RESERVATION
REPORT
Published by New Century Communications, at
Volume 5, Number
INDIAN
“POWER” - COURTS
AND A PRESIDENT MAY GIVETH & TAKETH GRANTS AWAY - In Utah, U.S.
District Court Judge Bruce Jenkins has recently ruled that tribal courts have
no controlling influence over county and town governments when it comes to
tribal members who are hired and fired by non-tribal jurisdictions. The
In
In
Mike and Cheryl Lynch (269-469-4663) of
New Buffalo, Michigan, and representing a group called Citizens for Personal
Responsibility (CPR), declared the Bush EO was an “outrageous” action.
“American Indians have no more of a Constitutional right to access sensitive
information than do any other ethnic or cultural leaders,” CPR stated in a news
release,
However, Dick Talcott,
long associated with
Judge Hurd's
Scott Peterman (Peterman@twcny.rr.com), a former
President of the powerful
Peterman
asserted:
“The U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear in its” recent ruling for the
NY town of “Sherrill…that the tribe could not reacquire land and render that
land sovereign Indian land by simply purchasing it on the open market. (Judge) Hurd obviously missed that little detail when he read the
decision. Undaunted, Hurd erroneously concludes
that since the
“Hurd concludes, offering no legal precedent or reasoning
whatsoever, that simply because the lands are taxable, it does not follow that
they should be subject to ‘such a drastic remedy’ as foreclosure. He states,
‘There is a vast difference between requiring real property owned by a
sovereign nation to be taxed and to comply with local zoning and land use
regulations, and allowing ownership of real property to be seized from that
sovereign nation.’ …Hurd
holds no such reverence for state sovereignty when the tribe is seizing
sovereign state land by simply purchasing it on the open market…. (T)he tribe can avoid the ‘drastic remedy’ by simply paying
the taxes that Hurd clearly concedes the tribe owes
the county.
“Finally, one should rightly ask, ‘Why does a
‘sovereign nation’ have to pay county taxes and comply with state laws, apparently
that is, according to Hurd, all state laws except
foreclosure? Hurd’s
ruling is…poorly reasoned…and the only particle of…(fact)…in
it is his correct prediction that it is ‘obviously not the last word.’ It is, however, obviously the worst word we shall
see in this issue. It will obviously be
appealed, and should be overturned.”
PAGE
3 – RESERVATION REPORT
Garcia defeated Harold Frazier, chairman
of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe in
SOME HAWAIIAN ACTIVISTS DON’T WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE AMERICANS – Some of the rest of us might rightly call it treason. Not that it seems to matter to anyone in Congress, the White House or the Hawaiian Governor’s Office, but an entire agency of state government – the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) - funded by the taxpayers of Hawaii and the entire U.S.A., now regularly advocates a propaganda line that, in most of the 20th Century might have led the perpetrators to be called “perpetraitors.”
So indicates Elaine Willman (Toppin@aol.com) ,
chair of CERA (Citizens Equal Rights Alliance), after reading the latest
monthly edition of the tabloid publication of OHA, Ka Wai
Ola. OHA has long promoted separatism for the
State’s native population or anyone with an identifiable “drop of Hawaiian
blood.” In urging that natives be given tribal and independent status, with an
editorial message bordering on secession, OHA displays great and uncritical
enthusiasm for the allegations published in a Letter to the Editor complaining
that the United States should grant the same sovereignty to Hawaiian natives
that it proposes for Iraq’s long and cruelly oppressed but now, thanks to U.S.
intervention, newly liberated people.
Needless to say, OHA does not bother to
remind its readers that under the U.S. Constitution, all of America’s 50 states
and territories, and all citizens, enjoy human and civil rights and freedoms
which, since 1789 have been the envy of most of the world. Anyone at OHA who
suggests otherwise, unless out of utter and deplorable ignorance, is being
deceitful.
After reciting questionable Hawaiian
history of a century or more ago and describing the U.S. back then as an
“insatiable beast,” the OHA prime letter-writer of the month, states: “I think
it is past due to demand now that President Bush reinstate our sovereignty,
free Hawai’i as well as immediately initiate a
de-occupation of our islands. This would be a step in the right direction.
Although the thought of war here is unpleasant, I really think there are no
other options. The
Then this letter writer, Debra Kekaualua of Kuau’i island
declares, with seemingly sublime indifference to facts - “The concept is a
simple one: further association with and occupation by the
Poor Debra’s hatreds and biases may
require baking a lot of cakes before eating ensues.
(Note to Editors: The following item is not a
repetitious version of the previous one on Page 3 of this issue. It is simply a
further critical insight from a different perspective about
“OUR
ENEMY,” SAY SOME HAWAIIAN NATIVES, ARE U.S. PACIFIC DEFENDERS - Perhaps never in the course
of America’s history as a democratic republic has a state agency, funded by
federal and state taxpayers, been allowed to perform as the lead propaganda
force to separate a state’s native population and their lands from their state
and nation. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is seeking to divorce a
potential “Native Hawaiian” tribe and their “tribal territories,” from the
INSIGHT - Honolulu attorney and
civic leader H. William Burgess (hwburgess@hawaii.rr.com),
in a recent letter to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer regarding Native
American Indians wrestling with tribal purity and competitive, off-reservation,
casino concerns, notes that Senator Akaka’s S. 147 and its companion bill H.R.
309, would recognize any American, anywhere (an estimated 400,000 U.S.
citizens) who had a ‘single drop’ of Native Hawaiian blood, as a member of the
proposed Hawaiian tribe. Burgess writes that if the Akaka bill becomes law, it
will not only create the largest Native tribe in the U.S. but “will lead to all
the 15 million or more persons in the U.S. having some discernible amount of
Indian ancestry becoming eligible to create their own separate sovereign
‘tribal’ governments and thousands of new Indian casinos will follow.”
In reality, it is U.S. Pacific Defenses
which may be jeopardized by OHA as it leads this divisive campaign at a time
and place when and where it appears surrounding Pacific waters may soon become
the most sensitive region of the world as far as
Americans, who carefully monitor
international affairs, especially Pacific region sensitive points, and who are
quite aware of the strengths and vulnerabilities of U.S. defenses and
strategies looming for the rest of the 21st Century throughout the
Pacific Basin world, have every reason to be deeply concerned with the
OHA-Akaka legislative campaign for Hawaiian native separatism. As military
and strategic affairs writer, Robert D. Kaplan, noted recently in a lengthy
Atlantic magazine article, there is every evidence that the United States is on
the verge of being challenged by China for dominance of the seas and outposts
that stretch from America’s West Coast and Alaska to the Korean Peninsula and
Pacific Rim down to Australia and New Zealand...even through the Mallacca Straits to Singapore.
On a tour of U.S. naval, air and missile
bases in Pacific waters Kaplan found that the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is
gearing up for what is foreseen as the likely ‘Cold War’ (at best) or hotter
struggle (at worst) for the coming decades of the 21st Century.
Native tribalism and secessionist moves in
our 50th State ought not be tolerated longer
- a fact that should be made clear to OHA and that Office’s Congressional
advocates who really must know better and not have to be told.
IS FEC ALLOWING ILLEGAL TRIBAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS? – The answer to this question, ever since campaign finance
“reform” was enacted and the Federal Election Commission, in 2000, bent the
rules for Native American Indian tribes, is an unequivocal “Yes!” Lakeland Times (Wisconsin) writer Richard Moore, noting how the Forest County
Potawatomi tribe has just announced it is budgeting $7.2-million for the 2006
elections in the Badger State, reports that since 1999, tribes across the
nation have splashed around $23.6 million to federal campaigns and, most
likely, a great deal more in state and local election contests not subject to
FEC monitoring.
Reservation Report, not long after FEC
lifted the bar to exempt Indian tribes from aggregate contribution limits - a
privilege accorded NO other ethnic, corporate or individual entity or group in
the U.S. – publicized the admission by Senator John McCain in a Boston media
interview that the legislation he co-sponsored was flawed in failing to provide
the FEC with guideline limits on what Indian tribes could contribute to
political campaigns and candidates.
As clearly manifested in
In his early November, well researched,
examination for the twice weekly newspaper and online website from Minoqua, WI, Moore declared that citizen opposition to the
special campaign privilege granted Indians is mounting rapidly. “The heart of
the critics’ argument is simple and straightforward,” he wrote, “-- because of
their tax-exempt status, it is illegal for tribes to funnel gaming revenues
into political campaigns.” Furthermore, tribes insist they are independent and
“sovereign” and thus are officially categorized as having the same status as
foreign governments. Internal Revenue Tax Codes and federal statutes forbid
tax-exempt organizations and foreign governments from providing political
contributions in American elections.
While the FEC tends to treat tribes as
individuals, it has refused to impose on tribes the stipulated limit of $25,000
that an individual may spend on political campaigns in any single election
year. Thus, Indians now circumvent the restrictions, which were designed by
campaign finance “reformers” to apply to ‘ALL’ citizens of our democratic
republic. ‘ALL,’ conveniently, in FEC’s purview, does
not include
A further FEC abuse of campaign finance
reform was the virtual waiver the agency granted the
Six un-elected FEC Commissioners now
ensure that tribal governments and casinos remain the unlimited ‘candy store’
for
BIA
REJECTION: LOST
MISSISQUOI ABENAKI TRIBE CLAIMS NOT VERIFIED –
A
group of claimed descendants of the Abenaki, who once
thrived as a tribe in northwest Vermont and southern Quebec Province between
1600 and 1800, have been unable to show any signs of continuous existence as a
tribe since 1900, have not demonstrated evidence they are true descendants and
have not even been part of a continuous community. The claimants now have six
months to seek further proof of their validity before BIA issues its final
declaration on their request.
Over
a lobbyist-historian’s plea to allow formal recognition of the State’s Indian
tribe(s) and any historically important culture(s), the Arkansas Legislature
summarily rejected the proposal. Legislative leaders said they feared such a
move would open the door for federal recognition of likely Indian aspirations
for federal and state tax exemptions and lead to licensing of an Indian
gambling casino. In the same session, this year, the legislators approved the
addition of electronic gaming at
TWO CALIF. COUNTIES VOTE “NO!”
ON CASINOS; 2
Not many Americans know, any more, that a
lot of those who farm around the Klamath River watershed are descended from
pioneer farmers purposely sent to the Oregon-California border area in the
final decades of the 19th Century and earliest years of the 20th
and given federally authorized allotments of land where they were mandated to
raise grains and other basic foods desperately needed to feed a then Gold
Rush-inflated, but non-farming, population of California.
A Worrisome Concern With
Respect to Federal Indian Policy: The
Constitutionally Required
Oath of Office is Often Ignored by Lawmakers
By John A. Fleming*
As we
start looking at candidates for public office or try to decide whether we
should keep or replace currently elected officials in the upcoming 2006
election year, please add the issues of the Oath of Office and the Public Trust
to the criteria for measuring the worth of those we are considering for such
offices. These two criteria have been found as major failure points with a
majority of elected officials responsible for Federal Indian Programs.
Concerning
Government Service
Our U. S. Constitution requires members of
the U. S. Senate & House of Representatives, as well as the members of the
several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the
The term Public Trust is used to denote
the responsibility added to public service by virtue of the Constitutional
requirement, and, where applicable, employer required, oath of office obligating
the incumbent of such a position to support the federal or state constitution
involved and the special relationship between citizens and their governments.
This responsibility requires such officers and employees to place loyalty to
the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles that exclude private gain and
other activities repugnant to the Constitution, and of course, to any state
constitution that may be pertinent. These requirements are designed to ensure
that all citizens can have confidence in the integrity of those who, elected or
appointed, serve the Federal Government or state and local governments. Again our questions are: Is this requirement
failing?…and, if so…Why?
With respect to what may be described as
the American Indian Dilemma, here is a short list of
unconstitutional end results of federal Indian programs that demonstrate what a
majority of Senators and Representatives can do over decades, by passing laws
that were the first basic laws and subsequent laws permitting some unconstitutional
end results to take place. Needless to say these examples start giving us the
answers to part of the above questions—in the positive. Unconstitutional end
results of federal Indian programs include:
(1) Allowing certain Indian tribes to both
tax and governmentally regulate citizens residing within, or managing
businesses within, original or former exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations. This is a violation of Article IV, section 4, of the U. S.
Constitution. Tribal governments are not republican in Form.
(2) The U. S. Government specifically, and
to the exclusion of all other religions, protects and supports Indian religion
for Native American and Alaskan Indians, through the authority of Public Law
95-341, 95th Congress, approved August 11,1978, and other federal
actions. This violates the First Amendment of our Constitution.
(3) The U. S. Government is specifically,
and to the exclusion of all other cultures, protecting
and
supporting the enhancement of Indian culture for Native American & Alaskan
Indians through the authority of the Concurrent Resolution (100th
Congress 2cd Session, H. Con. Res. 331) and other federal action.
(Special Continued on Page 8)
Special: On Upholding The Oath of
Office (Continued from Page 7)
This legal recognition of a special status
for a specific class of citizens violates the equal protection clause of our
Constitution to begin with.
(4) Since the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the
U. S. Government has owned and/or held in trust, lands for the use of certain
American citizens of certain American Indian descent. Since 1924, the federal
land acquisition for Indian tribes, including Alaskan Indians, has escalated exponentially
over the years. There is a distinct absence in our Constitution and other early
documents of our history, of any power being delegated to the federal
government to own, and hold in trust, any lands for the use of any
target-specific, subdividing, classification (such as ethnic, racial,
political, etc.) of our citizenry.
(5)
The U. S. Government is specifically, and to the exclusion of all other ethnic,
racial and political groups, providing special protection to American citizens
of Indian descent, and their tribes. The U.S. Government acts
as a guardian protecting its wards, through what the federal government has
conceived, fabricated and follows as a trust doctrine. In truth there is
a complete lack of delegated power and authority or even a hint of such
delegation, from the several states to the federal government through the
Constitution and or the Articles of Confederation. It is federal fabrication
without Constitutional authority. The assumption that the old royal sovereign
duty called parens patria, indeed
operational under King George lll, was somehow passed
on in the Common Law to the colonies or to the several states through the
treaty with King George lll, is both absurd and
false. In very simple terms those oath-pledging officials who voted for federal
Indian programs, initially and since the original bills, have caused these
unconstitutional end results and are in violation of their oaths of office.
They have, indeed, failed to live up to the public trust which is incumbent in
their jobs. Their names are still in the records and those who are still alive
need to be held accountable for their trespass over the rights of all
The
most heinous and current example of Congressional oath-takers violating their
oaths of office and the public trust are found in the newly submitted U.S.
Senate Bill.578 and House Bill 2242. Both bills are the same and are Tribal
Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The sponsors of the
bills - four Senators and, as this is written, twenty-eight House members - are
clearly trying to make Federally Recognized Tribes equal to State Governments
and, thus, be treated as legitimate entities to the federal government… all
without Constitutional authority to do so. Although each part of these bills contain unconstitutional requests, the following section,
found in both bills, is the most frightening to the concerned citizen:
"SEC.
13. CONGRESSIONAL AFFIRMATION AND DECLARATION OF
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. (a) IN GENERAL- For the
purpose of this Act, Congress affirms and declares that the inherent sovereign
authority of an Indian tribal government includes the authority to enforce and
adjudicate violations of applicable criminal, civil, and regulatory laws
committed by any person on land under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribal
government, except as expressly and clearly limited by--(1) a treaty between
the United States and an Indian tribe; or (2) an Act of Congress. (b) SCOPE-
The authority of an Indian tribal government described in subsection (a)
shall-- (1) be concurrent with the authority of the United States; and (2)
extend to--(A) all places and persons within the Indian country (as defined in
section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) under the concurrent jurisdiction
of the United States and the Indian tribal government; and (B) any person,
activity, or event having sufficient contacts with that land, or with a member
of the Indian tribal government, to ensure protection of due process
rights."
(Special Continued on Page 9)
Special: Upholding The Oath of
Office (Continued from Page 8)
The sponsors of these bills are without
question overlooking their oaths of office and making a mockery of the public
trust. The State of
Here is a sample of one of the sections proposed.
NEW SECTION.
Sec. The legislature finds a need for
tribal law enforcement officers to exercise the laws of the state of
The four representatives sponsoring this
bill are attempting to get the Washington State Legislature to pass a bill,
which, if enacted, would produce legislation that would lead to
unconstitutional end results and conflict with the law of the land. There could
be no more positive evidence of the fact that, in this bill proposal, these
elected officials violated their oaths of office and seemingly ignored their
public trust duty.
There is one more playing field involved
here. It is the responsibility of political parties and their elected or
appointed officers that take oaths of office and have a public trust duty at
local, state and national levels. Concerning the American Indian Dilemma, the
best example of both parties violating their oaths of office and their public
trust, is demonstrated in the above noted examples of unconstitutional end
results of Federal Indian Programs both parties voted in and continued to
support. Their participation in supporting or condemning actions that
ultimately result in unconstitutional distortions of our Federal Indian
Program, bring into question the political parties understanding of the Oath of
Office and Public Trust obligations.
Conclusion: As to the questions raised
in the Concerning Government Services section above, it appears to this
writer that both the Oaths of Office and Public Trust duties are not being met
when it comes to considering the American Indian Dilemma. As to what to do
about it, one may only hope that the American people carefully read and learn
all you can about these matters, and join groups that are willing to hold our
elected and appointed leaders accountable for their misconduct in this matter.
Too many of our elected officials have too long trespassed upon our individual
Constitutional rights.
John A. Fleming, Federal
Indian Program Oversight Consultant
CITIZENS EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE ISSUES FIRST Bi-MONTHLY REPORT – A November0-De3cember 2005 “Member Update” newsletter, entitled “CERA Report,” was published in Gresham, WI, in late October for the benefit of the national civic group’s members. The initial issue contained a general report on CERA by Elaine Willman of Washington State and CERA’s chairman, plus an article by a longtime civic leader and critic of federal Indian policy matters, Howard Hanson of Minnesota, who reported on the Washington, D.C. Abramoff political lobbying scandal that may have fleeced Indian tribes of some $82-million and has clearly damaged the ethical image of the Bush Administration as well as the reputations of many Democrat and Republican lawmakers who have accepted large campaign contributions from Indian tribes with gambling casinos.
Hanson also addresses a projected new Bureau of
Indian Affairs attempt to enable Native American Indian tribes to put fee land
in trust which would thus remove fee lands from the tax rolls and impose a
further tax burden on non-Indian American citizens throughout the nation.
The new and expanded Board of CERA was
announced after a recent business meeting. Board members are Judy Bachman,
Vernon, NY; Naomi Brummond, Pender, NE; Butch
Crawford, Plymouth, CA; Donna Fitz, Mille Lacs County, MN; Faron Iron, Garryowen, MT; Hanson of Hopkins, MN; Carol Kelly,
Plymouth, MA; Chris Kortlander, Garryowen,
MT; Joel Lamplot, Thurston County, NE; Charlotte
Mitchell, Jemez Pueblo, NM; Jim Petik, Keldron, SD; G. Ben Saucerman,
Phoenix, AZ; Scott Seaborne, Neenah, WI; Richard Tallcot,
Union Springs, NY; Jerry Titus, Little Valley, NY; Dennis Williams, Ft. Defiance,
AZ; and Willman of Toppenish, WA. CERA’s annual conference will, per usual, be held
in Washington, D.C., at Holiday Inn Central (1501 Rhode Island Avenue NW) April
30-May 4, 2006.
HOW
MUCH MONEY IS INVOLVED IN CASINO DEVELOPMENT? A
According to tribal counsel Jim Shore, in
response to inquiries from reporter John Holland of the South Florida
Sun-Sentinel, while the tribe agrees the initial contract with Cordish was fair, “there was no way to predict, in advance,
the huge success” of the gambling enterprise. Thus, “the Tribe believes that a
buyout is now in the best economic interest of the Tribe and its members.”
TO RECIPIENT EDITORS, COLUMNISTS & TALK
SHOW HOSTS: Reservation Report is a monthly news alert service regarding
U.S. federal Indian policies and reservation matters affecting the lives and
welfare of Indian and non-Indian residents and businesses, situated on or near
reservations. The RESERVATION REPORT Executive and Coordinating Editor is John
Fulton Lewis of