iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 03/08/2026

My god this attorney was so sure he could lead this witness to the conclusion he wanted her to testify to, and I just don’t think it ever occurred to him that she would reject his most foundational premises like “nah but it ain’t like that tho”

When did Biddle and Drew try to get --
A. 1832.
Q. Okay. Now, I wonder if you could turn to page 9 of the
opinion of Justice Williams. At the bottom of the opinion,
there is a quote from Chief Justice Marshall -- no, excuse me -- yes, it is a quote from Justice Marshall, 1823, on the nature of Indian title. I wonder if you
could read that, and I'll read it into the record so that we know what we're talking about. It says: "It very
early became accepted doctrine in this Court that although
fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign -- first the discovering European nation and later the original
states and the United States -- a right of occupancy in the Indian Tribes was nevertheless recognized. That
right, sometimes called Indian title and goods against
all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign
act.
Once the United States was organized and the
Constitution adopted, these tribal rights to Indian lands became the exclusive province of the Federal law. Indian
title recognized to be only a right of occupancy, was
extinguishable only by the United States."
Okay, now, I wonder if you could tell me

whether Chief Justice Marshall's analysis reflects the Indian viewpoint on property, or whether it's a white man's construct?
Well--
Excuse me, this may not be Marshall, I'm not sure. It's
certainly the Supreme Court, whoever it is. I wonder if you could tell me whether it's an accurate reflection of the Indian view of property, or whether it's a white man's
construct?
I have a feeling you could answer that perfectly
satisfactorily yourself. This is Anglo-Saxon law that I
believe derives from a Pope
dividing the world in half
between France and Portugal in a Papal Order about 1500.
This sovereignty business is, you know, that's really mythology, but legally compelling mythology.

539322

Catherine Winters @catherinewinters.com · 03/08/2026

I didn't see any more cases of this in the transcript, but I assume this is the transcript being verified by someone and it being signed off on later by someone with a different typewriter? But what word would this have been before it was edited?

Copy of the above, but with the word "Pope" highlighted. It's written on a different typewriter, is not aligned on the right row or column, and contains four letters to the original word's six. The original transcription follows:

whether Chief Justice Marshall's analysis reflects the Indian viewpoint on property, or whether it's a white man's construct?
Well--
Excuse me, this may not be Marshall, I'm not sure. It's
certainly the Supreme Court, whoever it is. I wonder if you could tell me whether it's an accurate reflection of the Indian view of property, or whether it's a white man's
construct?
I have a feeling you could answer that perfectly
satisfactorily yourself. This is Anglo-Saxon law that I
believe derives from a Pope
dividing the world in half
between France and Portugal in a Papal Order about 1500.
This sovereignty business is, you know, that's really mythology, but legally compelling mythology.

120

Kathryn Tewson @kathryntewson.bsky.social · 03/08/2026

Yes, it was subject to correction by the witness — hence the weird spacing and occasional inserts.

031