullifying and voiding these treaties, resulting in severe legal consequences.

A clear pattern of fraud and deceit that has emanated from their nations representatives, by the interpreters, signatories and presenters of these forthcoming treaties with our nation has robbed us of our dominion, as they have always been one sided, presented in the language of only English only understood by one party, never in the language of the Muschogee ‘Creek’ peoples[6]. There exist none to date regarding the treaties in reference any treaties between the United States and the Muschogee nation that reflects the true intent of the drafters of the treaties in the language of the victim state. International law governing treaties as international instruments acknowledge the languages of the peoples of nations as diverse, and the influences that these languages has in law rest on the certain usage of those languages which influences what is at stake in international engagements[7].

 

Confusion in dialect

 

The international law obligations upon the Muschogee nation at that time of the conclusion of such instruments would not have been overstood textually by the injured states negotiating party even if no other defects were present, due to the absence of an untranslatable text to them at the time of consent, under these circumstances the procuration of such treaties could have only been obtained by the United States through imputable acts when performed would have been contrary to Muschogee ‘Creek’ nations indispensable obligations of preserving itself and her dominion and not entering into engagements pernicious to our nation.[8]

Emmer Vattel 1758 Fact: This book holds the record for oldest returned library book, returned
Emer Vattel, Law of Nations Book II: Nations in Relation to Other States, §159. Duty of nations in this respect

‘Since, in the formation of every treaty, the contracting parties must be vested with sufficient powers for the purpose, a treaty pernicious to the state is null, and not at all obligatory, as no conductor of a nation has the power to enter into engagements to do such things as are capable of destroying the state, for whose safety the government is entrusted to him.[1]

Therefore, the languages of the State parties should been interpretable from both sides for consensus ad idem, which in blacks law dictionary means

‘ An Agreement of parties to the same thing; a meeting of the minds’

to effect the validity of the treaty. Ironically there are listed interpreters[2] of these treaties allegedly present at the negotiations; these persons were not only appointed interpreters by a one sided party of the United States, but also there was no proof presented that any interpreting party had knowledge or any expertise of the Muskogean language in order to perform properly an adequate and precise translation for the other party to properly comprehend the textual content even if the treaties contracted were not defective of consent. A reflection of the facts one will see that their has always been an absence of a presented translation of the drafted treaty, nor has there been an orated or written possession of a transcribed treaty deposited within our nation in the Muschogee language or with the United States of America.

Stay tuned for more articles by the UNN International Law Department and More Discovered Fraud

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.