Today we deep dive into the legal and philosophical foundations of the "federal Indian law trust doctrine." We argue that the term "trust" is a euphemism for a relationship of domination rather than a protective legal obligation.

A deep conversation between hosts Steven Newcomb and Peter d'Errico and guest Loretta Afraid of Bear-Cook, about the preservation of Oglala Lakota traditions, the power of indigenous language, and the resistance against systems of domination and modern convenience.

Attorney Mark Savage joins us in this episode for a provocative discussion of the US claim of “plenary power” over Native nations and peoples. In the early 1990’s (!), Mark authored two seminal law review articles showing that the doctrine of “plenary power” has no basis in the US Constitution. In November 2025, in a dramatic move at the Supreme Court, two justices took the same stance!

Historian and lawyer Bruce McIvor joins us in this episode for a deep dive into how Canada’s colonizing legal system continues to attack First Nations with laws and policies dressed up in the

latest costume of “reconciliation”. Bruce is a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation, descended from the Red River Métis. His law firm, First Peoples Law, represents Indigenous Peoples across the continent.

In this powerful episode, hosts Steve Newcomb and Peter d’Errico dissect a February 2, 2026, The Economist article titled "The Indian Removal Act, Unchecked Expansionism, and Disregard for the Rule of Law." They expose how the author misuses an 1832 Muskogee Creek Nation memorial – a protest against settler invasion – to draw parallels to modern US immigration policy.

The discussion delves into the disingenuous framing, exploring how the term "rule of law" was weaponized historically and remains a tool for domination. Key themes include renaming settlers accurately, understanding the legal system's role in colonialism, and recognizing the philosophy of domination that underpins the "Empire of Liberty."

Episode 15, “STOLEN LAND”: The Danger and Limitation of Performative Speech, begins with the Grammys uproar after Billie Eilish said, “no one is illegal on stolen land,” and the fast backlash that followed. Peter P. d’Errico and Steven Newcomb argue that much of the public fight is performative speech: words that signal virtue or expertise while blocking real inquiry. They dig into the deeper structure beneath the sound and fury—how U.S. concepts of “property,” “theft,” and “title” grow out of a claimed right of domination. The conversation turns to Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and the “extravagant pretension” that Christian “discovery” created superior legal rights over Indigenous lands. Steven traces “government” and “dominion” through Latin roots linked to domination, showing how legal language can hide coercion. The episode challenges listeners to move past gestures and confront the framework itself.

Russell Diabo and our hosts examine Canada’s “reconciliation” agenda, exposing domination, fiscal dependency, and ongoing struggles for Indigenous self-government.

A concise exploration of key terms that reveal how words like civilization, sovereignty, and empire encode patterns of domination and power in law and history.