Here are the materials in Koniag Inc v. Kanam:
Here is the paper in United States v. Whetstone (W.D. Mo.):
Here is the complaint in Riggin v. Woodward (D. Colo.):
The complaint includes the following text:
This case has been properly removed to the Karluk Tribal court, as Mr. Riggin is a tribal member and the Chief, of the KiKiallus Indian Nation. Per the Point Elliot Treaty of 1855, he is granted among other things, the right to hunt for game, and sovereign immunity. These treaty rights have been violated and ignored by the Jefferson County Courts, thus giving the United States District Court original jurisdiction over this action.
We’ve posted on the nonrecognized Washington state tribe, “KiKiallus Indian Nation,” and the use/abuse by its alleged members of an entity known as the “Karluk Tribal court” here, here, here, here, and here.
Here is the opinion in State v. O’Connor:
Appellant urges that he (or his alter ego Noble Bull Horn Sirius O’Connor Bey) is a member of a Native American tribe called the Washitaw Nation of Muurs or Washitaw Tribe of Moors; that such tribe is not required to abide by the laws of Ohio; that he is permitted to drive in Ohio without a license as long he is not engaged in commercial driving; and that Arian S. O’Connor no longer exists as a person because a trust was formed that somehow involves the name or persona of Arian S. O’Connor. The alleged basis for all these beliefs is not clear from the record. At least two Federal Courts of Appeals have declared that the Washitaw Nation of Muurs is fictional and is not recognized by the United States Government. Bybee v. City of Paducah, 46 Fed.Appx. 735, 736 (6th Cir.2002); Sanders–Bey v. U.S., 267 Fed.Appx. 464, 466 (7th Cir.2008). The record is clear that Appellant, under the name Arian S. O’Connor, once had a driver’s license, that this license was suspended by the Youngstown Municipal Court, and that he is responsible for the offense of driving in Austintown on September 14, 2013, while his license was still suspended. Appellant’s attempt to obscure these basic facts by reference to a fictional Native American tribe is unpersuasive.
Here is the opinion in Metaphyzic El-Ectroraagnetic Supreme-El v. Director, Dept. of Corrections (E.D. Va.):
Additionally, in Claims 8 and 9, Supreme–El argues that the Virginia courts violated “Article 39 of Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” because “Moorish nationals operate through a fee simple absolute estate lien,” (§ 2254 Pet. 11–D), and violated the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” because “officers hindered Petitioner in his official duties” and “deprived the Petitioner of his nationality,” through an arbitrary arrest and detention (id. at 11–E). Supreme–El fails to demonstrate that the “Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” entitle him to federal habeas relief. See Bey v. Ohio, No. 1:11–CV–01048, 2011 WL 4007719, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 9, 2011)(explaining that the “ ‘Universal Declaration of Humans Rights’ “ … and “ ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1994’ … are not recognized by United States courts as legally binding”).
Here is the opinion in In re Cash (N.D. Tex.):
Cash’s request that he be recognized as a member of the “Aboriginal Cherokee Choctaw” tribe is frivolous. This alleged tribe does not appear to be a recognized Indian tribe and appears, instead, to be related to the “Redemptionist” and/or “sovereign citizen” beliefs that have been discussed at some length by other federal courts. See Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308, 1309 (7th Cir. 1998) (outlining the Moorish movement, which utilizes the suffixes “El” and “Bey” in names to refer to African tribes); Minister Truth Ali Williams v. New Jersey, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150195, 2012 WL 4959488, at *1-3 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2012) (discussing in depth pleadings that refer to Cherokee Choctaw Aboriginal Nation and its relationship with Moorish movement). Therefore, Cash’s request that the court legally recognize him as a member of this “tribe” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.