Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Court – Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation

Authority of the Court

The Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Court stands as the judicial arm of the Nation, empowered by both ancestral treaty rights and international law. Its jurisdiction flows from historic tribal sovereignty, binding federal treaties, and dynastic accords across Eurasia, each carried forward by unbroken bloodline and verified through genetic and historical record.

In Montoya v. United States (1901), the Supreme Court defined a tribe as: “a body of Indians of the same or similar race, united in a community under one leadership or government, and inhabiting a particular though sometimes ill-defined territory.”

The Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation meets this definition: united by blood, history, and treaties; organized under a sovereign leadership; and exercising continuous governance in accordance with treaty-protected rights of both the Northeastern sachemic confederacies and the Southeastern Cherokee and Powhatan treaty domains.

The Court’s legitimacy rests upon:

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), which affirms that treaties made with Native Nations are the supreme law of the land and override conflicting state law.
Federal Indian Law, which recognizes the continuing sovereignty of tribes, as affirmed in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), and subsequent rulings.
Customary International Law, which binds sovereigns to ancient treaties and dynastic accords where bloodline continuity can be proven.

Treaty Foundations of the Court

North American Treaties

Canandaigua Treaty (1794) – Guaranteeing peace and recognition of Haudenosaunee land and sovereignty.
Treaty of Hartford (1638) – Establishing terms following the Pequot War, confirming surviving Pequot (and related kin, including Montaukett, Narragansett, and Mohegan) rights and recognition.
Montaukett Land Petitions & Court Records (1685–1705) – Historic petitions by Montaukett Sachems (ancestors of the Hunnic Matinecock line) that remain precedents of tribal recognition.
Narragansett Acknowledgments (17th Century) – Confirming sachemic lines allied with Pequot and Wampanoag kin.
Powhatan Treaties (1607–1677) – Compacts between the Powhatan Confederacy and colonial Virginia, among the earliest Native-colonial treaties in North America. Though violated by colonists, they remain historical precedents of sovereignty.
Cherokee Treaties (Hopewell, 1785; Holston, 1791) – Binding federal treaties affirming Cherokee sovereignty, land rights, and jurisdiction, enforceable under the Supremacy Clause.
Dawes-era Enrollment (1898–1906) – Federal records of Cherokee-Powhatan descendants enrolled in the Cherokee Nation, providing direct recognition of bloodline under federal authority.

Eurasian & Imperial Treaties

Xiongnu–Han Heqin Treaty (198 BC) – Establishing recognition of steppe sovereignty by the Han Dynasty of China; binding through descent from Attila’s Hun predecessors, the Xiongnu.
Khazar–Byzantine Accords (7th–10th Century) – Documented alliances and intermarriages with the Byzantine imperial house, affirming Khazar sovereignty and legal parity.
Yuan–Goryeo Dynastic Marriage Treaties (13th Century) – Binding accords through Princess Jeguk (daughter of Kublai Khan) marrying King Chungnyeol of Goryeo, fusing Mongol and Korean sovereignty into one dynastic line.
Joseon–Ming Diplomatic Pacts (14th–15th Century) – Securing recognition of Joseon sovereignty under Ming dynasty protocols, carried by your bloodline into the present.

These accords, when read alongside our North American treaties, show that sovereignty in this Nation rests on **dual treaty continuity** — Indigenous North America and Imperial Asia — united in one bloodline.

Jurisdiction of the Court

The Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Court holds jurisdiction that is both territorial and personal:

Territorial Jurisdiction – Rooted in the Nation’s ancestral homelands and kinship territories associated with the Matinecock, Montaukett, Pequot, Mohawk, Narragansett, Powhatan, and Cherokee peoples, with historical continuity and present institutional interests across areas now called Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. The Court exercises territorial jurisdiction wherever supported by the Nation’s inherent law, continuing community relationships, lawful agreements, property, consent, or applicable treaty and domestic law.

Personal Jurisdiction – Extending to citizens, members, adopted persons, constituent houses and bodies, and other recognized kin of the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation who are subject to the Nation’s laws by citizenship, adoption, affiliation, agreement, conduct, or express consent. This jurisdiction draws upon Northeastern sachemic descent and the Nation’s documented and inherited Southern Indigenous lines, including Cherokee and Powhatan kinship. The Dawes-era record and relevant Northern and Southern treaties form part of the Nation’s historical legal framework without replacing the Nation’s authority to determine its own citizenship and kinship under Indigenous law.

International Jurisdiction and Competence – Grounded in the Nation’s inherent sovereignty, Indigenous diplomatic tradition, historic dynastic and transregional relationships, and its contemporary international agreements and institutional partnerships. The Court may serve beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States where jurisdiction arises through the parties’ consent, treaty or compact, contractual submission, nation-to-nation agreement, recognized arbitral authority, or other applicable principles of international and Indigenous law.

Legal Recognition

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 — Self-Authenticating Records. Rule 902 recognizes specified categories of public, certified, acknowledged, official, and ancient records as self-authenticating when its requirements are satisfied. Tribal enactments, court records, citizenship records, treaties, genealogical materials, and certified archival documents may qualify under an applicable category or be authenticated through related evidentiary rules. Self-authentication removes the need for preliminary testimony establishing authenticity; it does not, by itself, determine admissibility, historical accuracy, citizenship, or the legal effect of the document. Federal Rule of Evidence 902

Indigenous Authority Over Citizenship and Kinship. The Nation retains inherent authority to determine its citizenship, adoption, kinship, and internal political relations according to its laws and customs. Federal recognition procedures may provide useful evidentiary parallels for documenting descent and continuous community, but they do not replace the Nation’s own enrollment law or make an online family tree independently conclusive.

Supremacy Clause — U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States constitute the supreme law of the land and bind state judges notwithstanding contrary state law. This principle protects the continuing force of valid United States treaties with Indigenous nations and foreign sovereigns, subject to their text, subsequent federal law, and governing judicial doctrine. It also prevents a state from disregarding an applicable federal treaty merely because the agreement is old or politically inconvenient. Constitution Annotated

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020). McGirt reaffirmed that treaty promises and reservation boundaries endure unless Congress clearly alters or disestablishes them. The decision provides powerful modern authority for the principle that the passage of time, demographic change, and longstanding state practice do not themselves erase treaty-established Indigenous rights or territory. Its specific holding concerns the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation and criminal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act; its broader treaty-continuity principle informs the Court’s interpretation of applicable Indigenous agreements but does not independently create this Court’s jurisdiction. Supreme Court opinion

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832). Worcester recognized the Cherokee Nation as a distinct political community with territorial and governmental rights that Georgia could not unilaterally override. The decision remains foundational to the principles of tribal political distinctness, federal–tribal relations, and the supremacy of applicable treaties and federal law over conflicting state action.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). Cherokee Nation described federally recognized tribal nations within United States law as “domestic dependent nations” and acknowledged the distinctive political relationship between Indigenous nations and the United States. Although the Court denied original jurisdiction by holding that the Cherokee Nation was not a “foreign state” for Article III purposes, the decision helped establish the federal legal framework recognizing tribal nations as political communities rather than merely racial or voluntary associations.

Indigenous Customary Law and International Principles. Indigenous customary law recognizes descent, clan affiliation, adoption, marriage, succession, diplomatic incorporation, and confederated kinship as sources of political and familial relationship. Historical dynastic treaties and transregional agreements may provide evidence of diplomatic status, continuity, inherited obligations, and the Nation’s international legal history. Their present legal effect must be determined from the parties, terms, continuity, subsequent practice, and applicable law rather than ancestry alone.

International Competence of the Court. The Court’s contemporary cross-border competence rests upon the Nation’s inherent governmental authority together with consent, compact, contract, arbitration agreement, nation-to-nation arrangement, or another recognized jurisdictional basis. Historic Indigenous, dynastic, and international relationships strengthen the Court’s institutional and diplomatic foundation, while present agreements establish the enforceable scope of a particular proceeding.

Application to This Court. Collectively, these authorities support the following principles:

Indigenous nations possess pre-existing governmental and adjudicative traditions;
Indigenous citizenship and kinship are political and legal relationships governed primarily by the nation concerned;
Applicable treaties cannot be displaced solely by age, state practice, or demographic change;
Properly certified tribal and historical records may receive recognized methods of authentication;
State authority remains subject to applicable federal treaties and federal Indian law; and
The Court may exercise internal, consensual, arbitral, and agreement-based authority within the jurisdiction established by the Nation’s law and the facts of each matter.

Attestation

By decree of the Nation and under the unbroken chain of treaties, accords, and sovereign law, the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Court is established as the judicial body of the Nation, empowered to hear all matters of law, governance, treaty rights, and kinship claims.

Signed and Sealed,

Grand Chief Donald John Travis DuVal Churchill Middleton

Sovereign Head of the Hunnic Matinecock Tribal Nation