Smith v Elkins Complaint
-
Upload
religionclause -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Smith v Elkins Complaint
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 1/13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JONATH AN K . SMITH, a member of theShinnecock Indian Nation,
Plaintiff,ERIFIED COMPLAINT
- against -ase No.:
R.G. EL KINS, in the official capacity ason .
Revenue Officer of the Internal RevenueService, U.S. Department of Treasury,
Defendant.
NOW COMES Jonathan K. Smith, a member of the Shinnecock Indian Nation, the
Plaintiff in the above referenced action, as and for his Complaint, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1 .his is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by the Plaintiff,
Jonathan K. Smith, ("Plaintiff' or "Smith"), an on-reservation member of the Shinnecock Indian
Nation, and spiritual leader a/k/a a Medicine M an, against Defendant, R.G. Elkins, ("Defendant"
or "Elkins"), a revenue officer of the Internal Revenue Service, United States Department of
Treasury, ("the Service"). The suit is brought in defense against actions by Elkins in excess of
jurisdiction, in violation of treaty, and in violation of the Constitution and law s of the United
States, arising out of Elkins' official acts causing the assessment of federal income taxes, filing a
federal tax lien with the Suffolk County Clerk, and levying upon and seizing funds from Smith's
bank accoun ts, thereby depriving Sm ith's ability to exercise and fund traditional Indian religious
activities, and substantially burdening Smith's exercise of religion, as further described herein.
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 2/13
THE PARTIES
2. Smith is a m ember of the Shinnecock Indian N ation, a federally recognized Indian
Tribe, (the "Shinnecock" or "the Nation"), and is a sp iritual leader a/k/a a Medicine M an, and
performs spiritual ceremonies at a Sweat Lodge, located at his residence and dwelling place at
Old P oint Road, Shinnecock Indian Reservation, ("the Reservation"), located within the
territorial boundaries of the Town of Southampton, County of Suffolk, and State of New Y ork.'
3 . E lkins is an indiv idual who i s employed as a revenue off icer o f the Service , wi th
business office located within the County of Suffolk, at 1180 Veterans Highway, H auppauge, 2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 . This court has federa l quest ion ju ri sd ic tion pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1331 .
5 . Venue i s proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1391(b)(2) .
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Medicine Man
6. Smith's traditional spiritual activities as a M edicine M an are self-funded from
Smith's own assets, including use of funds from Smith's personal and business bank accounts.
Smith's assets are used, inter alia, to:
a. Purchase materials for prayer ceremonies in the Sw eat Lodge, including
coverings, wood, and food;
b. Purchase materials for prayer flags;
c. Purchase m edicines not easily obtainable in the wild, including travel to other
Indian reservations;
I See, Tribal Membership V erification Letter, annexed hereto as E xhibit A.2 The hamlet name of "Hauppauge" was taken from Plaintiff's native Algonquian language, which in translationroughly means "overflowed land."
2
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 3/13
d. Purchase food for Indians who come to his home seeking help;
e. Fund the annual Labor Day Weekend Shinnecock Nation Powwow;
f. Fund the Shinnecock Indian Youth Council;
g. Fund the Shinnecock Presbyterian Church;
h. Fund World Peace and Prayer Day, Wounded Knee Memorial Ride, and other
spiritual activities of spiritual leader, Chief Arvol Looking Horse, of the Sioux
Nation, Sioux Cheyenne River Reservation. Chief Looking Horse, at the age of 12
was chosen to represent the 19 th generation of Lakota as Keeper of the White
Buffalo Calf Pipe. Chief Looking Horse was honored at the United Nations in
New York, on October 18, 2006, for establishing World Peace and Prayer Day,
which is held annually on the Summer Solstice, June 21, around the world.
t. Fund annual Sun Dance spiritual ceremonies at the Standing Rock Reservation,
Cheyenne River Reservation, and Yankton Sioux Lake Andes Reservation.
7.mith's spiritual activities are, in part, directed at helping Shinnecock and other
Indian peoples heal and overcome the personal and spiritual difficulties which have and continue
to afflict them as a People due to their history at the hands of the United States Government and
the British Crown over the last 400 years, a history which is passed on generation to generation
through traditional oral traditions. 3 For example, within living memory, after the U.S. Indian
Wars ended and Indian matters were transferred from the War Department to the Department of
Interior, U.S. Indian Policy 4 involved a well documented, systematic state sponsored elimination
3 See e.g., the 2009 Congressional acknowledgement and apology found in Apology to N ative Peoples of the UnitedStates, 123 Stat. 3453, annexed hereto as Exhibit B.4 See, e.g., "Rules for Indian Schools, with Course of Study, List of Text-Books, and C ivil Service Rules," Office ofIndian Affairs, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1892, annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
3
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 4/13
of Indians as a group through forced remo val and "assimilation" of Indian children. 5 Indian
children between the ages of 5 and 18, 6 were remo ved from their families on reservations across
the United States, and sent to on and off-reservation "boarding" and "day" schools, 7 with a
mandated curriculum w here Native language, 8 spiritual practices, 9 diet, 1 ° and dress,'1were
forbidden. Authorized enforcement against the children was by corporal punishment, 1 2
3 and being sent to non-Ind ian "reform schools." 1 4 The children were perm itted
only to have Indian visitors who were assimilated. I 5 The removal of Indian children from their
families was coerced by authorized withholding of m oney to the family, which presented parents
with a choice of releasing their children or destituting the family.
1 6
In the event of a fam ily's
refusal or opposition to removal of children, the Indian Office w as authorized to determine
further punishment, penalties, or other action, at its discretion.' ? Once in a school, children could
not be freely removed by their parents. 1 8 This policy of forced assimilation also included Ind ian
day schools.' 9
8.he U.S. imp lementation of this policy, and the Indian resistance and suffering, is
well docum ented. For example, in the same year as the rules cited, 1892, the Sioux are
documented to have resisted the forced assimilation and of their children being removed from
their families:
5Rule 1, Id
6 Rule 21, Id
7 Rule 22, Id
8 Rule 93, Id
9 Rule 90, Id
m Rule 108, Id .
"Rule 109, Id12 Rule 115, Id .
13 Rule 116, Id .
14 Rule 118, Id
1 5 Rule 15, Id
16 Rule 23, Id
17 Rule 18, Id
18 Rule 28, Id
19 Rule 2, Id
4
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 5/13
The work of the past can not be said to have been successful, and even at
best civilization is slow. Surely what required twenty centuries to do isslow, compared w ith what our people and Governm ent wish to do in littlemore than one century. 2 °
It seems desirable that Indian children taken from their homes to thedistant institutions should remain there for a series of years without returnto their parents. 2 I
9.ince 1948, forced removal of children from a group constitutes an international
criminal act of genocide. 2 2 To date, the U.S. has failed to enact any domestic laws prohibiting
genocide as mandated by the CPPC G. In 2009, the Jewish Museum Vienna, Palais Eskeles, at
1010 Vienna, Dorotheergasse 11, Austria, ( ,), had one room devoted to photographs
20 "Annual Report of the Com missioner of Indian Affairs, 1892," p. 431, Office of Indian Affairs, Washington:Government Printing Office, 1892, excerpt annexed hereto as Exhibit D.21 Id, p. 615, excerpt annexed hereto as Exhibit E.22 The U.S. 1892 Rules for Indian Schools documents and meets the definition of the international crime of
genocide, which includes the act of forced removal of children from a group. See, Art. II(e) of the 1948 U.N.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("CPPCG"). U.N.T.S. No. 1021, annexedhereto as Exhibit F.
Article I, provides:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a
crime under international law w hich they undertake to prevent and punish.
Article II, provides:
In the present Convention, genocide means an y of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a n ational, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
(a) Kill ing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to mem bers of the group;(c ) Deliberately inflicting on the g roups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in w hole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III, provides:
The following acts shall be pun ishable:
(a ) Genocide;(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;(c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;(e ) Complicity in genocide.
5
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 6/13
and objects documenting the Indian experience in the U.S., in comparison with the Jewish
Holocaust experience in Europe.
The Fort Albany Treaty, 1664
10. The federal income tax, the lien, and the levy, are prohibited by the free trade
provision of Article 4, Appended Article 3, of The Fort Albany Treaty, 1664, ("Articles between
Col. Cartwright and the New York Indians," Docum ents Relative to the C olonial History of the
State of New York, III, pp. 67-68) ("the Treaty"). 2 3 Appended Article 3 to the Treaty provides:
That they may have free trade, as formerly. [emphasis added]
11. The Service does not dispute its free trade obligation under the Treaty, but
takes the position that the provision does not apply to the federal income tax at issue. "While we
don't dispute the fact that the Fort Albany Treaty of 1664 promises the Indians that they may
have "free trade, as formerly" we don't agree that free trade is synonymous with "no income
tax.,24
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
12. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007, ("the Declaration"), 2 5 provides an
international law backdrop to obligations of the United States towards aborigines, such as Smith,
including but not limited to, honoring treaties and protecting traditional religious practices. 2 6
22 See, The Fort Albany Treaty, 1664, annexed hereto as Exhibit G.24 See, Service's correspondence to Smith: Explanation of Items, Form 886-A, 2004, annexed hereto as Exhibit H.25 See, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous P eoples, annexed hereto as Exhibit I. TheDeclaration is not a treaty, and requires voluntary implementation and compliance by U .N. memb er states, overseenby the U.N. Office of the High Co mm issioner for Hum an Rights.26
At adoption in 2007 , the U.S. was one of only four cou ntries to originally vote against the Declaration, along w ith
Australia, Canada, and New Z ealand, all former colonies of Great B ritain with large aborigine populations. The U.S.later changed its position, and the U.S. Department of State publically announced suppo rt of the Declaration onDecember 16, 2010.
6
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 7/13
13 . Article 1 of the Declaration, provides "Indigenous peoples have the right to the
full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fund amental freedoms as
recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Hum an Rights and
international human rights law."
14 . Article 12(1) of the Declaration, provides "Indigenous peoples have the right to
manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and
ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and
cultural sites; the right to use and control of the cerem onial objects; and the right to the
repatriation of their human remains."
15. Article 37 o f the Decla ra tion , provides " Indigenous peoples have the righ t to
the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive
arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect
such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements."
Elkins' Tax, Lien & Levy
16. On or about March 15, 2011, E lk ins prepared and caused to be fi led wi th the
Suffolk County C lerk, a notice of federal tax lien ("the lien") stating $329 ,413.51 was ow ed by
Smith based upon Form 1040s for the years 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005 (`the tax"). 2 7
17 . On or about M ay 23, 2011, Elkins prepared and caused a notice of levy to be
delivered to B ank of A merica, and caused the seizure of $1,587.99 from a personal account held
by Smith. 2 8
27 See, Notice of Levy, annexed hereto as E xhibit J.28 See, B ofA Letter, May 23, 2011, annexed hereto as Exhibit K.
7
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 8/13
18 . On or about M ay 23, 2011, Elkins prepared and caused a notice of levy to be
delivered to B ank of Am erica, and caused the seizure of $24.80 from an account held by S mith's
business, Shinnecock Distribution Company . 2 9
19 . On or about M ay 23, 2011, Elkins prepared and caused a notice of levy to be
delivered to B ank of Am erica, and caused the seizure of $475.65 from a business account held
by Smith's business, Shinnecock Sm oke Shop. 3 °
20 . On or about M ay 23, 2011, Elkins prepared and caused a notice of levy to be
delivered to Pioneer Investments and caused an involuntary and complete liquidation of shares,
with the funds from the liquidation, a total amount of $4,688.10, to be seized from personal
accounts held by Smith. 3 1
21. Elkins lacks ju ri sd ic tion and substantial ly burdens Smith's exerc ise of re ligion
as a Shinnecock spiritual leader, to impose the tax, file the lien, and levy upon and seize assets of
Smith.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count IViolation of the Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1 978
22 . Smith realleges each and every prior allegation as if fully and completely repeated
herein.
23 . Elkins violated the Indian Religious Freedom A ct of 197 8, 42 U.S.C. § 1996,
("IRFA"), by im posing the tax, filing the lien, and levying upon and seizing assets of Smith.
24 . Elkins not only failed the stated policy of the Un ited States under IRFA to
"protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express,
29 See, B ofA Letter, May 23, 2011, annexed hereto as Exhibit L.3 0 See, B ofA Letter, May 23, 2011, annexed hereto as Exhibit M.3 1 See, Pioneer Investments Letters, May 25, 2011, June 20, 2011 , and June 20, 2011, and Statement, June 17, 2011,collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit N.
8
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 9/13
and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native
Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and
the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites," but the seizure of Smith's
assets destroys Smith's ability to fund and exercise traditional religious activities.
Count IIViolation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
25. Smith realleges each and every prior allegation as if fully and completely repeated
herein.
26. Elkins violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb et seq., ("RFRA"), by imposing the tax, filing the lien, and levying upon and seizing
assets of Smith, substantially burdening Smith's exercise of religion.
27 . The aforementioned violation of IRFA is also a prima facie showing of a
substantial burden on Smith's exercise of religion under RFRA.
28 . Section 2000bb-1(b) of RFRA prohibits the federal government from
substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, unless the federal government
"demonstrates that application of the burden to the person" represents the least restrictive means
of advancing a compelling interest. Once a person presents a prima facie showing of the burden,
the burden of proof shifts to the federal government under Section 2000bb-2(3) of RFRA, "the
term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of
persuasion."
29. Section 2000bb-1(c) of RFRA provides for a person whose religious practices
are burdened in violation of RFRA "may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
proceeding and obtain appropriate relief."
9
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 10/13
30.lkins' actions substantially burdens Smith's exercise of religion within the
meaning of R FRA , and Elkins cannot m eet the burden of demonstrating that application of the
burden to Smith represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest.
Count III
Violation of The F ort Albany Treaty, 1664
3 1 .mith realleges each and every prior allegation as if fully and completely
repeated herein.
32 . Elkins lacks jurisdiction to imp ose the tax, file the lien, and levy upon and seize
assets of Smith.
33 . The aforementioned conduct by Elkins against Sm ith, an on-reservation
Shinnecock Indian, is in violation of the treaty guarantee of free trade under the terms of Article
4, Appended Article 3, of The Fort Albany Treaty, 1664, because a tax on Indian income is
contrary to the free trade provision, as the Indians would have understood the provision at the
time of execution of the Treaty. 3 2
Count IV
Violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U .S. Constitution
34 . Smith realleges each and every prior allegation as if fully and completely
repeated herein.
35 . Elkins application and enforcement of the federal income tax as applied to the
Shinnecock Indian Nation and its m embers, is unconstitutional, and is invalid as applied.
36 . Plaintiff seeks an extension of the law, to W it: the plain m eaning and original
intent of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution does not grant power to Congress to
regulate Indian Tribes, which were, and are, sovereign nations. To this end, the Suprem e Court
should review and overturn the first Indian case to reach that court, The Cherokee Nation v. The
32See , ¶ 16 of the Declaration of Dr. John A. Strong, annexed hereto as Exhibit 0.
10
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 11/13
State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25, 1831 WL 3974 (1831)(C.J. Marshall), 3 3 and
adopt the dissenting opinion of Justice Thompson. 3 4
33 In 1831, Cherokee Nation provided an important legal victory for the Government, which gave a critical SupremeCourt stamp of approval to a "Final Consolidation" U.S. Indian Policy, coined and articulated by Thomas Jeffersonin 1803, of U.S. expansion by deceptively eliminating Indians as a race and taking Indian lands by mechanisms ofdebt and force - what today would constitute the international crime of "genocide." See, Art. II(a) — (c), CPPCG,supra. In a letter dated February 27 , 1803, to William Henry Harrison, then Governor of Indiana Territory, PresidentJefferson wrote:
.... from the Secretary of War you receive from time to time information and instructions as to our Indian
affairs.... this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of ourpolicy respecting the Indians.... When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land,they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off fromtime to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to
exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare the theywant, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them
run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they
become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.... In this way our settlements will gradually
circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the
United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history
most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to theirfear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanityonly. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country
of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an exampleto others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.... [emphasis added]
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb, 10:369-71; Reproduced in Documents of United
States Indian Policy, 2 " d Ed., University of Nebraska Press, Ed. Francis Paul Prucha. Annexed hereto asExhibit P .
34 Justice Thompson's detailed 31 page dissenting opinion, is joined by Justice Story. See, 30 U.S. at 50-81. JusticeThompson wrote, summarizing his dissent:
Upon the whole, I am of opinion,
1. That the Cherokees compose a foreign state within the sense and meaning of the constitution, andconstitute a competent party of (sic) maintain a suit against the state of Georgia.
2. That the bill presents a case for judicial consideration, arising under the laws of the United States, andtreaties made under their authority with the Cherokee nation, and which laws and treaties have been, andare threatened to be still further violated by the laws of the state of Georgia referred to in this opinion.
3. That an injunction is a fit and proper writ to be issued, to prevent the further execution of such laws, andought therefore to be awarded.
And I am authorized by my brother Story to say, that he concurs with me in this opinion. [emphasis added]
Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 81.
1 1
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 12/13
37 . The said actions by Elkins exceed Cong ress' power to regulate comm erce
"with the Indian Tribes." Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3, ("Commonly known as the "Indian Comm erce
Clause."), provides in pertinent part:
The Congress shall have the Pow er ... To regulate Commerce with foreignNations, and among the States, and with the Indian Tribes; [emphasis added]
In Chief Justice Marshall's uncharacteristically brief 5 page majority opinion in Cherokee
Nation, the Supreme Court found it lacked original jurisdiction under Art. III, Sec. 2, C1.1, to
hear a motion for a subpoena and injunction by the C herokee Nation to restrain Georgia from
executing and enforcing its laws within Cherokee Territory, holding that the Cherokee Nation
had the status of a "domes tic dependant nation" of the Un ited States, and was not a "foreign
nation.". Cherokee N ation, 30 U.S. at 17 . Here, under Cherokee Nation, Smith as a member of
the Shinnecock Nation, is a m ember of a "domestic dependant nation."
3 8. C herokee N ation provided the erroneous jurisdictional underpinning for
subseq uent extension of Co ngress' pow er, pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3, to carry out the U.S.
"Final Co nsolidation" Indian P olicy as stated in Jefferson's 1803 letter to Harrison, to the present
day, and must be reversed. 3 5
39. The lega l s ta tus of Smith 's membership in the Shinnecock Indian Nation as a
"dom estic dependen t nation" of the United States, and the asserted tax, violates the plain
meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3. 3 6
35 By illustration of the United States initial nearly lone vote against the Declaration in 2007, Justice Thompson's
dissent in Cherokee Nation in 1831 is destined someday to become the basis for a majority opinion, as sure as lawfulslavery and segregation by race became eliminated in the U.S. and internationally in the thrust of history. The
Supreme C ourt has not had an opp ortunity to right such a historical wrong to a people since the abrogation of theholding that slaves are constitutionally protected property of citizens in Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) afterthe Civil War by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and nearly one hundred years later, the repudiation of
the "separate but equal" racial doctrine holding in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) by Brown v. Board ofEducation, 347 U .S. 483, 494-495 (1954).36 The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,has issued concerns and recommendations directed to the United States with regard to land issues involving the
12
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
8/3/2019 Smith v Elkins Complaint
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/smith-v-elkins-complaint 13/13
s
Jonathan K. Smit
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jonathan K. Smith, seeks the following Relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that the Defendant, R.G. Elkin's, aforesaid assessment,
lien, levy, and seizure, is invalid as applied, and otherwise violates the Constitution and federal
laws of the United States as set forth herein.
2. A temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
3. Disbursements, attorneys fees, and such further and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New Yorkovember—2011
L E .C.4 Iy4,4
MOORE INTERNATIONAL LAW PLLC
/s/
B y:Scott Michael Moore, Esq. (SM7478)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan K Smith
45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000
New York, New York 10111
T. (212) 332-3474
F. (212) 332-3475
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above
statements in this Verified Complaint are true and correct.
Dated this 2"d day of November, 2011.
Western Shoshone Tribe. (A/56/18, para. 400, adopted on 13 August 2001) A failure of the United States to respondtriggered further U.N. action. (Early W arning and U rgent Action Procedure, Decision 1(68), adopted on 8 M arch
2006) The Un ited States failed a second time to respond. (U.N. H igh Comm issioner for Human R ights letter toUnited States, 18 August 2006 and 9 March 2007 ) The Comm issioner condemned the status of Indian Tribes as
"domestic dependent nations" and Indian treaties that could be un ilaterally terminated by the U nited States.
13
Case 2:11-cv-05958-LDW-WDW Document 1 Filed 12/07/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13