“Chad W. Cowan” Assistant United States Attorney, (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor), citing the case of Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981); before “Honorable Court Justices”

“Plaintiffs Slaves et al” collective Further appearances Affirm, State and fully declare all allegation, contention, disputes, disputation, argument, conflict and disharmony, fully furtherance’s

“Chad W. Cowan” Assistant United States Attorney, citing the case of Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981); before “Honorable Court Justices”

United States Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, (1980)

No. 78-1756

Argued: December 3, 1979    Decided: April 15, 1980

 Section 1 of the Indian General Allotment Act of 1877 authorizes the President to allot to each Indian residing on a reservation specified acreage of agricultural and grazing land within the reservation; 2 provides that all such allotments shall be selected by the Indians so as to include improvements made by them; and 5 provides that the United States shall retain title to such allotted lands in trust for the benefit of the allottees.

Pursuant to the Act, the Government allotted all of the Quinault Reservation's land in trust to individual Indians. Respondents, individual allottees of land in that Reservation, the Quinault Tribe, which now holds some allotments, and an association of allottees, brought actions, consolidated in the Court of Claims, to recover damages from the Government for alleged mismanagement of timber resources found on the Reservation.

Denying the Government's motion to dismiss the actions on the alleged ground that it had not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to the asserted claims, the Court of Claims held that the General Allotment Act created a fiduciary duty on the United States' part to manage the timber resources properly and constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity against a suit for money damages as compensation for breaches of that duty.

Further counsel for Defendant (USA) citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941), “as quoted”

“The doctrine of “Sovereign immunity is inherent in our constitution structure and is in part “enshrined by the Eleventh Amendment.” Williamson v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, 815 F2.d 368, 373 (5^th Cir, 1987).

(OK)…..? Pro Se Plaintiff” surrounding actual real life events of Human Rights Violation (RICO) nature against Defendant very own rules of governing Laws” and never “Assumed” be physically apprehended namely direct violations of

18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor),

“Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), on or about August 20^th 1619 – and defendant

(USA) collectively with third party (KKK) failed to adhere to defendant (USA) very owned rules of governing laws once again namely the official Rouge (MIA) 13^th and 14^th amendment in conspiring with defendant “Whites Only” (RICO) always controlling via

The 1790 Naturalization Act reserves naturalized citizenship for whites only. African Americans are not guaranteed citizenship until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is ratified in the wake of Reconstruction.

As “Whites only” in Our constitution structure and is in part “enshrined by the Eleventh Amendment.” Williamson v. U.S. Dept of Agriculture, 815 F2.d 368, 373 (5th Cir, 1987).

Counsel for Defendant (USA) “Chad W. Cowan” Assistant United States Attorney, Seeks to “citing” forevermore a Whites Only, jurisdiction being “Enshrined “White Only Constitution by the Slave Holder “Eleventh Amendment”, in direct violation of and conflict of interest thereof

The 13^th and 14^th amendments to insure defendant (USA) immunity for direct violations in compensation for (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor), 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor),

“Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957, “Slavery Servitude” money laundering statutes, RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), among other cause of actions

Being in favor on Defendant “United States White of America” till 2099 imposing forced “Slavery Servitude” in the manner involving the defendant United States of America et al “Henchmen” the criminal Judicial Fraud Government always sealed for Whites Supremacy Acts against the Claimed civil rights of the “Slaves herein 2016 (July) no less always surrounding “Negro Slaves Veteran Plaintiff(s) past, present and future RICO fate sealed

Pursuant to: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) and Further being still official Negro Race Slaves Property of Card Holders Knights of The Klu Klux Klansmen with No Legal Citizenship, in 2016 (December) as of legal being undersigned herein before “Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge, seeking among other things

Negro Slaves Plaintiffs collective Motion to consolidate… U.S. Docket No. 4:2016-CV-01354, and U.S. Docket No 4: 16-CV-00964, among other being both Defendant in a (USA) actions legally as one before Justice.