Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe

" N e e chano g t oh Kaw taw ntawitt "

AFFIDAVIT
CONSTRUCTIVE AND PUBLIC NOTICE
OF TRIBAL DECLARATION
This is a lawful Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice and is sent pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Article
4,sec, Z; 1-12 Amendments [Bill of Rights], in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and pursuant to law
of affidavits and rebuttal , and requires your written response specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with
particularity, everything in this Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice with which you disagree, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with
and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit and Constructive and Public Notice is true, correct, legal, lawful and fully binding upon you
and those who may represent you in any court in America, and under the authority of the United Nations law of nations, shall, without your
properly rebutted response, be accepted by the Claimant without your protest or objection or that of those who represent the Narragansett lndian
Tribe, and your silence is your acquiescence.

(%r* %arbNeesu Wush uwu noag, P ri nci pa I Ch ief a nd Triba I Trust Ma nage r of
the Mashapaug NahagansetTribal Trust and Nation, hereafter referred to as the "Mashapaug
Nahaganset Tribe", holder of the title Pomham Sachem, empowered by the Ahtuskowoag Circle
of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe, through the Constitution of Mashapaug Nahaganset, to
address all matters pertaining to the lawful, aboriginal and superior rights and jurisdiction of the
Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe, with an Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice of Tribal
Declaration.
This honorable, respectful and proper "Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice" is
i..r l.i
intended to clarify the substantiating evidence validating the ancestral, historical, genealogical, :. :.,

territorial, cultural and jurisdictional claims made by the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe in
!5
Providence County Registry of Deeds Doc No 00122589 Bk 11175 Pg. 10 filed on July 1-5, 2015. ,r

Be it now known that the following truths are established and shall be acknowledged by
all to whom they shall become known. !'j
i'ir, ;*r

Concerning the Aboriginal Nahaganset People:

Whereas the Nahaganset, misnomered by European colonists and contemporarily
i;
i,;
referred to as the "Narragansett", are the ancestralaboriginal inhabitants of the territories : I :i

contemporarily referred to as "Rhode lsland" and parts of the territories contemporarily i-, a i'!

referred to as "Connecticut";
Whereas "Evidence indicates that the Narragansett community and its predecessors
have existed autonomously since first contact..."1;
Whereas the Nahaganset have a "documented history dating from L61,4" and were
"dealt with as an independent nation after'J.622 by England and the Rhode lsland colony..."2;

1
Office ofthe Federal Register. Federal Resister:48 Fed. Req. 6087 {Feb. 10. 1983) Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration,
1983 pp.6777-78
, oFR (1983)
 tj'Lr a..
+-i r + -r,i {:} n I--i --s -e
- --i::: 'LiD--r
5--s E
ftX','-:i{=ii.r * t---;:-"-='
Fii ut *, ,a, ,, s- -c-,;1; -"i
Whereas the Nahaganset are acknowledged in the March 1,4,1,636 Deed to the
Settlement of Mosshassuck3, in the September 21-,1638 Treaty of Hartforda, in the June22,
1543 Treaty between the Nahaganset Sachemaog Pomham and Socononoco and the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay at Bostons, in t.he April L9,1644 Submission of the Chief Sachem of the
Narragansett to Charles 16, and in the July 16, L675 Narragansett Treaty of Peace with the
ColonistsT;
Whereas the traditional Nahaganset tribal structure was considered "monarchical" and
"hereditary" by the Englishs, as "The government of the Narragansetts appears to have been a
patriarchal despotism..." , and as "The succession to chief authority was generally preserved in
the same family."s;
Whereas "The members of the tribe (Narragansetts) held themselves in subjection to
the highest Sachems, but also to the under Sachem, or'Particular protector' as Williams called
them (Key to the Indian Language L64l, and "To these Under Sachems the ordinary lndian, one
of the 'rank and file'... was wont to go with his complaints for injuries; and by that Sachem
justice was exacted, or punishment was inflicted."10;
Whereas<the United States Government has formally acknowledged the existence of the
Nahaganset peoplell;
Whereas "Proposed findings that the Narragansett lndian Tribe", consisting of lineage of
the aboriginal Nahaganset people, "were published on page 35347 of the Federal Register on
August 13, L962." , and as "lnterested parties were given L20 days in which to submit factual and
legal arguments to rebut the evidence used to support the findings that the Narragansett lndian
Tribe exists as an lndian Tribe"12;
Whereas "No factual evidence not already considered was provided in these comments,
and they were considered to have no effect on the findings of fact and the decision to
recommend the tribe for Federal acknowledgement."13;
Whereas the Federal Government's determination that the Nahaganset maintained
existence as an lndian Tribe was final and became effective 60 days from the date of publication
of the "Federal Register Notice of Final Determination, February 23, L983"ra;
Whereas in the January Session, A.D. 1936 the General Assembly of the State of Rhode
lsland and Providence Plantations passed Chapter 2331, an Act in amendment of and in addition
to chapter 294, providing for an observance of a special holiday known as lndian Day, in
recognition of the several lndian tribes of Rhode lsland, Tribes that did include the
Narragansetts, Wampanoag, Nipmucs, Aquednecks and'Niantics;

Concerning the Boundaries of the Traditional Nahaganset Territories:

Whereas the traditional boundaries of the Nahaganset territories are depicted in Sidney
S Rider's "MAP OF THE COLONY OF RHODE ISLAND giving the INDIAN NAMES OF LOCATIONS
AND THE LOCATIONS OF GREAT EVENTS IN INDIAN HISTORY with Present Po|itica| Divisions

3 https://www.brown.edu/about/history/timeline/deed-settlement-moshassuck
a https://yipp.yale.edu/annotated-transcription/digcoll2389
s Chapin, Howard, Pomham's Fort. Collections ofthe Rhode lsland Historical Societv 11{2}, Providence, Rl: Rhode lsland Historical Society, 1918 p.32
6 https://yipp.yale.edu/annotated-transcription/digcoll3983
7 Little, Charles Eugene, 1838-1918. Cvctopedia of Classified Dates: With an Exhaustive lndex, bv Charles E. Little ... for the Use of Students of Historv,
And for All Persons Who Desire Soeedy Access to the Facts And Events, Which Relate to the Histories of the Various Countries of the
World, From the Earlist Recorded Dates. NewYork: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900. p.46
a Rider, Sidney S., The Lands of Rhode lsland: As Thev Were Known to Caunounicus And Miantunnomu When Roger Williams Came ln 1536 : an lndian

Map of the Principal Locations Known to the Nahisansets, And Elaborate Historical Notes. Providence, R-1.: Published by the Author, 1904.
p.5
t Cole, J. R.
Time; a Description of Their Historic And lnterestins Localities: Sketches of Their Towns And Villases; Portraits of Some of Their Prominent
Men, And Biosraphies of Manv of Their Representative Citizens. NewYork: W. W. Preston & Co., 1889. p.4
10 Rider (1904) p.8

r oFR (1983)
1' oFR (1983)
ts oFR (1983)
14
oFR (1983)
 t3 *_.- fi_"
= 1.:tr:I ,tl? !:"4;q 1;4s, ,,i

lndicated.", which was entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1903 by Sidney S. Rider
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washingtonls;
Whereas at the time of contact with Roger Williams "The Niantics to the west, the
Cowesetts and Shawomets... and the island tribes to the east and those on Block lsland... all
became vassals of the powerful Narragansetts."16;
Whereas at the time of contact with Roger Williams there was a "longstanding
controversy between" the Nahaganset People and the Pequot people "over the district between
the Weekapaug and the Pawcatuck."77;
Whereas "in 1635 the Pequots were finally expelled from the disputed territory, by the
Narragansetts under Sassawaw alias Sokoso, their ablest captain, though a Pequot by birth.",
and as "The conquered territory was erected into a sort of buffer sachemdom and conferred
upon Sassasaw in recognition of his services."18;
Whereas "ln the spring of 1-636 Roger Williams obtained from Canonicus and
Miantinomi a tract of land lying between the Pawtuxet and the Pawtucket (Seekonk) rivers, on
which, in company with a few followers, he founded the town of Providence."le;
Whereas "This land was given by the sachems to Williams on account of their friendship
for him, and was not looked upon as a sale...", and as "Canonicus and Williams were accustomed
constantly to exchange gifts gf all sorts, each giving whatever the other at that time needed or
desired without any thought of the cost or value."20;
Whereas the territories known as Moshausuck, Chibachewsa (Prudence lsland),
Aquedneck, Cuucumsqussuck, Occupassnetuxet, Showomet (Warwick), Loquasqussuck,
Sekesacut, Potbwomut and Aquidueset, Aquopimokuck (Gould's lsland), Quinunicut (Conanicut),
Pettaquamscut, Aquidneset (Dutch lsland), Nontusiunk or Nomsusmuc (Goat lsland),
Woonachaset (Coaster's lsland), Chiswenock (Hog lsland), Natncook (Boston Neck),
Wyapumscut and Mascacowage (the South of East Greenwich, and the northern part of North
Kingston), Nanequoxet (in North Kingston), Sowanoxet (Fox lsland), Coweset, Pettaquamscut,
Potowomut, Misquamicut, Westotucket, Quamatucumpic, Chipachuack, Quowatchaug,
Winnotompic, Devil's Foot Rock and Conockonoquit (Rose lsland) are part of the ancestral
territories of the Nahanagset [sic] people2l;
Whereas "The whole body of the lands now forming the State of Rhode Island, were, in
1535, owned by the lndians then dwelling upon them."22;

Concerning the Sovereignty of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe:

Whereas Mashapaug is one of the historic villages of the Nahaganset, and is
contemporarily acknowledged and respected as such;
Whereas Mashapaug is considered a border and boundary of the original settlement of
Providence located in the territories ancestrally known as Moshassuck, and as the bounds of the
Providence settlement were confirmed as "from the rivers and fields of PawtucketU the great
hill of Neotaconkonitt on the northwest, and the towne of Mashapauge on the (south) west"23;
Whereas the boundaries of Moshassuck are illustrated on pg. 100 of Sydney S Rider's
"The Lands of Rhode lsland", and as in that illustration the Town of Mashapaug is clearly defined
as a boundary of the Moshassuck lands, and not under the jurisdiction of the Moshassuck
settlement2a;

1s Rider (1904) p. 59
16 Chapin, Howard M.SAlXeEg_gllhgl3g !5 Providence, Rl: Rhode lsland Historical Society, 1931. p. 7
17 Chapin (1931) p. 12

18
Chapin (1931) p. 13
1s Chapin (1931) p. 14

'o Chapin
(1931) p. 14

'z1
Rider (1904) p.62
" Rider (1904) p. 61
23 Rider (1904) p. 63-64

2a Rider (1904) p. 100

 * ""., ".
=; * =
,i".: a:r i-* ,* *- f; ;-:,. ,ll[i * T;
_.._

Whereas Mashapaug is located in the territories ancestrally known to the Nahaganset as

Meshanticut, or the "Place of Many Trees", bordering the territories ancestrally known as
Neutoconkanut, Pumgansett and Pawtuxe!
Whereas the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe is comprised of the blood lineage of the
ancestral Nahaganset, bloodlines that include the family names of Michael, Champlin, Watson,
Rodman, Congdon, Niles and Prophet family names;
Whereas these family names are acknowledged as Nahaganset in numerous official and
historical documents and records including, but not limited to, the June 1753 Petition of lndians
against sale of land by Thomas Ninigret, the August 1763 List of lndians who accepted offer of
the Sachem, the October t769 Petition with agreement of part of lndian tribe against sale of
land, the August 1773 Petition of Narragansett lndians for survey of lands and prohibition
against sale of land, the October L812 lndian Petition against sale of land, the January 1813
lndian Petition against sale of any more land, the May 1815 Petition by Narragansett lndians to
have Rhode lsland citizens removed from their Iand, the October 1823 Petition by the
Narragansett lndian tribe, the 1870 Petition by Narragansett lndians for rights2s, the L88L
Report of Commission on the Affairs of the Narragansett lndians to the Rhode lsland General
Assembly26, the lmage of lndian Lands at Fort Neck, lndian Reservation West Side27, lmage of
lndian Reservation at Fort Neck, lndian Reservation East Side28, lmage of lndian Lands at Fort
Neck (lndian Reservation Cedar Swamp)2e, lmage of lndian Lands at Fort Neck3o, the 1989
Narraganset lndian Tribe rolls, numerous volumes of the Narragansett lndian Tribe's
Narragansett Dawn publication3l, and in the October 2008 article "Memorializing the
Narragansett: Placemaking and Memory Keeping in the Aftermath of Detribilization"l2;
Whereas the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe continues to inhabit, steward, protect and
hold ceremony in the ancestral lands of Mashapaug to this day;
Whereas the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe's territories have never been deeded by any
traditional bloodline Nahaganset Sachem to any European entity, as it is stated that extensions
of the Moshassuck boundaries "gave great dissatisfaction to the minor Sachems at Pawtuckqut,
at Notaquonckanet, and at Mashapog.", as "These minor chiefs came constantly complaining.",
and as "These complaints led the Great Sachems together with Roger Williams to make other,
and more specific bounds."33, which did not include the lands of Mashapaug;
Whereas the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe has forever been sovereign and remains the
lawful steward of the ancestral Nahaganset lands;
Whereas the three principle Sachemaog of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe are
acknowledged as the Holders of the titles "the Pomham", "the Sononoco" and "the Aguontis" in
honor and recognition of the legacy of these Nahaganset Sachemaog who were murdered
defending their lands;
Whereas being the Holder of these titles the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe declares
sovereign authority, jurisdiction and stewardship over the territories of these Sachemaog;

Concerning European Colonization of the Nahaganset:

Whereas through disease, deceit, preemptive warfare, murder, physical & cultural
genocide, enslavement, unlawful subjugation, illegal detribalization, racial misclassification,

2s Narragansett lndian Records Collection. Rhode lsland State Archives. https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/1 Accessed January 04,
2019.
26Rhodelsland.CommissiononaffairsofNarragansettlndians.
' : Providence: E. L. Freeman & co., state printers, 188184.
27 http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/item s/ show 87 9
/
28
http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/878
2s http://sos. ri. gov/virtualarch ives/it ems I show / 87 7
30
http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/877
31Redwing,PrincessandHazard,Ernest,'.TheNarragansettDawn'.,Charlestown,Rl:
2006. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/sc-pubs/5
32
Rubertone, Patricia E., "Memorializing the Narragansett: Placemaking and Memory Keeping in the Aftermath of Detribilization", Archaeologies of
Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engasement in Native North America, Routledge, New York: 2008
3r Rider (1904) pp. 63-64

4
 f,t, i=- g-,:

forced integration, and ongoing oppression the ancestral territories of the Nahaganset were
systemically annexed by European colonizers;
Whereas prior to European colonization the Nahaganset were "once a large and
powerful tribe" and were considered a dominant force in their ancestral territories3a;
Whereas it has been confirmed that much of the territories of the Nahaganset were
acquired "to wit, by the extermination of the Narragansett Tribe by the war waged against the
tribe by the outside colonies, Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, L675-L676, and
waged solely for the purpose of seizing the lndian lands and grasping the jurisdiction."3s;
Whereas "The lndian had no written language, hence there was no written law; but
there were lndian customs, and these in effect were the laws."36;
Whereas "While having no written laws the Narragansetts were scrupulous in the
observance of... their lawful duties to each other", as "They very strictly observed the land
boundary lines, even in their hunting of animals.", and as "This strict rule of not encroaching
upon an adjourning tribe's lands, is a terrible commentary on the action of the English, in
stretching the occupation of the lands covered in their Deeds, until all the lands in Rhode lsland
were covered, and after every Great Sachem had been slaughtered."3T;
Whereas Canonchet, a Nahaganset Sachem, refused to comply with the colonial
demands to give up any of their Pokanoket allies fighting in the King Phillip's War, stating "that
he would 'not deliver up a Wampanoag nor the paring of a Wamponoag's nail"', and as he "was
murdered by the Massachusetts government, just as his father had been murdered twenty-
three years before."38 while defending his ancestral territories and his nation;
Whereas the government of the Nal'raganset was greatly diminshed "by the slaughter of
all the sachems, or descendants of sachems; the last slaughter being the massacre of 2nd July,
L676."3e;
Whereas the "the state legislature of Rhode lsland enacted an unlawful "detribalization
act" in 1880, illegally detribalizing the Nahaganset people as a sovereign nationao;
Whereas "After 1880 there continued to be a Narragansett community on or near the
former state reservation in southern Rhode lsland.", as "There continued to be both identified
leaders who had standing as community leaders and, for some periods, a tribal council.", and as
such a structure continues to this dayal;

Concerning Moshassuck and the Deed to Providence and Pawtuxet:

Whereas "Out of the purchase of Moshassuck... came the towns Providence, Pawtucket,
North Providence, Cranston, Johnston, Scituate, Foster, Smithfield, Glocester, Burrilville and
North Smithfield."a2;
Whereas the municipality contemporarily referred to as Providence is located in the
territories known to the Nahaganset as Mosshasuck, Assapumsik, Tockwotten, Mashapaug,
Neutoconkanut, Weybosset and Pumgansett;
Whereas Minantinomi personally established the boundaries for Moshassuck which did
not include the Mashapaug territories.
Whereas the Deed to Providence of 1638, signed by Canonicus, Miantinomi, Soatash
and Asotemewitt, and acknowledge by Roger Williams and Benedict Arnold, hereafter referred
to as "the Arnold Deed", has been found to be a forgery, and is based upon a facsimile printed
by Charles W. Hopkins in his "Home Lots in Providence"a3;

34 (1983)
OFR
3s Rider (1904) p.64
35 Rider, (1904) p.8
37 Rider (1904) p. 12

38
Rider (1904) p. 7
3s Rider (1904) p. 5
40
oFR (1983)
41
oFR (1983)
a'zRider (1904) p.69-70
a3 Rider (1904) pp. 83-84
 *! Fr-r
ffi Ha" itH*=HL{=' F
Whereas as "ln l-894 it was first printed in letter press (Prov. Earff'ffieEfi$sS, zgO).'filffO
as "This Record by Olney, Jr., was either a false or it is evidence of Forgery. By referring to the
facsimile, the word 'river' in a handwriting different from that of the Deed appears on the line
which begins -'ln witness where of . ln that blank space the word is written.", and as "Olney
has not reproduced it. lf there, he was bound to copy it; not being then there, it was a
Forgery."4;
Whereas Benjamin Arnold "exhibited at a town meeting his forgery in 1659."4s;
Whereas "the original Deed was never printed, in any book in Rhode lsland, until
1886..." when Hopkins printed the facsimilea6;
Whereas "The word 'river' was not then upon the original Deed."a7;
Whereas the date on the Arnold Deed has been found to be a forgeryas;
Whereas "ln the Providence Early Records,v.4, p.7O, is recorded the Arnold Deed"as;
Whereas through deception William Harris tricked certain minor Nahaganset
Sachemaog into confirming the Arnold Deed, "but the Sachems did not know that Harris had
fixed in these Deeds 'boundless bounds'."s0;
Whereas one of these minor Sachems was Caujonaquondsl;
Whereas "Roger Williams, writing in 1559, said of Caujonaquond's confirmation: 'ls not
this notoriously known that W. Harris urged the poor beast (always drunk), Kachanaquond, and
other Sachems after him, to confirm only what Miantinomi had granted to R. Williams, which
was under the Sachems' hands; and "they not imagining any such juggling to be intended by
Englishmen, who called themselves children of God, and Christians; and that any boundless
grants were comprised. They were easily willing, especially for Wompan's sake, to confirm what
was granted to Roger Williams by Miantinomi, dead and gone, as knowing that the bounds were
known to themselves and the natives roundabout us'l'52;
Whereas Roger Williams further stated, "'lt is no less prodigious and wonderful to me
how they can squeeze out a confirmation from the surviving Sachems of what Miantinomi, only
one Sachem, and less (in power) than Canonicus have granted. I say squeeze a confirmation of
what had no reality, no more than dreams, and castles built in the air' (R.1. Hist. Tract, 1't Ser. 14,
pp.31,32)."s3;
Whereas it is further stated, "'This after purchase and Satisfaction (payment) to all
claimers W. Harris puts a rotten title upon it, and calls it Confirmation of the title and grant of up
streams without limit; but all the Sachems and lndians when they heard such interpretation
cried commootin, commootin' (Narr. Club 6, 391). This lndian word meant stealing and lying -
see note byTrumbull in the lndian Key (Narr. Club 1", 165); also a note byTrumbull (R.1. Hist.
Tract, 1't Ser. L4, p.31)"to;
Whereas "The three'Confirmation' Deeds were obtained in May, August and December,
1659; but they were all held by William Harris until 1662, when they were entered upon the
records; and upon the same day Olney recorded the original Deed, as I have before stated, April
4,1662 (Providence Early Records 5, 296)."ss;
Whereas "the Forged Deed had no sooner been conceived and executed than half a
dozen of the chief Sachems were asked to confirm what they were told was the Deed of
Canonicus and Miantinomi to Roger Williams. This fact is confirmed by the sworn testimony of

4 Rider (1904) pp.83-84

as Rider (1904) p. 84
6 Rider (1904) p.83
a7 Rider (1904) p. 84
48 (1904) p. 84
Rider
ae Rider (1904) p.85
so Rider (1904) p.85
s1 Rider (1904) p.87
s'z
Rider (1904) p. 88
s3 Rider (1904) p.88
5a Rider (1904) p. 88
s5 Rider (1904) p. 88
 *
HH;u- TT*,ne== F*5Il ,, sli:E
John Sayled (Prov. Early Rec. 5, 298). But not one of them had the slightest idea that they were
transferring more than one-half of the lands in the present State."s6;
Whereas many transactions were made "which formed no part of the Deed itself."sT;
Whereas "lt remains to connect these transactions with the original Deed and certain
transactions which followed it."s8;
Whereas the first Deed given by Roger Williams is known as the "initial" Deedse;
Whereas "No care was taken of this "lnitial" Deed. lt was soon lost and no Record
remains."60;
Whereas "ln L66l William Arnold and other men... made what they said was a copy of
this Deed (Prov Early Rec. 15, p.86). The date given by Staples at the beginning of this Deed
(Annals, 33), '8 of Sth month L638" , is pure guesswork, and Mr. Williams so states the fact
(Annals, pp. 33, 341."61;
Whereas "The William Arnold copy, having not the slightest legal force, is now upon the
Records, as above stated."62;
Whereas the late Judge Staples wrote "'After accepting the 'lnitial' Deed on the 7th
October, 1638, the thirteen proprietors deemed it expedient to make a division in their
purchase, and subject the different parts to different rules of subsequent sub-divisions."63;
Whereas "The two parts are known in the Records as the 'Grand purchase of
Providence' and the 'Pawtuxet purchase'. (Annals of Providen ce,341."64;
Whereas "Mr. Staples founds this statement upon a supposed 'agreement made
'between several inhabitants of the town of Providence' (Prov. Early Records, L5,3L1."6s;
Whereas this agreement reads "'lt is agreed this day (eight of the eight month 1638)
that all the meddow ground at Patuxett bounding upon the fresh river on both sides is to be
impropriated unto these l-3 persons now incorporated together in our town of Providence'
(Prov Early Rec. L5,3L)."66;
Whereas "Then follows the name of twelve men to whom Roger Williams gave a Deed
of his purchase, and his own name included.67"
Whereas, "The agreement further provided that Roger Williams was to have twenty
pounds, the money to be paid to him by the thirteen first proprietors, himself being one."68;
Whereas "The word 'impropriation'... meant 'to convert to private use, to seize for one's
own use' -'as when a layman is possessed of a church living, and converts the profits to his own
private use.' (Bailey's Dict. L7251."6s;
Whereas as such "There was no purchase, neither from the lndians nor from Williams.
Nor was there a division of the Williams purchase. lt was neither more nor less than a seizure of
lands held bythe lndians; but itcovered onlythe meadowground at Pawtuxet. ltdid not
extend 'up streams without limits'."70;
Whereas Roger Williams states "'Pawtuxet I parted with at a small addition to
Providence, for then that inonstrous bound or business of upstreams without limits was not
thought of. Wm. Harris and the first 12 of Providence were restless for Pawtuxet, and I parted
with it upon the same terms , viz, for the supply of destitute, and I had a loan of them, then
dear,' etc. (R.1. Hist. Tract, 1-'t Ser. L4, p.55)."";

s6 Rider (1904) p. 89
s7 Rider (1904) p.90
58 Rider (1904) p.90
se Rider (1904) p. 90
60
Rider (1904) p.90
51 Rider (1904) p.90

6'zRider (1904) p. 90
63 Rider (1904) p. 90

64
Rider (1904) p.90
65 Rider (1904) p.90

56 Rider (1904) pp. 90-91

67
Rider (1904) p. 91
68 Rider (1904) p. 9L

6'gRider (1904) p.91

70 Rider (1904) p. 91
71
Rider (1904) p. 91
 i'-E ;i ;: -!
!--e E--E --; !: li :j::!
ii:i ri-i {-} !:: '=-, -i ft+ r i* -'^::rr
.

.r. -.:-- -j:"- i::. .t': i-= i.r" :::I i+ : _{. .d

Whereas "Harris was the leader in this 'impropriation,' and upon it rests all his claims to
the lands interpolated by himself and Arnold into the original Deed."
Whereas "The coming to Providence of William Arnold and his son, Benedict Arnold...
cause immediate discontent among the first planters.", and as William Harris and William
Carpenter at once joined the Arnolds, and a long and bitter fight followed as long as the Arnolds
and Harris lived."12;
Whereas "Out of this land passion in the Arnolds and Harris came the transfer of
Pawtuxet, as above stated by Mr. Williams; or its seizure by'improptiation."'73;
Whereas the document known as the "Combination" was recorded only on the Suffolk
Records at Boston..."7a;
Whereas a copy of the Combination document "is among the ancient town papers...
(Prov. Early Records L5, p.21. ", and as "The record at Boston was made in 1650.", and as "There
were then no signatures upon it, nor any certification of authenticity, nor of adoption.", and as
"The copy now in the possession of the city of Providence must have been privately made... and
left among the town papers where it remained hidden for nearly two centuries."75;
Whereas "ln the month before the obtaining of the first of the 'Confirmation' Deeds, a
letter was addressed 'To the Town meeting, Prov. The 27th of 2, m,1.659," signed by William
Field, William Arnold, and William Harris."76;
Whereas in this letter "These men inform the Town Meeting... 'We have fixed or sett a
marke stone neer the spring at Saxafraig ove, according to ye prescription of ye place in ye
Combynatione. This we say we are redey to rattefy, & stand to our hands in ye combynatione.
lf our neighbours object, we are ready to choose an Vempeor to sett it."', and further state "'Ye
Combynation being in your hands that you would send it' by, or with the Vmpeor (Prov. Early
Rec. 15, 761."";
Whereas "When Harris said 'the Combination being in your hands,' he had doubtless
had Olney... Town Clerk at that time, make the 'copy' which is now existing at the City Hall."78;
Whereas "a similar letter was sent, dated 27th January, L664. lt was signed by William
Field, Zachary Rhodes, Richard Waterman, his X mark, William Carpenter, and last... William
Harris", and as "These men say: 'Again this (second time) requeste you that you would come to
Abdebitione of ye land (called in ye Combynatione ye propriettyes of ye men of Patuxcet) from
ye Generakk Comone of ye Towne of Providence' (Pro Early Rec. 15, LOSl."le;
Whereas "There is no mention of this Combynatione in the Records. But a copy of it,
purpoted to have been made by Thomas Olney, Jr., 'as it standeth upon Record,'appears among
the miscaellaneous papers and is printed (Prov. Early Records !5, p.221."80;
Whereas "under such conditions the Town Clerk could not give it legal force, with
nothing to show that the town meeting had ever acted upon it, nor had the inhabitants or land
holder so acted - by their act alone could it be valid."81;
Whereas "From 1640 until the death of William Harris (in London, in 1-681-,) there was a
continuous struggle by Harris and his partners for the establishment of a Division line between
the owners of Pawtuxet and the owners of Providence."s2;
Whereas on a map "published by the Historical Society (Hist. Coll., v. L0, p. 376) is laid
down this'Division Line of L640'. ", as "This rests upon the Combination which purports to have
been presented to the town of Providence at that time.", as "There exists no evidence that it
was so presented.", as "lt was never entered upon the records of Providence, but it was entered

7'?
Rider (1904) p. 91
73 (1904) p. 91
Rider
7a Rider (1904) p. 91
7s
Rider (1904) pp.9L-92
76 Rider (1904) p. 92
77 Rider (1904) p.92
78 Rider (1904) p.92
7e Rider (1904) p.92
80
Rider (1904) p.92
81 Rider (1904) pp. 92-93
8'zRider (1904) p. 93
upon the Boston about 1-650", as "The peoptffrfgqeg,afft+tqpqfteiEkf;e,pteetf,is -
ri' i:i- i=i d=i :
'combination"', and as such "no Division rine*irvTs'itiEn aUO"pt6-ff't
Whereas "On the 22nd of ye 2 mo 1659, a letter was written by William Harris, William
Arnold and William Field to the Town of Providence, stating that we have set a mark stone, at
Saxafraig Cove, to an oak at Mashapaug, according to ye prescription of the place in ye
Combination.", as "These men asked that if 'our neighbors object', that they choose an
Vmpeor.", as " This is evidence that no line had been fixed by the Combinstion in 1640 (Early
Rec. 15, 76) down to the year 1559.", and as these men had no power to fix a division line and
admit so "by the suggestion of an Vmpeor"8a;
Whereas "ln L664 Harris with some of his partners repeated the operation." which was
"evidence that nothing had been done down to that time."8s;
Whereas "ln'1,677 Harris brought suit against Dexter, Fenner, and ye towne of
Providence.", and as "Harris was not alone in this action, but the only person named as acting
with him was Thomas Field,", and as "ln their Declaration the plaintiffs say: 'lt is for the jury to
say whether ye said town of Providence should not run ye said line agreed upon by us for a
partition,' etc. (CoL R.l. Hist. Soc., v. LO, p.2A2)."86;
Whereas "This is evidence that no line had ever been accepted nor adopted by the town
in 1640, nor down to !677 , and this suit failing, no line then followed the action of the iury."*';
Whereas "George T. Paine says: 'ln L64O a division line between 'this special tract' and
the town of Providence was agreed upon' (Paine's Denials, P.68);", and as "This Mr Brigham had
followed on his map in the Harris papers (Col. R.l. Hist. Soc. 10, p.3761,"88;
Whereas "this line on the Brigham map is entirely in error.", and as "The line mentioned
in the 'Combination' ran from a spring, being in a gully, at the head of a cuave, running in by a
point of land called Saxefrax, into the Town of Mashapaug' ." , and as "lt cannot be shown that
there was any brook known as Mashapaug in L540 existing there; nor can it be shown that the
lndian town of Mashapaug was at the western end of the Brigham lines.", and as "Mr. Brigham
followed Paine."8e;
Whereas "This Olney copy of the 'Combination' bears the date 27th of the 5th month in
the year so called !640." , as "The 'so called' was put in by Olney...", as "The document itself says
that 'Wee Robert Coles; Chad Brown; William Harris and John Warner, being freely chosen by
the consent of our loving ffreindes,' made the Combination.", and as the second paragraph
states "'Wee have with one consent agreed, that in parting those particular proprietyes, which
some of our friends and neighbours have in Pautuxett, from the General Comon of the Town of
Providence, to runn upon a straight line from a fresh spring, being in the gully, at the head of the
coave running in by the point of land called Saxeffrax, unto the Towne of Mashappauge to an
oake tree standing neere unto the corne field, being at this tyme the nearest corne field unto
Pawtuxett' (Prov. Early Rec. 15, 2)."e0;
Whereas the "Olney copy bears the names of thirty-nine persons, allwritten upon it by
Olney.", and as "No real signatures were ever known, and Olney's copy was made on the 28th
March, 7662 - Twenty-two years after the document purports to have been written."el;
Whereas "two letters from William Harris and his partners ,27, of ye 2 mo. 1659, and24
January, 1664, show positively that the proposition.in the Combynatione to which Harris had
referred had not been accepted by the town in L640;", as "not a signature was upon it in i.650.",
as "These letters also prove that the people of the town had not accepted the Combination
down to L664-5", and as "Nor did the people ever accept the line proposed by Harris."e2;

83 Rider (1904) p. 93
e Rider (1904) p.93
8s
Rider (1904) p. 93
85 Rider (1904) pp. 93-94
87 Rider (1904) pp.93-94
s Rider (1904) p.94
8e Rider (1904) p.94
'go
Rider (1904) p. 94
e1 Rider (1904) p. 94
e2
Rider (1904) p. 95
 il':t:': " loi
';:::t
* E:i E:! 3 'E {*'i-? t--t

whereas "Harris... began suits in r.r"t'FE'iitTSfir,%#u{ffigffenttrrTitsriglund,,o force**!

the Providence people to fix the line."e3;
Whereas "The Combynation was never accepted, but William Arnold, in L640, bought
land of William Harris and took his deed for it.", as "There is no record of an appointment of
Harris, Cole, Brown and Warner as a committee to make such a report.", as "At the time, in
1659, when Harris and Field in a letter called the town meeting's attention to it, Harris was the
only living member of the four who are represented in it as being the authors of it.", and as
"Brown died in 1650; Warner died in 1654; Cole died in L655, and Harris alone remained."ea;
Whereas the l-Oth volume "of the R.l. Historical Society contains an 'lndian Deed to
Harris 3 April, 1657' (page 48).", as "lt was printed 'From a copy by George T. Paine'.", as "Mr.
Paine did not inform... where the original existed.", and as "At present it is not known.", and as
"lt is not signed, and hence is not a Deed, but merely the form of a Deed."es;
Whereas "There are attached to it the signatures of two men, Thomas Harris and John
Sayles, certifying that the Deed was 'signed and Delivered in the presence of us'.", as this
document is evidence of "the Forgery of the Arnold Deed, and of Harris' knowledge of the
Forgery;", as "it admits the bounds fixed by Miantinomi in, or about 1642, Sugar Loaf Hill and
Hipses rock, etc;", as "lt makes two unknown lndians confirm this act;" and as "it contains...
language, 'Allsoe we assdnt to, and confirme, the act of seale that Canonacoe made to Roger
Williams for the thirteen purchasers'."s6;
Whereas these lndians had no ability to "affirm that Roger Williams bought from
Conanicus and Minatinomi lands in 1636-7 'for the thirteen purchasers"'e7;
Whereas "Mr. Harris writes: 'These bear witness that l, Moscompowes; and I
Twopowes, assent to the acts of Myantenomye to the thirteen (L3) men."', as 'The only acts of
Miantinomi alone, in any of these land transactions, were the fixing in his own person the
bounds of the lands conveyed to Williams by himself (Miantinomi) and Canonicus,", as "these
bounds being'Sugar Loaf to Hipses Rock,'etc., and the Deed of Shawomet;", and as "the latter
Deed ran to eleven, but not to thirteen men. Hence Harris admits the bounds by Miantinomi in
!542, and attempted to use these lndians in confirmation of them."s8;
Whereas Harris made the "lndians say,'We sell and confirm to William Harris that right
of ours, namely, two of the thirteen parts in all the said lands up the streame of Pautucksette
river, about miles more or less, to the side of Providence lands on the north; and, or, one any
other point' (Coll. R.l. Hist. Soc. 10, p.48)."es;
Whereas "The line of the Providence lands on the north and extending west would
touch Wionkeige", as "Harris admits knowledge of their existence inL657, and in 1-657 "bythis
language: 'Mr Dexter and Capt. Fenner are, and have been, very active and underhand another
design for by pretence of Providence little old bounds, much stood upon, wherein Gregory
Dexter could not in his understdnding against jurisdiction, bythe same, claim his land; his due
would by force, if he could overthrow that title for a worce, but bigar.", and as "This shows that
Harris knew these ancient bounds when he assisted in the Forged Deed100;
Whereas "Had Harris succeeded in his claims, both Arthur Fenner and Gregory Dexter
would have lost the titles, whatever their value, which they then held.", as "The Arnold Forged
Deed denied, in effect their existence in l-658.", and as by these acts "The duplicity of William
Harris is clear and absolute."1o1;
Whereas "Paine's Denial of the Forgery in the face of this document... convicts Harris of
a guilty knowledge.", as "Paine admits the Forgery thus, 'As the date 1639 appears on both the
1658 and 1662 records of the Town Evidence, and is not to be found on the original paper, this

'3 Rider (1904) p. 95

ea
Rider (1904) p.95
e5 Rider (1904) pp.95-96

'g6
Rider (1904) p. 96
e7 Rider (1904) p. 96

e8
Rider (1904) p. 96
ee Rider (1904) p. 96

1m Rider (1904) pp. 96-97

101 Rider (1904) p. 97

10
is caued a forgery and possibly may be ro.onrffi$giftl+Fqq5ry,*srsf)#.qqp? it is further
stated "'As to the statement that Benedict Arnold in a casetriedfi}d year$afte,S tfre-writing of -
"'
the clause denied his signature, no quotation of the words by Arnold is given, nor a copy of thE
paper presented, we ought not to be thus asked to accept this as a forgery without some
authority"' (Paine's Denia l, p.561;"102;
Whereas it is recorded "'Mr. Benedict Arnold upon his engagement saith ye name
subscribed in the paper where the Evidence of Providence (original Deed) is, was not his hand
wrighteing' (Col R.l. Hist. Soc. 1"0, p.56)", as Paine states "'The date 1639 appears on both the
1-658 and1662 records."', and as "There was no 1658 record, nor does the date L639 appears on
the 1562 record."1o3;
Whereas Roger Williams states "'lf all be divulged, that may be produced and proved,
there was hardly ever in New England, W. Harris his equal for monstrous evils in land business,'
written by Mr. Williams in 1569 under the full light of these terrible iniquities (R.1. Hist Tract, 1't
ier.124, ?.44)."'oo;
Whereas Roger Williams further states "His monstrous Diana, up streams without limits
so that he might antedate and prevent, as he speaks, the blades of Warwick (Narr. Club 6,
p.392)."10s;
Whereas by these statements it is understood that "by dividing the lands into the
Providence and Padrtuxet divisions in L638, and the forgery of the date 1539, to the
memorandum; and the forgery of the names Roger Williams and Benedict Arnold to the
memorandum at the bottom of the Deed; and by the pretended 'Combynatione' line of t64O,
Harris and Arnold had attempted to antedate Gorton and Green in the Shawomet and
Occpasnetuxet purchases, both having been made in!642."106;
Whereas "On the 9th October, 1645, Arnold placed on record in Boston a pretended
Deed of lands from Socononoco to himself (W. Arnold) and Robert Cole, and William Carpenter
of lands lying on and between the rivers Pawtuxet, Pocasset and Wanasquatucket.", and as "The
last line of this Deed reads: 'This was by an absolute Deed dated 30 (LI) 1641'."1o7;
Whereas Arnold's intent was "to antedate the Gorton purchase, the Deed of which was
dated L2th January, L642.", and as "Arnold's Deed was never recorded in Providence, and was to
be effective after the Arnold's had thrown the Colony into the possession of Massachusetts'"108;
Whereas concerning the Arnold Deed it is known "that while antedating the Gorton
purchase of Showomet, it saved to John Greene his individual purchase of Occpussnatuxet."loe;
Whereas "Harris, and Arnold, and carpenter had brought, and then owned, a large
majority of the rights of the thirteen proprietors in the Pawtuxet 'impropriation,' and hence
claimed all lands west, north and south as far as the river extended, under the Forgery."110;
Whereas "in a plea presented to the Court at Providence, which Court consisted of
judges from the three outside Colonies then engaged in attempting to obtain possession of the
lands of the Colony... Harris uses this phrase, 'They of Providence, Tenants by Force (and in a
preceding paper, 'Trespassers'), Arthur Fenner and his party under ye name and town,' etc.
(Coll. R.l. Hist. Soc. lO,25L1."171;
Whereas "A tenure, whether in lands or tenements, was derived originally from the
Crown; therefore the King is Lord immediate, or mediate, o all tenures (Coke's lnstitutes, First,
17L9, p.tO8).:, and as "Hence a Tenant by Force was one who held his lands or tenements in
violation of the legaltenures of England, and thus was wrongfully in possessions.", and as "By

102 Rider (1904) p.97

103 Rider (1904) p.97
1@ Rider (1904) p. 98
105
Rider (1904) p. 98
105 Rider (1904) p. 98
107 Rider (1904) p.98
108 Rider (1904) p.98
10'g
Rider (1904) pp. 98-99
110 Rider (L904) p. 102
111
Rider (1904) p. 102

11
 lla *; i; = j :j::,* * * -
:.:i,1",0, ,u. ,, .* rE

this phrase Harris denied the ownership of every man of his own home in Providence - every
one of the (12) twelve first proprietors, held by a virtue of a Deed from Roger Williams;"112;
Whereas Roger Williams was "alone held by a Deed from the Sachems, Canonicus and
Miantinomi."113;
Whereas "This was done under the jurisdiction of Charles the First.", and as Parliament
recognized these purchases in the charter of 16431'and as "Charles the Second again
recognized them, and affirmed them, in the charter of L663."r14;
Whereas "Under such legal conditions... Harris... by charging them with holding under a
fraudulent title... destroyed his own title."11s;
Whereas "the title of the men of Pawtuxet by impropriation" may be scrutinized ln this
same manner116;
Whereas "Mr. Harris took his idea of calling the three lndian Deeds of 1659
'Confirmation' Deeds from Coke's lnstitutes (First part, L719, p.387), first published in L628.",
and as "Mr. Coke defines he word as "a conveyance or right in esse by which a voidable estate is
made sure; or a particular estate is increased; but it strengthens not a void estate; nor does it
enlarge privity".117;
Whereas "Under this law 'a particular estate might be increased,' but it could not be
enlarged by the new grantors without privity."118;
Whereas "The Narragansett Sachems of 1659 who signed these deeds had no privity,
and hence under the English statute could not enlarge by 'confirmation'.", and as "Their
confirmation consisting merely in making another sale and transfer of new lands, being led by
deceit and fraud.", and as "They could not contest the fraud in an English court, and so the lapse
of years fixed the title in the Freemen of the Colony."11s;
Whereas "these Sachems were without privity and could not legally enlarge.", and as "A
person privy 'must have an interest in an estate created by another."', and as "a person 'must
have an interest from a contract or conveyance to which he is not himself a party."', and as
these lndians had no legal interest in the estate created by the Englishl2o;
Whereas "The Charter of 1663 fixed the principles that titles to lndian lands laid in the
'Potent Princes,' otherwise chief Sachems, of the tribes.", and as "These 'Confirmation' Deeds
obtained by Harris were signed only by such Sachems then in control."121;
Whereas Chief Justice Staples stated in certain language: "'The disputes and difficulties
which have heretofore been traced from their rise to their final determination related solely to
rights of property and soil' (Annals of Providence,593l."L22
Whereas "Two years before the Forged Deed was first shown, or the 'Confirmation' ll ri

Deeds obtained, an arbitration was appointed and a report made.", and as "This arbitration
arose from the action of the Court of Commissioners under the first charter, in May, 1655.", and
as There were four arbitrators, two from Massachusetts and two from Newport.", and as "Their
report was made L5th June, 1,657,"r23;
Whereas "The Court of Commissioners, now called the General Assembly, resolved that
'There hath been difference between certain of our countrymen at Pawtuxet and other of this
Colony'.", and as "The nature of these differences, so far as was then known, related to iL!

subjection of William Arnold, Benedict Arnold, Robert Cole, and William Carpenter, and their

EE

u, Ridei (1904) pp. 102-103

113
Rider (1904) pp. 102-103
114 Rider (1904) p. 103
11s
Rider (1904) p. L03
115 Rider (1904) p. L03
117
Rider (1904) p. 103
118
Rider (1904) p. 103
11e Rider (1904) p. 103
1'z0
Rider (1904) pp. 103-04
121 Rider (1904) p. 104
1'z2
Rider (1904) pp. 104-05
123 Rider (1904) p. 105

t2
 E3 q:::r n= r* a
F-tr E:e E:-!:jl j- f3 .q"? E:_r
!Il",::::t ii I r * i *:t li /.: 1I f=. ,..l- ,,,n c-* s
lands to the Massachusetts Colony, lands in the heart of the Williams purchase, in the town of
Providence, were held by these men without taxation for nearly seventeen years."L24;
Whereas "Roger Williams in a letter to the Massachusetts government asserts this fact:
'Our second request concerns two or three families at Pawtuxet, who, before our charter (of
!643), subjected themselves to your jurisdiction' (Col. Rec. 1,343l.." , and as "Mr. Williams had
before written to the Massachusetts government on this affair with much severity (Col. Rec. 1,
322)" , and as "The time of this last letter was 15th November, 1655.", and as "The arbitration
was authorized on the 23'd May, 1-556.", and as "lt was signed on the 15th June, 1657, thirteen
months after the authorization."l2s
Whereas the language of this arbitration is detailed on pgs. 7O6-LO7 of Sydney S Rider's
"Lands of Rhode lsland"126;
Whereas "The Deed made, not by Williams, but by William Harris, William Arnold, and
Thomas Olney, either singly, or together, is a clear and absolute forgery in all its essential
parts.", and "The original does not exist, but it is the form always printed in all Rhode lsland
Histories."127;
Whereas William Harris twice charged "William Arnold with forgeries in the matter of
Deeds. ln his statement to the arbitrator in the matter of the Pocasset lands, July L67O... Again,
Harris appealed to the King, 11th June, L675, for a specially packed court and jury to try his case
against the people of Rhode lsland.", and as "ln his appeal he said: 'Some of our partners
subjected themselves and their lands to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and then by suit
demanded the said lands. Our Evidence (the Original Deed) of the same lands being formerly
committed to the said demandant (William Arnold) to keep, was cut out, and pieced together on
another paper' (Col. Hist. Soc., v. 10 [Harris papers], p.150).", and as "Harris admits Forgery, but
charges it against Arnold."128;
Whereas "On the 7th of !2 mo. 1658, when Arnold showed his Forged Deed in a town
meeting, he said those two copies, to wit, William Harrises and Thomas Olneys, which hath in
these words as followeth are the true words of that writing called the Towne Evidence of
Providence;" and as "that which is wanting in the now writing called the Towne Evidence, which
agreeth not with these two copies was torn by accident in his (Arnold's) house at Pawtuxet.",
and as "Thus Arnold admits that something was gone from the manuscript, and that he had
inserted something different which had been supplies to him by Harris, or Olney, one or
both."12e;

Concerning Roger Williams' Account of the Forged Deeds:

Whereas Roger Williams is historically recognized as the founder of the settlement of
Providence, who was conveyed use of the Moshassuck territories by the Nahaganset Sachem
Canonicus, which boundaries were personally affixed by his nephew the Nahaganset Sachem
Miantinomi;
Whereas Roger Williams states "'After Miantinomi had set our bounds in his own person
(about 1642) one amongst us recorded a memorandum of a courtesy added upon request (to
these bounds) by Miantinomi; it had no date, northe Sachem's knowledge, nor hand, nor
withnesses' (Narr. Club 6, 3871."13o;
Whereas "Again, concerning the extent of his purchase, Mr. Williams says: 'By the
Sachem's grant to me, of an abundant sufficiency to myself and my friends; for those were the
terms; and in reason cannot be imagined otherwise, I never understood infinite and boundless

124 Rider (1904) p. 105

1,s Rider (1904) p. 105
126
Rider (1904) pp. 106-07
1'z7 Rider (1904) p. 107

128
Rider (1904) pp. 107-08
1" Rider (1904) p. 108
130 Rider (1904) p. 99

t3
 lll ,=; r b' -*i "! .+
,::i
t' :r :J;i S ::i::
; ,'..F_.ii] ..
r
= rr::_:1
;j:
'I

matters; no nor twenty miles; but what was of realty counted sufficient for any plantation, or
town in the country."131;
Whereas Roger Williams further states "'As to Warwick 20 mile I even tooke it to be a
mistake, like other grand mistakes betweene ye English and ye natives. lf it were so, & true at
Warwick yet. As I said before, the Sachems and myself never intended such vast and monstrous
business; but what was usually allowed to the biggest towns in New England' (R.1. Hist. Tract, L't
Ser. 14. P.30)"132;
Whereas Roger Williams further states "'W. Harris hath robbed Lrs, even by a kind of
force, ever since the first birth of the towne, * * but to this day (1669) both our towns
(Providence and Warwick) and myself have been notoriously abused and robbed of that which is
yours, and ought to be in your Records' (R.1. Hist. Tract, L't Ser. 4, p.741."133;

Concerning Gorton, Pomham, Socononoco and the Shawomet purchase:

Whereas "Earl of Warwick is a title that has been created four times in British history
and is one of the most prestigious titles in the peerages of the United Kingdom.", and as 'The
first creation came in 1"088."134;
Whereas "lt was created for a third time in 16L8 for Robert Reich, 3'd Baron Rich, in
spite of the fact that the Rich Family were not in possession of Warwick Castle."13s;
Whereas "ln L618, Baron Rich was able to pay King James €10,000 for the title of
Warwick.", and as "The title had been in abeyance since the death without heirs of Ambrose
Dudley, Earlof Warwick, in 1590;", and as "it should be noted that Baron Rich purchased only
the title, not Warwick Castle.)"136;
Whereas in L643 Warwick "was named head of the commission of 18 appointed to
govern the colonies of North America and the Caribbean.", and as Warwick "intervened in
various New England affairs (hence, the town of Warwick, Rhode lsland)..."137;
Whereas as Samuel Gorton "was an early settler and civic leader of the colony of Rhode
lsland and Providence Plantations and President of the towns of Providence and Warwick for
one term."138;
Whereas in 1,643 Samuel Gorton, along with Randall Holden, John Greene, John Wickes,
Francis Weston, Richard Waterman, John Warner, Richard Carder, Samson Shotten, Robert
Potter, William Wodell and Nicholas Powerl3s "bought a large tract of land from the
Narragansett tribal chief Miantinomi for 144 fathoms (864 feet or 263 meters) of wampum, and
they called the place Shawomet, using the native name, which would later be named
Warwick."lao;
Whereas in 1643 Gorton "and others of Shawomet were summoned to appear in court
in Boston to answer complaint from two indian sachems concerning some 'unjust and injuring
dealing' towards them.", and as "The Shawomet men refused the summons, claiming that they
were loyal subjects of the King of England and beyond jurisdiction of Massachusetts."lal;
Whereas Gorton was arrested by Mass Bay Colony and taken to Boston for trial, and as
in March 1644 Gorton "was banished from both Massachusetts and Shawomet (which was
claimed by Massachusetts)."142;
Whereas the Earl of Warwick " was approached by Samuel Gorton and his followers in
an attempt to establish their own colony in lands south of Providence, Rhode lsland called
Shawomet.", as "Gorton had... lobbied heavily to the 'Governor in Chiefe and Lord High Admiral

131 Rider (1904) p. 99

13'zRider (1904) p.99
133 Rider (1904) p. 99
1v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_ofWarwick
13s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_ofWarwick
136
www. pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/the_signatories_Warwick.pdf
137 www. pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/the_signatories_Warwick.pdf

138
www.warwickhistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=476:samuel.gorton-15931677&catid=57&ltemid=130
139Arnold,samuelGreene,NewYork:D.Appleton&company,1859.p.176
14 www.wamickhistory.com/index. php?option=com*content&view=article&id=476:samuel-gorton-15931677&catid=57&ltemid=130
1a1 www.wamickhistory.com/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=476:samuel-gorton-15931677&catid=57&ltemid=130
142
www.warwickhistory.com/index.php?option=com-content&view=article&id=476:samuel-gorton-15931677&catid=57&ltemid=130

t4
 r E:E:_s - -i. il .+:- t+:-c
= i r;
-i E

* i-,: -E .t
,*':_=:=
ir",i::i
of the Engtish Ptantations
- .

in America' for the eitJbiis'fimin\ Oi e tBwh cfraftUnfurslmwomet,,',1.,r.,,.

as "Rich ruled in Gorton's favor and issued an order to Massachusetts to allow the residents of
Shawomet and other lands included in the patent to 'freely and quietly live and plant' without
being disquieted by external pressures.", and as "ln return, Gorton renamed the town
Warwick."1a3;
Whereas the two Nahaganset Sachem who made complaint against Gorton were
Pomham, Sachem of Shawomet, and Soconoco, Sachem of Pawtuxetlaa;
Whereas "Pomham first appears in history in L642 as Sachem of Shawomet", and as "On
January 72, L642, he signed as a witness the deed of Shawomet, the present Warwick, which
was given by Miantonomi to Samuel Gorton and his associates."las;
Whereas "On January 30,1,64'J,-2, Socononoco gave to the Arnolds a deed for the land
which had already been deeded by Miantonomi to Roger Williams and a part of which had been
granted to the Arnolds themselves.", as "Then on the 22nd of June , L643, Pomham and
Socononoca both formally submitted themselves and their lands to the Colony of Massachusetts
Bay at Boston before the Governor and an assemblage of other prominent public men.", and as
"These two sachems ruled between 200 and 300 men, and their action upon this occasion was
virtually equivalent to a declaration of independence from the suzerainty of Miantonomi."la6;
Whereas the language contained in this submission is detailed on page 299 of Thatcher,
Esq'.s "1ndian Biography";
Whereas Pomham repudiated the deed of Shawomet, claiming that Miantinomi forced
him to sign it against his will, upon which Massachusetts Bay laid claim to Shawomet, and as "in
order to settle the questions they summoned Miantinomi to come to Boston and prove his
claims of sovereignty over the two sachems."1a7;
Whereas "Miantinomi came to Boston, and being demanded in open court, before
divers of his own men, and Cutshamekin and other lndians, whether he had any interest in the
said two sachems as his subjects, he could prove none.", and as "Cutshamekin also in his
presence affirmed that he had no interest in them, but they were as free sachems as
himself,"1a8;
Whereas Pomham and Sononoco were never brought back under subjection to either
Miantinomi or Canonicus;
Whereas "A crisis was reached in August, 1645, when Standish and Gibbons marched
against the Narragansetts at the head of armed troops.", and as "War was averted and a treaty
was signed August 27, L645, whereby Pessicus, Sachem of the Narragansetts, among other
agreements, by implication renounced any authority over Pomham and Socononoco."lae;
Whereas this political separation has remained intact until this day;
Whereas "ln L651, Ninigret, Wepitamock and Pessacus became embroiled in a dispute
with the Sachem Auguontis, who claimed to be as great a sachem as they.", and as it is not
recorded that Sachem Aguontis ever rescinded this declarationlso;
Whereas Aguontis was the Sachem of Chaubatick;
Whereas in 1556 Pomham was living in the area described as Warwick Necklsl;
Whereas "Pomham rose to a place of power and influence under the young Canonchet
and is one of the principals named in the treaty of October, 1-675." , as in January of t676
"Pomham... joined Canonchet in North Kingstown or Exeter, and on March 9th attended the
Grand Council at which Philip and Canonchet met for the first time during the war.", and as

1a3https://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Earl-of-Warwick
ra Chapin (1918) p.31
145
Chapin (1918) p. 31
145 Chapin (1918) pp. 31-32
1a7
Winthrop, John, The Journal of John Winthrop, 1530-1649, Cambridge, Mass.: the Belknap Press of Haruard University Press, 1996 p. 233
148 Winthrop (1996) p. 233

1ae
Chapin (1918) p. 34
1so Chapin (1931) p. 66

1s1
chapin (1918) p. 35

15
 F',.u,,-'
r:
lil, t:i i'.,:
r,r
$*-f
= tlil:t:]
r 3 :I:1 ;3_{ qlr-E
,,i;;"-' -'-i.. ilI ": -:. . t "-
"pomham took a leading part in organizing and mobilizing the trfr;g in tfr6'-CarEtt6ttibut valle,sr l+
and, according to Drake took part in the... battle at the Falls on May 19.D1s2'
Whereas Pomham and his followers retired to Dedham Woods and "were attacked by
Captain Hunting on July 25th, !676."7s3,
Whereas Pomham was killed on July 25th, L676 fighting in defense of his territories and
people;

Concerning the Ancestry of Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag:

Whereas Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is Ahtuskou of the Wushuwunan Clan and
appointed Principal Chief of the Ahtuskowoag Circle of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe;
Whereas Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is the Holder of the title the Pomham;
Whereas Sachem Neesu Wushwunoag is lineage of the Michael, Champlin, Watson,
Rodman, Congdon and Niles family lines, which are bloodlines that are acknowledged as
Nahaganset in numerous official and historical documents and records, as previously detailed in
this Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice of Tribal Declaration;
Whereas it has been previously established that from the perspective of the English
colonists, the traditional Nahaganset governmental structure is Monarchical and Hereditary in
nature;
Whereas genealogical research has established that Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is a
double descendant of Brister Congdon Michael and Mary Ann Champlin, through their
daughters Mary E. Michael and Sarah Jane Michael;
Whereas genealogical research has established that Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is
both the 3'd and 4th great grandson of Brister Congdon Michael, the husband of Mary Ann
Champlin, who was the son of John E. Michaeland Hannah Congdon;
Whereas genealogical research has established that Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is the
3'd and 4th great grandson of Mary Ann Champlin, wife of Brister Congdon Michael, who was the
daughter of Sarah Ann Rodman and Hazard Champlin;
Whereas genealogical research has established that Hazard Champlin, the husband of
Sarah Ann Rodman, was the son of Asa Champlin and Lydia Champlin, who was the daughter of
Prince Champlin, who was a Nahaganset;
Whereas Nahaganset oral tradition holds that the Champlin bloodline is lineage of the
house of Canonicus;
Whereas genealogical research has established that Sarah Ann Rodman, the wife of
Hazard Champlin, was a daughter of Abraham Rodman and Mary Molly Niles, who was a
daughter of Barbara Poquiantup and James Niles, Jr., who was the son of Jerusha (lndian) Niles
and James Niles, who was the son of Catherine Harry and the Rev. Samuel Niles, who was a
Nahaganset Pawwau;
Whereas the Rev. Samuel Niles "was a spiritual leader or powwow of the Narragansett
people"lsa, and as "samuel Niles commanded much of the Tribe's spiritual life from the 1740s
, onward."lss;
Whereas "samuel Niles established a separatist congregation when the local
Congregational church excommunicated him for'exhorting in the congregation'.", as "More
than a hundred Narragansetts left Congregationalism with Niles, built their own meetinghouse,
and arranged for his ordination by three Moravian lndians.", as "Niles also pastored to nearby
Niantic, Pequot, Montauk and Mohegan communities."ls6, and as "The Narragansett likely
preferred Niles because he blended their traditional ways with Christianity"lsT;

1s2
Chapin (1918) p. 36
1s3
Chapin (1918) p. 35
15a https://yipp.yale.edu/bio/bibliography/niles-samuel-narragansett-1706-1785
15s
https://collections.dartmouth.edu /occom/hfml/ctx/orgography/org0066.ocp.html
156Brooks,Joannaoxford:oxfordtJniversitYPress,2003.
p. 58
1s7 http://rhodetou r.org/items /show I 297

I6
 !j'';::1,:
xr.r:r*n.*
F.{,;;i, *
="I,ii=:jIt-
i' -.fii':1..r.,
?,E_r
Whereas "Niles opposed the actions of Sachem Thomas Ninigret (1738-L769), who Wai'
illegally selling Narragansett land.", and as "Niles and other Narragansett tribal members urged
a moratorium on the sale of Narragansett lands"1s8;
Whereas "Niles continued to preach until his death in L785.", and as, "One of the most
famous lndian preachers of the 18th century, Mohegan minister Samson Occom, saw Niles as a
true mentor."lse;
Whereas in section 8 of her application for a share of the money appropriated for the
New York lndians by the act of Congress, Olive A. Henry claims to be Narragansett, Brothertown
and a descendant of "Great grand Father James Niles of the Narragansett and Brothertown
lndia ns" 160;
Whereas in section 23 of the aforementioned application Olive A. Henry states in part
"My Great, Great Grandfather Samuel Niles a minister my great grandfather James Niles son of
Samuel Niles my grandmother Hannah Niles daughter of James Niles..." establishing that James
Niles was the son of Rev. Samuel Niles161;
Whereas James Niles Jr is acknowledged as the son of James Niles and Jerusha Niles162;
Whereas Mary Molly Niles, wife of both Abraham Rodman and Nathan Pendleton, is a
daughter of James Niles, Jr and Barbara Poquiantupl63;
Whereas Sarah Ann Rodman, wife of Hazard Champlin, is a daughter of Mary Molly Niles
and Abraham Rodman;
Whereas Mary Ann Champlin, wife of Brister Congdon Michael, is a daughter of Hazard
Champlin and Sarah Ann Rodman;
Whereas Brister Congdon Michael was a recognized leader and important figure in the
Nahaganset community at the time of the State of Rhode lsland's 1880 illegal detribalization of
the Nahaganset;
Whereas Brister Michael is acknowledged as having "a right to object to anyone that... is
not a member of the tribe..." in the report presented to the General Assembly of the State of
Rhode lslandl6a;
Whereas in an article titled "When Pale Faces paid the Narragansetts, Mr Brown's share,
$14, went on a horse", published in the Providence Journal Bulletin in September L961, Mr.
Theordore Brown, a Nahaganset and descendant of Canonicus "who can prove his descent from
the broad-minded aborigine who gave Roger Williams the land for his Lively Experiment...
confirmed the story that Bristo's agreernent to the sale of some 1000 acres of land tribally
owned by the Narragansetts in south county was obtained while he didn't know whether he was
signing away his birthright or signing the Declaration of lndependence."165;
Whereas in this same article Mr. Brown further confirms that "Chiefs named Daniel
Sacota, Joshua Sinono and Gid Ammons had signed previously, but Bristo was a holdout and the
story of how Bristo was finally cornered in a barroom would be a thrilling addition to the annals
of this state if we had it in detail"166;
Whereas Brister Congdon Michael and Mary Ann Champlin had several offspring
including, but not limited to, Mary E. Michael, Edwin Michael and Sarah Jane Michael;
Whereas Edwin Michael, also known as Sachem Sunset, was a son of Brister Congdon
Michael and Mary Ann Champlin who was acknowledged throughout the New England
American lndian community as a full blood Sachem and a Pawwau of the Nahaganset;

158
ittp:l/rhodetou r.ore/items / show/797
15e
http://rhodetour.org/items/ show /297
1@Henry,OliveA,No.2884NEWYORKlNDIANS. APPL|CAT|ONOFOliveAHenrvforshareofthemonevappropriatedfortheNewYorklndiansbvthe
act of Congress approved February 9, 1900, in accordance with the iudqement of the Court of Claims. New York City: Commissioner of
lndian Affairs, 1901
161 Henry (1901)
162Love,WilliamDeLoss,Boston,chicago:ThePilgrimPress,1899.p.353
163
Love (1899)
1ilRhodelslandCommissionontheAffairsoftheNarragansettlndians,
to the General Assemblv, ... Providence: E. L. Freeman, 1884
16s LJnknown Author, "When Pale Faces paid the Narragansetts, Mr Brown's share, S14, went on a horse", Providence:
Providence Journal Bulletin, 1961.
166 Unknown Author, "When Pale Faces paid the Narragansetts, Mr Brown's share, $14, went on a horse", Providence:
Providence Journal Bulletin, 1961.

\7
 Ei;j---i tI. r'rl.* *
whereas in an article entitled "Tea at sffisctb-tm#1*pufu{ffiesn@f{e.gansel!
}t-douncfiiirurrin.iASO" dhd
Dawn Sachem Sunset affirmed that his father Brister Michael wdi :,, -u
was "one who 'signed the reservation away."'157;
Whereas in an article byJ. Earl Clauson detailing Sachem Sunset's attendance at Rl
Governor Green's inauguration, Clauson stated that Sachem Sunset declared "His Father was
Chief Brister Michael, one of the chiefs who in 1880 sold L600 acres in Charlestown, last of the
tribal possessions, to the whites."168;
Whereas Clauson stated that Sachem Sunset declared "his father had been reluctant to
sign away the red man's land, but the palefaces lured him to Cross's Hills and got him to drink
firewater until his judgement faltered."16e, further confirming the statements made by Mr.
Theodore Brown in the article previously referenced in this Affidavit Public and Constructive
Notice;
Whereas Clauson stated that Sachem Sunset declared "he is one of six or seven
remaining pure blooded Narragansett lndians."170;
Whereas Clauson stated "The Chief says he is in direct descent from Miantonomi,
nephew of Canonicus, friend of Roger Williams. The late Thomas W. Bicknell, first president of
the Rhode lsland Citizens' Historical Society, went to a good deal of pains to trace his lineage
and certified to the correctness of this claim."177;
Whereas there is no valid reason to question the integrity or truthfulness of Mr.
Clauson, Mr. Bicknell or Sachem Sunset in regards to this claim;
Whereas in an article entitled "By Golly,'Twas an lndian; a Real Narragansett, Too!" it is
declared that "Chief Sunset alias Edward Michael, is one of the six or seven pure blooded
Narragansett lndians remaining in the State. He is a direct descendant of Miantinomi, nephew
of Canonicus, who in turn was a friend of Roger Williams."172 further substantiating Sachem
Sunset's claim to be a descendant of Miantinomi;
Whereas in an article entitled "Algonquins Back Senator Metcalf in a section entitled
"ln lndian Powwow" it is declared that "Chief Sunset... is a direct descendant of the venerable
warrior Canonicus, who gave Roger Williams 60,000 acres of land, part of which is now Roger
Williams Park."r73;
Whereas Sachem Sunset inhabitedlTa and is buried in the Moshassuck territorieslTs;
Whereas Sachem Sunset and Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag share the same ancestry
and are both descendants of Brister Congdon Michael and Mary Ann Champlin;
Whereas sharing the ancestry with Sachem Sunset, Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag
possesses the right and authority to make the same declaration as Sachem Sunset of being a
descendant of Miantinomi and Canonicus;
Whereas Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is the grandson of Raymond Augustus Watson;
Whereas Nahaganset oral tradition holds that Raymond Augustus Watson was the son
of Nahaganset Sachem George Red Fox Watson, who was the son of George H Watson and Mary
E, Michael, who was a daughter of Brister Michael and Mary Ann Champlin;
Whereas Sachem George Red Fox Watson was "chief sachem of the Narragansett lndian
tribe for 22years", and as "During his tenure, the l,L00-member tribe became federally
recognized and took title to L,800 acres of land in CharlestownDTT6'
Whereas Sachem George Red Fox Watson was "elected chief in 1964, had served for
several years as first councilman and tribal secretary.", and as "He played a key role in the

157 Redwing, Princess and Hazard, Ernest, "Tea at Sunset Cottage", Charlestown, Rl: The Narragansett lndian Tribe,
1935. pp. 19-20
16E
clauson, l. Earl, "By J. Earl Clauson", !a$9y4, Providence: Unknown, Unknown
159 clauson

170 Clauson
171 Clauson
172 Unknown, "By Golly, 'Twas an lndian; a Real Narragansett, Too!", @!4s\rvD Providence: Unknown, unknown
173
Unknown, "Algonquins Back Senator Metcalf", gnB!es!, Unknown: Unknown, Unkown.
174
J. Earl Clauson article
17s Edwin Michael Burial Plot lnfo & Picture

176 https://www.upi.com/Archives/19a6102/25/Georee-Red-Fox-Watson-86-chief-sachem-of-the/7630509691500/#ixzz5bhHGxBxV

18
 u'0= -"' :i''-1r; tr {';: E-i
;=::l:;,, i:l'" .:'..*
efforts to regain tribal status and land, wrrictr'wllielirrt-*ii"fi th5GtnerriAl'iefritity'auolishffi-:
tribal authority in L880"177;
Whereas the marriage of Mary Jane Cross, who was the great grandmother of Sachem
Neesu Wushuwunoag and a daughter of John Willis Surrey Cross and Alice Michael, who was a
daughter of Francis Michael and Sarah Jane Michael, who was a daughter of Brister Michael and
Mary Ann Champlin, is acknowledged on p. 238 of The Narragansett Dawn Volume L lssue 1L178;
Whereas being a descendant of both Mary E Michael and Sarah Jane Michael, the
daughters of Mary Ann Champlin and Brister Michael, it is established that Sachem Neesu
Wushuwunoag is a double descendant of Mary Ann Champlin and Brister Congdon Michael;
Whereas being a double descendant of Mary Ann Champlin and Brister Congdon
Michael, it is also established that Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag is descendant of Catherine
Harry and the Rev. Samuel Niles;
Whereas Sachem Neesu Wushuwunoag has continually inhabited the territories of
Mosshasuck, Mashapaug, Assapumsik and MeshanticuU

Concluding Statements:
Whereas this lawful Affidavit Constructive and Public Notice is now presented by the
Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe to lawfully, publicly and constructively affirm and officially declare
and decree that the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe has remained sovereign since time
immemorial, that the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe has never been legally or lawfully subjugated
by any European or foreign power or entity, and that the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe retains
full possession ol is the superior jurisdiction in and maintains aboriginal title to the ancestral
Nahaganset territories;
Whereas the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe is the Holder of the titles of the Pomham,
the Socononoco and the Aguontis, and retains authority and superior jurisdiction over the
territories of these Sachemaog;
Whereas the lawful jurisdiction of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe does encompass all
of the ancestral Nahaganset territories contemporarily referred to as the State of Rhode lsland;
Whereas Per Carcieri v. Salazar 555 U.S. 379 (2OO9l, prior to the Mashapaug Nahaganset
Tribe's filing of Providence County Register of Deeds Doc No 00122589 Bk 11175 Pg. 10 on July
15,2O!5, none of the ancestral Nahaganset territories contemporarily referred to as "Rhode
lsland" had ever been lawfully taken into trusU
Whereas per the doctrines of Qui prior est tempore potior est jure (he has better title who
was first in point of time) and Adversus extraneous vitiosa possesseo prodesse so/et (prior
possession is a good title of ownership against all who cannot show a better one), as well as the
Supreme Court ruling of Johnson v M'lntosh 21- U-S. (8 Wheat.) 543 t1823, which ruled that
Aboriginal Title is an inalienable right, it is affirmed that the United States of America de jure, the
State of Rhode lsland, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, and STATE OF RHODE ISLAND corporation have
never possessed any valid legal claim to the ancestral Nahaganset territories, unlawfully taken
through coercion, deceit, forgery, warfare and murder, and which had remained under ineffective
conquest until the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe's July L5, 2015 filing;
Whereas the traditional lands that the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe does specifically
steward extend from the southernmost boundaries of the Shawomet and Pawtuxet territories, to
the boundaries of the Pokanoket territories in the north and east, and to the boundaries of the
Wabbaquasset Nipmuc territories in the north and west, as depicted in Sidney S. Rider's 1903
"MAP OF THE COLONY OF RHODE ISLAND giving the INDIAN NAMES OF LOCATIONS AND THE
LOCATIONS OF GREAT EVENTS lN INDIAN HISTORY with Present Political Divisions lndicated"lTs;
Whereas these territories are contemporarily referred to as Kent County and Providence
County in the State of Rhode lsland;

177
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986102/25/Georee-Red-Fox-Watson-86-chief-sachem-of-the/7630509691600/#ixzzSbhHGxBxV
178 Keeper of Records, "SUNRISE NEWS", Charlestown, Rl: The Narragansett lndian Tribe, 1936. p 238
17s
Rider (1904) p. 59

t9
 Li;,1; ? i',i. -= 1;*;1
u ,
:x ri '4 r"' ;:t
whereas sachem Neesu wushuwun#g,fitrtftoti-o1 tfi'Siruusrr,f ittlar'i Eldh of the ? ]r
Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe, is Holder of the title of the Pomham and as such is imbued with
and empowered by the Ahtuskowoag Circle of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe with all lawful
status, standing, jurisdiction and authority associated with this title;

Now do l, Neesu Wushuwunoag, Wushuwunan Clan Ahtuskou and Pomham Sachem of

the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe, Holder of the title the Pomham, authorized, acknowledged
and empowered with all lawful, tribal and descendant right and authority, do officially declare,
decree and make known to all who may become aware that the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe is
a distinct, separate and sovereign tribal, political and commercial entity comprised of the blood
lineage of the ancestral Nahaganset people, who are the aboriginal inhabitants of the lands
contemporarily referred to as "Rhode lsland" and "Connecticut", existing outside of any inferior
or subjugated relationship with or to the United States of America de jure, the State of Rhode
tsland, the STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, the STATE OF RHODE ISLAND corporation and the
Narragansett lndian Tribe, and is the lawful steward of, superior jurisdiction over, and superior
status and standing in the ancestral Nahaganset territories;

This do I in the strength, wisdom and guidance of and in perpetual service to Yohweh,
Kawtawntawitt, Numanit8mon, the God of Heaven, the One and Only Creator of all that exists,
with the will and blessing of the Ahtuskowoag Circle of the Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe, and
for the good of the Nahaganset people now and for the next seven generations to come.

lf there be disagreement with any of the statements of fact made in this Affidavit
Constructive and Public Notice, that with which disagreement exists must refuted or rebutted by
U.S. Postal Service certified mail and delivery of valid instruments specifically, within thirty (30)
calendar days upon receipt of this notice. Failure to respond shall be presumed as the tacit
admission and agreement the statements of fact detailed in this Affidavit Constructive and Public
Notice are true and honorable.

ii*..1,.*AehSsutah anamakeesuckl Wuchee wunnetu nta kah achie nonaumwem. (Listen to me

heart is pure and I speak verv trulv')'
. tfu,,..tv
:., by my hand, endorsed by my,gL@nd sealed by my sealthisfldEa\ of the S
Sg#u
-ffih*unw n or the Gregorian calendar'

h-%

Pomham Sachem
The Mashapaug Nahaganset Tribe
clo 669 Elmwood Avenue, 89
Providence, Rhode lsland [02907]

Notice to Agent(s) is Notice to Principle

Using a notary on this document does not constitute any adhesion, nor does it alter my status
in any manner. The purpose for notary is verification and identification only and not for
entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. Jurat

State of Rhode lsland/ County of Providence/ss.:

20
Neesu Wushuwunoag:@ declares to be the age of majority, one capable of filing this AFFIDAVIT
CONSTRUCTIVE AND PUBLIC NOTICE, and that this "Affidavit of Constructive and Public Notice"
is made with clean hands in good faith, with explicit reservation of rights, acknowledged,
executed and certified this "Affidavit of Constructive and Public Notice", to be true and correct
to the best of his knowledge pursuant to Law, except as to Jryftters stated ,t6Qe on information
and belief, and as to those, believes those to be true, this Kd 'oby of the Ft Month in the year
Two-thousand Nineteen of the Gregorian calendar.

r )s)*,
My Commission Expires

Notary Stamp