From gars@netcom.com Thu Aug 21 01:17:57 1997 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 23:07:41 -0700 From: Gary Night Owl To: Internet Recipients of Wotanging Ikche Subject: Wotanging Ikche--nanews05.034 _ __ _____ __ _ __ ___ ____ _ __ ___ ' ) / / ') / / ) ' ) ) / ) / ' ) ) / ) / / / / / / /--/ / / / ___ / / / / ___ (_(_/ (__/ ( / (_ / (_ (___/ '__/_ / (_ (___/ ' O ____ _ , ___ _ , ___ O o O / ' ) / / ) ' ) / / ' O o O / /-< / /--/ /-- VOLUME 05, ISSUE 034 O o o o o O __/_ / ) (___/ / ( (___, 23 August 1997 O o O KANOHEDA ANIYVWIYA Otapi'sin Atsinikiisinaakssin O o O Es'te Opunvk'vmucvse ni-mah-mi-kwa-zoo-min Aunchemokauhettittea O ( N A T I V E A M E R I C A N N E W S ) This issue contains articles from NAT-FILM, Big Mountain, Nat-Rel & Paths-L lists; Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty; UUCP email; North American Spirit Lodge; Newsgroups: alt.native,soc.culture.native Articles appearing have been previously posted for public dissemination and/or permission for inclusion has been secured. Letters of authorization are on file. A list of those granting permission to repost their words in this issue are listed at the end of part A. I thank each of you for allowing your words to be shared with the people. <----<<<< >>>>----> This newsletter is a way of keeping the brothers and sisters who share our Spirit informed about current events within the lives of those who walk the Red Road. ++ It may be subscribed to via email by sending a request from your own internet addressable account to gars@netcom.com ++ It is archived at http://www.nanews.org Thanks to Don Rayment ,don.rayment@uptowne.com, Wotanging Ikche/ Kanoheda Aniyvwiya is being redistributed via a listserver. If you would like to receive Wotanging Ikche via the listserver, you can send a message to listserv@uptowne.com and include, in the body of your message "sub wotanging.ikche " Thanks to Borries Demeler all _Wotanging_Ikche_ (part a) submissions to AISESnet are archived under AISESnet and can be accessed easily by World Wide Web: 1994: http://aises.uthscsa.edu/94_dis.html 1995: http://aises.uthscsa.edu/95_dis.html 1996: http://aises.uthscsa.edu/96_dis.html 1997: http://aises.uthscsa.edu/97_dis.html This is a searchable index to the AISESnet Discussion mailing list database archive, and the keyword "Wotanging" will retrieve all issues for that year. "The red men knew nothing of trouble until it came from the white men. As soon as they crossed the great waters they wanted our country, and in return have always been ready to teach us to quarrel about their religion. Red Jacket can never be the friend of such men. If they (the Indians) were raised among white people, and learned to work and read as they do it would only make the situation worse." __ Chief Red Jacket, Seneca +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | Indian Pledge of Allegiance | The Indian Pledge of Alleg- | | iance was first presented | I pledge allegiance to my Tribe,| on 2 December '93 during the | to the democratic principles | opening address of the Nat- | of the Republic | ional Congress of American | and to the individual freedoms | Indian Tribal-States Relat- | borrowed from the Iroquois and | ions Panel in Reno, NV. NCAI | Choctaw Confederacies, | plans distribution of the | as incorporated in the United | Indian Pledge to all Indian | States Constitution, | Nations. | so that my forefathers | | shall not have died in vain | Walk in Beauty! Night Owl +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ O'siyo Brothers and Sisters! Read Red Jacket's quote above. We have learned to quarrel about many things. Read about factions at Sun Dances in the articles in this issue. Read about the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, turning on itself. Read and weep for the things we fight among ourselves over, when elders and children suffer for too few clothes and too little food. What is to become of the First People if those who occupy our lands and rule our lives are also able to make us dance like marionettes, quarreling among ourselves, while they laugh and take what is left of our land, our ways, our pride? Some have asked how they can help. Here's a thought. If you cannot send clothing (not worn rags, clothing) or food to those in need there is another way you can help elders preserve the traditions in a very non-traditional way. Often, these elders are called on to bring healing or teachings to places far distant from the reservations they live on. For a number of reasons it is often presumed these elders consider this such an honor that offering to buy gasoline to get them there is an insult. Then, there is the inevitable road hazard. Consider one of those pre-paid phone cards as a gift to one of the elders. It will help them call home, get help when they need it, let those who love them know they are safe. Peace! Night Owl , , Gary Night Owl gars@netcom.com (*,*) P. O. Box 672168 gars@nanews.org (`-') Marietta, GA 30067, U.S.A. gars@igc.apc.org ===w=w=== gars@bellsouth.net Fax: 770-528-9643 gars@juno.com ----------- News of the people featured in this issue ---------- Part A: Usenet and e-mail Part B: NATIVE-L list - Statement by Ramsey Clark - Freedom of Leonard Peltier THIS - Buffalo Nations Update ISSUE - Pine Ridge Sundance CONTAINS - Spiritual Meeting NO - Bear Lincoln Case Synopsis PART B - Violence in Tahlequah - Cherokee Constitutional Crises - Valid Tribal Court - Gustafsen: Lightbown Interview - Ban the "s" Word - Innu denounces Quebec to UN THIS - Is Hawaii a Really State ISSUE - 9th Circuit Court Decision-Part III CONTAINS - Sovereignty/Part 3 NO - A Hundred Years Ago PART B - In Remembrance of The People - Public Law 95-341 - Christopher Daniels Legal Fund - Prayers for a Young Brother THIS - Native Prisoner ISSUE - Poem: A Willing Life? CONTAINS - Verse: Hawaiian Book of Days NO - Conferences and Powwows - offline PART B --------- "RE: Statement by Ramsey Clark" --------- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:36:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Miketben@aol.com Subj: N.A.S.L. - LEONARD PELTIER #1 ************************************************************************ * NORTH AMERICAN SPIRIT LODGE * FOR YOUR INFO ************************************************************************ Subj: [Fwd: Statement by Ramsey Clark] Date: 97-08-17 12:04:31 EDT From: FREEPLTIER@aol.com Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 10:54:33 -0400 (EDT) The following website was recently brought to my attention. I had the honor of hearing Mr. Clark speak at the World-wide Clemency Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ramsey Clark is a former United States Attorney General and is an avid supporter of freedom for Leonard Peltier. I urge you all to visit : http: //www.dickshovel.com/clark.html and read the powerful statement he made on June 20th, 1997 to the Native American Journalists Association's Annual Conference. The following is a short excerpt... "Our duty, all of us, is to see that it is just and good and it is imperative that we recognize the enormity of the crimes that those who came from Europe have committed against those who Will Rogers said were 'at the dock to meet the Mayflower'...Leonard Peltier is the symbol of the struggle." Please visit this web site and read how Mr. Clark proves the innocence of Leonard, and calls for everyone's assistance in making his freedom a reality. "Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime are as indignant as those who are." FREE LEONARD PELTIER. In Struggle, Andy --------- "RE: Freedom of Leonard Peltier" --------- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 13:39:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Miketben@aol.com Subject: N.A.S.L. - LEONARD PELTIER #2 *************************************************************************** * NORTH AMERICAN SPIRIT LODGE * FOR YOUR INFO *************************************************************************** THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS TAKEN/COPIED FROM THE FOLLOWING WEBPAGE: http://www.dickshovel.com/clark.html PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBPAGE WHERE YOU CAN SIGN THE PETITION THEREIN INCLUDED WHICH BASICALLY STATES THE FOLLOWING: "By My Signature I Support The Granting Of A Presidential Pardon For LEONARD PELTIER" **************************************************************************** "FREE LEONARD PELTIER" NOTE: Presentation by Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, regarding Leonard Peltier made on June 20, 1997 at the Native American Journalists Association's Annual Conference I want to tell you why the freedom of Leonard Peltier is so important. There are well over 200 million indigenous people on the planet. I personally feel that there are over 300 million, but counters would say maybe 250 million. They live on six continents and on countless numbers of islands. And everywhere they are the most endangered of human species. Yet the survival of humanity depends upon their salvation. They were the people who were there first. The others always came in greater numbers and technology. Usually forced out by war, or lack of adequate food, whatever, from cultures that had sophisticated means of domination, the indigenous people everywhere are a spiritual people. I would think because they are close to nature. It's inherent really. Where are they, but on the land - Not like folks like me that started out on the land in Texas and now live on the pavement in New York City. What would we think of the species if it permitted the continuation of the onslaught against indigenous peoples? Yet, where do you see resistance? Where do you see understanding and commitment - to more than their survival, to their prevailing? In Guatemala, still 70% of the population is indigenous. Their renaissance in their culture is stunning to see. But the repression of the people, the systemic triage, literally the elimination of a third, by violence - physical and psychological, hunger and all the rest, is stunning. In Peru, the poverty of the indigenous people is unbearable. In many places, they are just barely hanging on. If in these United States, our Indian people cannot through vision and courage and unity and compassion prevail, what hope any place on earth is there for indigenous people? This is it, for better or worse. Because whether it's evil or good, this is the empire. Our duty, all of us, is to see that it is just and good and it is imperative that we recognize the enormity of the crimes that those who came from Europe have committed against those who Will Rogers said were "at the dock to meet the Mayflower." And if we fail, who would want to be a part of what's left? Because it would be a genocidal society that had succeeded in its genocide, in the extermination of not just a peoples, but of right and decency and justice. Leonard Peltier is the symbol of the struggle. Outside of this country, he is outside of movie stars and maybe a few athletes, like Mohammed Ali, one of the best known Americans. And they see in him the struggle of our indigenous people, for their dignity, for their sovereignty, for their future. And they wonder how it is that he's been held so long? I think I can explain beyond serious doubt, that Leonard Peltier has committed no crime whatsoever. But that if he had been guilty of firing a gun that killed a FBI Agent, it was in defense of not just his people but the integrity of humanity, from domination and exploitation. You have to remember no witness really said they saw Leonard take aim at anybody. No witness said they heard him shoot at the time he could have killed an agent. There was no evidence that he did it, except fabricated, circumstantial evidence, overwhelmingly misused, concealed and perverted. Among the things withheld in the trial were the staggering violence on Pine Ridge, that it existed certainty before Wounded Knee #2 in 1973. It had accelerated enormously. At the time of Wounded Knee in 1973, there were only a few FBI agents in the whole state of South Dakota, and frequently just one. But by 1975, there were 60. In proportion to the population, that was staggeringly high. And more than 40 Indian peoples on that reservation had died violent deaths, overwhelmingly from activity provoked by the federal government. And there is little doubt about it. An organization that proudly called itself the GOONS, Guardians of the Oglala Nation, we now know were provided with weapons, training and motivation - to create violence. In March of 1975, seven people were killed by violence. And that's why the traditional people, the elders, asked AIM (the American Indian Movement) to send some people to help protect them. And I say, thank God. That there was some young Indians that said 'I'll go.' 'I'm not going to see our people be eliminated by violence.' Fewer than 17 came, 6 men, and they came to protect tribal people, traditional Indians from violence by our government. These things are all interrelated. We should never forget Martin Luther King's heartbreaking words in 1967, when he came out against the war in Vietnam and he said, "The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own government." What an awful thing to have to say. But there is no question that our own government was generating violence constantly on the Pine Ridge reservation as a means of control and domination. We now know, from December of 1995 (released documents), that FBI had people in place at least 20 minutes before the two cars that drove down into the Jumping Bull compound arrived. They were preparing for a major act. They had a judge who excluded background evidence. The greatest exclusion was all of this violence. 'Why were these men there? Why was Leonard Peltier there?' He was there to protect people who were being killed If that's a crime, where are we? It's amazing to me still, how they talk about Myrtle Poor Bear, and blame her for not telling the truth. Because after it was all over, some agent came before the press and said 'there's not a scintilla of evidence, ' his word - scintilla, not a spark of evidence 'that Myrtle Poor Bear was a witness to anything.' She wasn't there, that's what he said. Now do you think she just came forward and volunteered three affidavits? Not on your life. What did that poor woman go through? What type of abuse? You can see that's the same sort of manipulation of a whole reservation sometimes, can't you? Of a whole population. But here they've got their hands on her head. I have a retarded daughter. I love retarded people. Poor Bear was easy to manipulate. She was not a coherent person. Her first affidavit said she didn't see anything. And then two more, and what did they do when they got them, whamee, off to Canada' as fast as they could go. What a shameful act! What a criminal act! Think of how they treated her. Where is there any respect for humanity among people who would treat a human being that way? And take advantage that way, for an end, to get Leonard Peltier and bring him back here. The other concealments that they went through are unbelievable. The FBI laboratory, is the subject of a whole series of reports that condemn it for fabricating evidence, for falsifying evidence, for incompetence in evaluation of evidence. Yet the extenuated nature of the only evidence against Leonard Peltier is so absurd that if it were a good laboratory, it wouldn't be worth anything. They covered up lab reports that said they could not connect the one bullet - it wasn't the bullet but the casing - an expended casing - they could not connect it with what I was called the "Wichita AR-15." It's an adaptation of the standard Army M-16 rifle. They said they could not match it with the Wichita gun or rifle, which was the gun they were trying to place in Leonard Peltier's hands, except it was found in the van that blew up just outside of Wichita, as it was driving down there And Leonard Peltier wasn't within 1,500 miles of it. So how does that get to be his rifle in the first place? Well, they had a plan for that. The FBI said there was only one AR-15 rifle on the reservation. But that was absolutely false. And the courts have now declared, without question, that there were multiple numbers of AR-15s there, and M-16s as well, which fire the same 223 cartridge, which is a high velocity cartridge that killed these FBI agents. They reenacted a scene for which they had no evidence whatsoever, in which Lynn Crooks, the main prosecutor who is still with the case, stood up in front of the jury and said one agent was suffering from having been hit at a distance and he put his hand in front of his head and pleaded not to be shot and was shot through the hand and killed by Leonard Peltier who then whirled and shot the other agent and killed him, both at point lank range. The only problem was there was absolutely no evidence of that, no witness testified to anything like that. And you know what he said, across the river here in St. Paul, on Nov. 12, 1993, from the man who was on the case as a prosecutor from the beginning, and is still on it, "We do not know who shot the two agents." That's a quote.. "We do not know who shot the two agents." Leonard Peltier is in prison, and has been there 22 years. He's there, convicted on two counts of murder, and he's serving two life sentences And the government has said, "We do not know who did it," and he went beyond that and said, "We did not prove who did it." And he went beyond that and said, "All we proved was that he participated." Well, Leonard was on the compound, there is no doubt about that. And he was down at Tent City when the shooting started. And he pulled on his boots and grabbed a rifle and ran up there as fast as he could. He went straight to Harry Jumping Bulls house. Because those are the people he's trying to protect.. They weren't there He could hear children in another house and he ran over there, people shooting at him the whole way. When Then he got there he realized, he was drawing fire. The best thing he could do to protect the kids was 'how's he going to get them out of there, ' you can't even tell where all the shooting's coming from. So he took a chance on getting out by himself again, telling the kids to get under the bed and stay there, because he wasn't going to draw fire to that house. They were shooting at the house, once they saw him run in there. You know you could go on like that for a long time, with all of the evidence that wasn't there. They have nothing except hatred and the desire to maintain the domination of the federal government that's existed over the Indian people for these too many dishonorable centuries now. To hold Leonard Peltier. And the government itself, let me say one thing about their statement that they do not know who killed the agents. It's not a mistake. And it's not a confession. It was a necessity. Because in that appellate argument, if they had maintained that they had proven who the assassin of those two FBI agents was, there would have to be a reversal because there was no evidence of it. So they had to maintain the argument that he was convicted for aiding and abetting. Which means he was aiding them, like 'can I hold your coat,' or 'your shoes are dusty. Let me brush them off.' It was a legal necessity, but you can't have it both ways. And the fact is, they didn't have to tell us they didn't know who shot the agents. The whole record shows they don't know who shot the agents. And they don't want anybody else to know. Because they want the world to believe that Leonard Peltier is guilty. Because they have staked their reputation on it. If we can't rise up and free him, what are we worth and what is the future of the country? The Indians of Mexico are incredible, like the Zapotec's, with their art. Leonard is a wonderful artist. He is a great human spirit. When I look at his paintings of 'Big Mountain Lady' as he calls her, you can see the nobility of his soul. Here is this elder woman, tears streaming down her face, as the US is opening the spiritual land of Big Mountain to mining. Come in there and rape the land, you know, for gravel, or whatever it is you want. Don't worry about nature or nature's people. Leonard's paintings are on four continents to my knowledge. I bet they're on six, but I'm not sure. It's takes time to catch up with people trading them. It's part of his power. He is able to communicate through his art, his painting - the truth and life and the spirituality of the Indian people. And he is in prison. And sadly, I have to comment as his lawyer, that his health is not good. He needs surgery and he doesn't want it, because when he first when in for this same surgery, he nearly died. He had to have six transfusions. Unbelievable. Other problems, he's been in much too long. It's not that he ought to be out now' he should never have been in in the first place. Never. And every day is a new crime, every dawn is a new crime, every dusk is a new crime against the dignity of the Indian peoples. Because while Leonard Peltier is in prison, we all are. The President of the United States can commute that sentence in the name of justice any moment he wants to. He has the power, complete and absolute, under the Constitution. Leonard really wants the commutation, because that conviction is just a trial, an acquittal is just a trial. Release from a pardon board after a conviction is just what some bureaucrats decide to do with your life. But a commutation is a statement from the Head of State, that this person should be free. It's a political statement from the highest office of our government that this person should be free, and we have to demand that it happens and we have to demand that it happens this year. It can happen this year, if we organize and work. It will happen this year. It's imperative that we do it. And while we don't, we ought to remember back to Benito Juarez,, a full- blooded Zapotec Indian, who twice became the president of Mexico, and whose words are inscribed just outside the general assembly of the United Nations chamber's auditorium, inside the UN building. Juarez found the wisdom and understanding in a few words the story of violence in our history. He said, "A respect for the rights of others is peace." It's true. Until Leonard Peltier's rights are respected, there can be no peace in our hearts and our minds, or if we have courage, in our bodies. For the good of indigenous people everywhere, and all those who depend on them, which is everybody else, it is imperative that we, you and I, secure the freedom of Leonard Peltier. Thank you. --------- "RE: Buffalo Nations Update" --------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:22:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Buffalo Nations Subj: buffalo update UUCP email Buffalo Nations Update * Newsletters Over 60,000 copies of Buffalo Nations and Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers newsletters have been distributed all over the world. These news letters informed people of the 1100 buffalo slaughtered by the state of Montana and discussed some feasible alternatives to stop the killing. * Distribution 1) Presence in Yellowstone National Park- Since June 1997 Buffalo Nations has tabled both inside the Park and surrounding towns., providing educational outreach materials. These tables are instrumental in educating thousands of tourists who do not completely understand the severity of the issue. 2) Over 200 business in Montana alone are distributing both newsletters. (Many other stores, groups and individuals are distributing throughout the U.S.) 3) Buffalo Bus-A VW van converted into a three dimensional buffalo with the Buffalo Nations name, address and phone on the side. As imagined, the buffalo bus is a real eye-catcher and makes appearances at fairs and other major events. * Mailing List/ Membership 1) Tabling, business distributions, individual and group outreach programs have helped compile an active mailing list of over 7000 people wishing to lend support. 2) Approximately 3500 concerned citizens have either sent donations or or signed up to be Buffalo Nations members. * Conferences 1) Holding a conference of traditional Native American elders to come together on a solution to the buffalo slaughter. * Federal Buffalo Bill 1) Formulating a Bill to be introduced to the United States Congress on protecting the last wild buffalo herd. 2) Sending and funding a lobbyist to Washington D.C. to push the Bill. * Media Out Reach 1) Producing a 5 minute, 3 minute, and three 30 second public service announcements on the buffalo slaughter and information on proposed legislation. 2) Producing an hour long documentary about the slaughter for a national television broadcast * Winter Campaign 1) Offer a buffalo hazing service to ranchers who in past years have had no other alternatives than to have the buffalo killed by the Montana Department of Livestock. The service will be provided to two towns where buffalo are killed , West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. 2) Repairing fences of local ranchers that are damaged by the buffalo and other wildlife as they migrate to traditional wintering grounds. 3) Contact local ranch supplies stores and request donations that will enable quality repairs. 4) Organize hazing efforts with the aid of snowmobiles, cross-country skis, and snowshoes to prevent the buffalo from being killed as they wander into the state of Montana. 5) Feeding the buffalo if necessary, to keep them from coming into Montana. 6) Conducting aerial fly-overs with Project LightHawk to document the condition of the buffalo herd inside Yellowstone National Park. 7) Document and distribute all occurrences of the winter by video, photos and news stories. 8) Keeping concerned citizens, businesses, groups, our mailing list and members informed of the situation as it develops through newsletter updates, e-mail and videos. * How You Can Help 1) Volunteer to come out to Montana this winter and help with the campaign. 2) Contact us about the Buffalo Bill and start phone trees, letter writing and petition signing campaigns in your state to get it passed. 3) Help distribute our all ready existing newsletters in your communities. 4) Internships- Earn college credits while saving buffalo. * Buffalo Nations- NEEDS LIST Computer Fax Machine Snowmobiles and Trailer Snowshoes Cross-country Skis 4-wheel drive trucks snow tires Wall Tents Wood Stoves for wall tents Propane Heater cooking gear winter- boots,clothing, gloves, hats chain saws, axes, splitting maul winter sleeping bags cots thermal rests tarps Video Camera (Sony digital 3 chip) & tapes Media 100 Software for Macintosh 35 mm Cameras film VCR machine (for dubs) Video tapes Fence repair supplies (wood, tools, etc.) Food File Cabinets tax deductible money donations Contact Buffalo Nations at: Buffalo Nations P.O. Box 242 Gardiner, Mt. 59030-0242 p- 406-848-9867 f- 406-848-7694 e-mail-buffalo@wildrockies.org Michael S. Mease PO Box 7941 Missoula MT 59807 406-728-0867 phone & fax mease@wildrockies.org --------- "RE: Pine Ridge Sundance" --------- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 22:38:22 -0400 (EDT) From: leslie@neca.com Subj: Pine Ridge Sundance UUCP email Greetings: Those of us who attended David Swallow's Sundance were very fortunate to do so. Perhaps many of you have read the latest few issues of Indian Country Today, where David and his brothers were targeted for accepting money for conducting ceremonies. When these accusations first came out, Val and I defended David. We still stand by him. We know him and we know what it is like there on the reservation where the OSTC has so much and most others have so little. We have seen this. Tree Day was a struggle...the White River ran really high...about chest high. not everyone could get over and there were some difficult crossings. It was really hard to get that tree. Davids sundance was disrupted the first day. The armed OSTC, ATF, FBI, and BIA enforcers were there along with Lyman Red Cloud. There was some shoving ( Pansy was pushed by a uniform) Pansy is the womens Sundance Leader.. But mostly, there was discussion back and forth over a trumped up charge by Lyman that we were all trespassing. Richard Swallow went right into Pine Ridge and that trespassing charge was thrown out for lack of proof.. the woman who brought the charges told the Judge that her children told her that it was her land..!!!!. We were told that the Tokala would be bothering us,...they had threatened to...and they tried to... ( Of course there are more details but, hey...) We were buzzed by a military helicopter during our Sundance and a Stealth plane flew overhead . Ostensibly looking for eagle feathers maybe? None of the non -indians had any feathers or eagle bones. We were privileged to have Princess Arena from Maori with us. Her vision had brought her to this Sundance and she prayed long and in her way for us for protection. It was beautiful. At one point during the police disruption David offered to go to jail.. they wanted to arrest the non-indians... and he stepped out of the arbor. The police just pushed him back and and said don't come out here.... None ever walked past the East gate either.... So, even though there were many disturbances and questions and concerns the sundancers completed their commitments, many ceremonies were performed and the group remained strong and became more unified. The disruptions were definitely on the level of jealousy and greed...The OSTC was trying to intimidate... They really did not care about the ceremony itself...Anyway we got a Federal injunction to stop the harassment. The OSTC cannot regulate or interfere with the religious practices of the Lakota people.( or those they choose to participate with in their practices ) We urged the OSTC to stop the illegal drugs and alcohol, and try to create jobs...Shannon county is the poorest in the nation...84% unemployment rate... receives 6.2 million in payments to individuals and another 60 million in services ...so why is it so poor there? So why is the OSTC housing really nice and surrounded by security fencing with a security gate? Why is the govt. housing that some citizens live in like a compost pile? Lots of questions and no answers... Anyway, As far as I know everyone who attended , other than the go'vt informants, learned a whole lot. We are all grateful to Tunkasila. Leslie --------- "RE: Spiritual Meeting" --------- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 15:43:04 +0100 From: Gary Christensen Subj: Spiritual Meeting UUCP email If you have time could you add the following to your newsletter? Thank you. Gary Grand Spiritual Meeting at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Sept. 3, 4, 5th 1997 Agenda: 1. Violation of Lakota Religion by Ogalala Sioux Tribe (O.S.T.) Police at Sundances. 2. O.S.T. Tokala Society violated Lakota Spirituality (George Tall). 3. O.S.T. Council violated Lakota Spirituality (Marshall Law) (Mr. Under Baggage). 4. Red Clouds' (Oliver Red Cloud). 5. Who is landlord of Sundances? All medicine men and Spiritual people are to attend this meeting. Meal will be provided. Bring your camping equipment. For more Info: Gerald Ice: (605) 867-1591 --------- "RE: Bear Lincoln Case Synopsis" --------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:25:15 -0700 From: Nicholas Wilson Subj: Bear Lincoln Murder Case Synopsis UUCP email Bear Lincoln Murder Case Synopsis by Nicholas Wilson 8/12/97 The prosecutor says Eugene "Bear" Lincoln should suffer the death penalty for the deliberate, premeditated murder of Deputy Sheriff George Robert "Bob" Davis and the indirect second degree murder of Lincoln's friend and cousin Leonard "Acorn" Peters. Those were two of the three gunshot deaths April 14, 1995 on the remote Round Valley Indian Reservation 145 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Lincoln had nothing to do with the third killing, but it set in motion the forces that resulted in the other two. Lincoln and Peters, two Wailaki Indian residents of the reservation in northeastern Mendocino County, California, were walking at night on a remote dirt road on their way from Lincoln's home up over a ridge and down the other side to the main part of the reservation where Peters lived. Both men were carrying rifles because they expected a revenge attack by members of the Britton family. Peters' brother had killed another Indian man, Gene Britton, only a few hours before, and there had been threats of retaliation by some Britton family members against Peters and Lincoln family members. Deputy Davis and Deputy Dennis Miller were in a patrol car at a point where the dirt road topped the ridge under a canopy of small oaks and other trees. They were watching for the suspect in the Britton homicide, whom they believed to be armed and dangerous. According to Lincoln what happened next is that he was walking about 25 ft. behind Peters as they approached the ridgetop around a curve in the road. Suddenly, with no visible or audible warning, there was a barrage of gunfire and Peters dropped in front of him. Lincoln believed he was under fire from Brittons, but could not see anyone. He fired several wild shots while running forward, then jumped over a drop-off on the downhill side of the road and ran down a foot trail some distance where he hid near an old cabin. He thought he was being chased and would be killed. After about 4 minutes, when no one had come after him and he was concerned about his friend, he made his way back to the road about 70 ft downhill from the crest of the ridge. He was seen and more shots came his way. He fired his single remaining bullet toward the still unseen shooter and then fled down the road to his mother's home, where he warned her and other relatives that they were in danger, saying, "They'll come kill all you guys. You've got to get away." Deputy Miller tells a very different story. He says that he and Davis had just arrived at the ridgetop and backed their patrol vehicle off the road onto an intersecting fire trail that ran along the ridge. After a brief walk to secure the immediate vicinity, the two returned to their vehicle to keep an eye on the road. Almost immediately Davis alerted Miller that someone was coming. Both deputies got out, and Davis shined a flashlight on a man carrying a rifle, and said "Sheriff's Department, drop the gun," three times. The man shouldered the rifle and fired a shot, and both deputies opened fire with their pistols. The man went down and it was quiet. After a few minutes they heard sounds in the brush and thought someone might be flanking them and preparing to attack them from behind. They decided to move across the road to take cover in a clump of small oaks. Davis wanted to check the fallen man to make sure he didn't surprise them. As Davis bent over the body, Miller saw motion down the road and fired a burst of full-automatic fire from an M-16 assault rifle. Almost simultaneously he fell over an embankment, hit on his shoulder, rolled, and came back up. He saw that Davis had been shot in the head. He saw more movement down the road and fired another burst at it. The prosecution contends that it was a bright moonlit night, and that the deputies' marked patrol vehicle was parked in an open area where it could be seen. Therefore the two Indians knew they were dealing with law officers. Miller says Davis identified himself as a sheriff's officer, and fired only after the suspect fired first. The prosecution says Lincoln could have fled after Peters was shot, but instead decided to sneak around behind the officers and shoot them from hiding, and that he deliberately and with premeditation shot Davis with the intent to kill him, knowing that he was a police officer engaged in the performance of his duties. Lincoln has admitted he was at the scene, witnessed the shooting of Peters, and immediately returned fire. But he didn't see who he was shooting at, firing randomly in self defense in the direction the shots had come from. He doesn't know if his bullet hit anyone. It was dark. Afterwards he hid out for four months knowing he was blamed for killing a sheriff's officer, not because he was guilty but because he believed he would be shot on sight if he tried to surrender to sheriff's officers. He did turn himself in August 1995 after he had found good legal representation in the person of famed San Francisco defense attorney J. Tony Serra. Lincoln's legal team contends Lincoln is not guilty of murder even if his bullet did kill Davis because he fired only in self-defense. But there is no proof any of Lincoln's bullets did hit Davis, and it could be a case of "friendly fire" in which he was killed by one of Deputy Miller's bullets as he sprayed fully automatic M-16 fire and fell down. The single bullet that killed Davis fragmented into mere flecks of metal, some of which were recovered from his brain after autopsy. The Lincoln team's theory is that the two deputies opened fire from ambush when they thought they saw the armed killer wanted for the Britton murder walking up the road. After killing him they realized their act of murder had been witnessed by someone, and they tried to kill the witness to cover themselves. After Miller accidentally shot the other officer instead, he concocted his whole story to cover up what really happened and blame everything on an Indian. Miller changed his initial story after he learned that tests proved Peters' gun had not been fired at all that night. Now he remembered seeing two men together on the road right at the first, but lost sight of the second man. The prosecutor could now argue that since Peters had not fired, and Miller says he saw a muzzle blast, that it must have been Lincoln who fired first, making him guilty of provoking the return fire which killed Peters, making him guilty of second degree murder of Peters. Even though it was the deputies who were waiting in the dark off the road for their suspect, the prosecution charges Lincoln with lying in wait, on the theory that he hid himself and attacked the officers instead of running away after the first gunfire. Davis suffered a graze wound to his hand at some time. The prosecution theorizes that the wound occurred during the first round of gunfire, making it possible to charge Lincoln with attempted murder for that wound as well as actual murder in the second round of gunfire. The District Attorney decided to seek the death penalty for Lincoln based on first degree murder with special circumstances of knowingly killing a police officer, murder while lying in wait, and multiple murder based on the death of Peters. After an arduous jury selection process lasting three months, during which nearly 4000 persons were summoned for jury duty, the trial began July 29 before an all-white jury. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to eliminate three Indians and two other persons of color from the final jury panel. Judge John J. Golden has imposed a total gag order barring any information or comment from lawyers or the defendant to the public or media. He has forbidden photography, television and audio recording or broadcasting of the trial. He has ordered transcripts of the trial to be available for public reading in the court clerk's office, but no copies can be made. There are unresolved charges of jury tampering by a sheriff's deputy during the selection process. There have been attempts by individuals to influence jurors outside the courthouse and to get certain ones removed from the jury. Some of the facts in controversy at trial are: * whether the scene was brightly lit by a full moon, or whether it was dark because the moon was low in the southeast and the scene was on the west side of a tree-canopied ridge, or because there were broken clouds obscuring the moonlight at the time. * whether the deputies' patrol car was in plain view, or whether they deliberately parked it where the curving road, topography and vegetation would hide it from sight until a person was in the position where the deputies shot Peters to death from 25 ft. away. * whether the police radio was easily audible well before Lincoln and Peters came into view of the patrol car or whether the car window was rolled up on the side nearest the Indians, or possibly that there was no sound coming out of the radio that would let them know that there was a police car ahead. * whether Davis gave a loud and clear identification and order to drop the weapon before opening fire on Peters, or opened fire without warning. * whether a bullet fired by Lincoln struck and killed Davis or whether that bullet could have come from Miller's gun. * whether Lincoln knew at the time that he was facing law officers or believed he was under attack from Brittons. * whether Lincoln's avoiding arrest afterwards was because he knew he was guilty of murdering a police officer or because as a Native American versed in the local history of his people he had a reasonable belief that he would killed if he was caught or surrendered. * whether a trail of blood drips from the shooting scene down the road almost to Lincoln's house could have come from Deputy Davis. If so, Davis could not have died in the scenario told by Miller, and it would support the defense contention that the deputies chased after Lincoln trying to kill him because he witnessed their wrongful killing of Peters. * whether Miller is truthful or whether he lied and changed his story to cover up a murder of Peters by Miller and Davis, and possibly an attempted murder of Lincoln by Davis and an accidental killing of Davis by Miller. * whether the location and distribution of bullet casings at the scene are consistent with Lincoln's scenario or with Miller's. * whether there was tampering with or removal of evidence from the scene consistent with a cover-up. * whether the number and kind of bullet casings recovered from the scene are consistent with what "earwitnesses" described as "like a war zone." Ultimately, the most important decision the jury will have to make is whether to believe Dennis Miller or Bear Lincoln. Follow this important and historic case as the trial continues through November. Free to all in the Albion Monitor electronic newspaper with no advertising at http://www.monitor.net/monitor *********************************************************** * U.S. Mail to: * * Nicholas Wilson * * P.O. Box 943 * * Mendocino CA 95460 * * Albion Monitor online newspaper covers Bari and Lincoln * * http://www.monitor.net/monitor * * Official Judi Bari Home Page * * http://www.monitor.net/~bari * * New Lincoln Peters Defense Alliance Web Site * * http://www.zapcom.net/~horizon/ * * Other Bear Lincoln/Round Valley web sites: * * http://www.planet-peace.org/round_valley/ * * http://www.cyborganic.com/people/bear/ * * http://www.dickshovel.com/beara.html * * http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/emerg/may08bea.html * *********************************************************** --------- "RE: Violence in Tahlequah" --------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:52:07 -0500 From: lozen Subj: Cherokee update--violence breaks out in Tahlequah Newsgroups: alt.native,soc.culture.native For those who haven't heard, violence broke out at the Tahlequah courthouse today as the former marshalls, led by Marshall Pat Ragsdale, attempted to follow an order of the ousted tribunal (this gets complicated) and reclaim possession of the building from the current security/marshall service led by Harold Jordan. BIA was in charge of law enforcement for the day, so their press said, BIA also is backing the current security/marshalls service. During a conversation at the door of the building, a brawl broke out between Ragsdale and Jordan. by the time things were straightened out, BIA police had arrested: --Ragsdale, --Cherokee activist and former candidate for Chief, Chad Smith (for crossing a "no cross" zone, apparently) --and former (??) Prosecutor Diane Blalock, for..??? At this writing, charges haven't yet been announced. conversations are ongoing. Jordan has now vowed to keep the former marshalls, fired by Chief Joe Byrd, out of the building forever. At present, everyone involved seems to have sued, impeached, fired, or otherwise disenfranchised everyone else, at one time or another; however, this tangled web now stands at: Chief Byrd...still in power, with his own marshall's service, augmented as needed by BIA firepower; Diane Blalock and justices....declared ousted by Byrd, they defy that new marshalls....occupying the courthouse old marshalls...have their official cars, some gear, being sued by Byrd, et al to get them back tribal council....changed voting patterns monday night. BIA....officially can take over police powers at any time, in reality; officially, they're there to observe (with guns on hips); also, in reality to back the current marshalls service, hence Chief Byrd, as they have been for some time. Chief Byrd was not seen at the altercation today. The BIA, obviously, was, as they hauled folks away. LPP -- Your visit is welcomed at: http://www.geocities.com/~lenapelady --------- "RE: Cherokee Constitutional Crises" --------- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 16:06:26 -0700 From: Nancy Thomas Subj: Cherokee Constitutional Crises Mailing List: Paths-L POWER STRUGGLE OF CHEROKEE NATION AT BREAKING POINT by Pat Poland A little known power struggle has been occurring within the boundaries of The Cherokee Nation in Tahlequah,Oklahoma. For months, now, the situation has grown intense as the principal Cherokee Chief, Joe Byrd, has virtually been caught with his hand in 'the cookie jar' of tribal monies. In an attempt to cover up the allegations, Chief Byrd impeached the Cherokee Marshals with an illegal move, without a quorum. Byrd and his self- appointed Marshals, raided the Tahlequah Courthouse on June 20th, where the incriminating records were being kept, and ousted the true Cherokee Marshals. Byrd and his companions made a vain attempt to seek Federal intervention in Washington, D.C. last week. The Washington judge said she.. . 'hoped the tribe could settle the matter in a peaceful way with integrity.' Chief Byrd stated that...' This is an intertribal matter an should be handled within the framework of The Cherokee Nation." During the arguments in Washington, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' lawyers said that the BIA was not preventing the Justices from hiring a locksmith and recovering the building. In assuming law enforcement for the Cherokee Nation, the BIA, promised to enforce orders of the Tribal Court. After conversations with policy level officials in Washington, the Cherokee Nation expected the BIA to fully recognize and respect the Court's order. The struggle to regain the Tahlequah Courthouse and place it in the hands of its rightful owners, the Cherokee Nation, has now escalated to a showdown on the Tahlequah Courthouse lawn. The Judicial Court of Tribunal Appeals of The Cherokee Nation entered an order Sunday, August 10, in response to last Wednesday's Federal Court ruling in Washington, D.C. The order directs The Cherokee Nation Marshall Service, under the direction of Pat Ragsdale to recover the Cherokee Nation Courthouse at noon, Wednesday, August 13th. Cherokee statutes and The Cherokee Constitution require that the Court maintain control of the building. Citizens of The Cherokee Nation will be gathering in a non-violent manner to witness the return of The Cherokee Nation's courthouse by Ragsdale and the legal Cherokee Nation Marshals into the hands of the citizens of The Cherokee Nation. News media have been invited also, to record this event. The Cherokee Nation will be celebrating the 150 year anniversary of The Cherokee Nation's Constitution on Labor Day weekend beginning Friday, August 15 through Monday, September 1st. -=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=- Read more about the Cherokee Constitutional Crises by going to the following URL's found on "the People's Paths home page!" the People's Paths home page! "You are a guest but once!" http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/ "the People's Paths http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/paths.html Paths to Changing News!!! "Native American Radio Online" (Native American Indian Music, News, & Opinion) "Indian Gaming News & Updates!" http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/upnews.shtml Cherokee Observer (Online Edition) http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/Cherokee/Observer.shtml Do' nv da go hvi, Nancy Thomas nlthomas@YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net Keeper of the People's Paths home page --------- "RE: Valid Tribal Court" --------- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 21:49:41 GMT From: gehring.1@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Glenn Gehring) Subj: *Cherokee Nation* U.S. recognizes Judicial!! Newsgroups: alt.native,soc.culture.native From the Observer's web site http://www.YvwiiUsdinvnohii.net/Cherokee/Observer.shtml U.S. Justice Department Recognizes the Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal As Valid Tribal Court by Connie Webb, Times Journal staff writer [Published August 16, 1997 in the Tahlequah Times Journal] The U.S. Justice Department recognizes the Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal as a valid tribal court, according to U.S. Attorney John Raley, in the aftermath of the violence that erupted Wednesday in Tahlequah. "Enough is enough," Raley said Thursday when asked his opinion of the controversial situation that continues to divide the Cherokee Nation, but declined further comment. However, Raley confirmed he has been involved in numerous discussions with the Department of Justice and the Department of interior during the last 48 hours. "I can't speak for the BIA but the Department of Justice recognizes the Tribunal as a valid court," he said. It has been reported that the Washington, D.C. office of the BIA has been forced by the Department of Justice to recognize the validity of the Tribunal. But the area BIA office in Muskogee, is ignoring that position and adamantly refuses to enforce the orders issued by the Tribal Court. Joe Byrd, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, maintains the justices are impeached, even though the proceedings violated the Cherokee Constitution. Byrd said in a press conference held Thursday that an 8-7 vote of the Tribal Council upheld the impeachment of the Justices. With one council member absent, Deputy Chief Garland Eagle, who faces an arrest warrant issued by the Tribunal for contempt, cast the vote that broke the tie. Tribal Councilman Harold "Jiggs" Phillips said the vote was not to uphold the impeachment but rather, to reject an agreement to temporarily put aside the differences between Byrd and the court. "Garland Eagle had it within his power to restore the constitutional government of the Cherokee Nation and he refused to do so," said Chief Justice Ralph Keen. "The public is not aware of this, but the Tribunal met with Byrd and four of his supporters on the council prior to Tuesday night's Tribal Council meeting," said Keen. By the end of that meeting the members of the Tribunal were under the impression that a deal had been struck which would settle the crisis and would be announced during the Tuesday night meeting o f the Tribal Council "Again, Byrd did not keep his word," said Keen. What ensued was an orchestrated attempt by tribal Council members loyal to Byrd to publicly embarrass and humiliate the members of the Tribunal, according to Phillips. Tribal Councilman Bill John Baker of Tahlequah referred to Tribal Justices Keen, Dwight Birdwell and Philip Viles as "you boys" and "idiots." He later apologized following an outcry from the standing-room-only crowd. Former Deputy Chief John Ketcher said he doubted the sincerity of Baker's apology. "Never in more than two decades of the existence of the Cherokee Nation has a Cherokee Nation Councilor been so disrespectful to guests of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council," Ketcher said. "This is a first term for Mr. Bill John Baker and it could be his last... .It is understandable now why the voters of Tahlequah and Cherokee County have repeatedly turned down electing him to any political office. "Unfortunately, the Cherokee did not know him that well, but I assure you, we are learning," Ketcher said. Several people were injured when law enforcement officers from several agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, used physical force to stop an attempted take-over of the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service. Law enforcement officers were observed throwing Cherokee citizens, both men and women, off the back porch of the tribal courthouse building. "It appeared to me to be a gross over-reaction on the part of law enforcement and a violation of the civil rights of the people present," said Keen. Keen said he had been assured by U.S. Attorney John Raley that neither the BIA nor other law enforcement agencies present would interfere with the Marshal Service in carrying out the orders of the Tribunal. "He [Raley] told me the police would be standing by to prevent violence.. .not to help Byrd's security force retain possession of the building," said Keen. Marshal Service Director Pat Ragsdale, who led the foiled takeover attempt, was acting on a court order issued by the Judicial Appeals Tribunal to retake control of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Courthouse. During a press conference held Thursday Ragsdale said there was an "incredible amount of evidence" that indicates very serious criminality going on in the Cherokee Nation. "What it boils down to is about money...almost blatant robbery," Ragsdale said. It has been alleged that millions of dollars are "being siphoned out of the Cherokee Nation by the Byrd administration--money that was intended to assist tribal members with housing and health car e. Ragsdale was investigating Byrd's administration for allegations of misuse of federal funds when he was fired by the chief. Keen insists that Ragsdale is not "a fired marshal" because he was legally reinstated by the Tribunal. In what appears to be a total disregard of the Cherokee Constitution he took an oath to uphold, Byrd has fired and impeached everyone connected to the investigation of his office who could bring him to trial. Byrd has also ignored court orders and stated he will obey only the orders he thinks are lawful. In 1995 Ragsdale began an investigation of the tribe's Housing Authority Director, Joel Thompson. In a letter to Byrd, Ragsdale stated he had discovered evidence that indicated Thompson was possibly involved in alleged illegal acts connected to his position at the Housing Authority. Byrd immediately ordered Ragsdale off the investigation of Thompson, and without Tribal Council approval, created a new position for a tribal inspector general and appointed Bob Powell, a former O SBI agent to the position. The investigation of Thompson was turned over to Powell where it ended at the tribal level. However, Ragsdale gave his information to the FBI, and their investigation turned up an illegal secret bank account and the use of Housing Authority funds for the political campaign of both Byrd a nd Tribal Councilman "Chuck" Hoskins. The FBI's investigation is still in progress. Tulsa attorney Charles "Chuck" Shipley, who represents the Tribal Justices said the Justices and Ragsdale had been "double-crossed by the apparent collusion between the BIA, Chief Byrd and Dianne Barker-Harrold." The courthouse had been closed since June 20, when members of Principal Chief Joe Byrd's newly formed security force, assisted by Bureau of Indian Affairs officers and area law enforcement agencies gained control of the building and ejected the tribe's Marshal Service. Neither the Marshal Service nor Byrd's security force is currently recognized by the BIA or the U.S. Department of Interior as a legitimate law enforcement agency. According to a letter written by Michael Anderson for Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Ada Deer, "...the BIA has assumed exclusive responsibility for tribal law enforcement for the Cherokee Nation." And until the BIA formally turns the responsibility back to the Cherokee Nation, no other law enforcement officials other than the BIA are authorized to enforce tribal law. However, many Cherokees are now questioning why the BIA did not assist in carrying out the lawful orders of the Judicial Appeals Tribunal instructing the Marshal Service to retake control of the tribal courthouse. The historic 100-year-old courthouse, located in downtown Tahlequah, is the head-quarters of the Cherokee Nation's Judicial branch. The Cherokee Nation Tribal Council passed legislation in 1995 which gives the Judicial Appeals Tribunal control over the tribal courthouse. The members of the Tribunal have been denied access to the courthouse by Byrd's security force since the takeover. Shipley said the Justices were assured by U.S. Attorney Raley that their August 10th order directing Ragsdale to retake the courthouse would be peacefully carried out with the support of the Cherokee County District Attorney's Office and the local BIA police. "Mr. Raley has worked tirelessly to effect the lawful and peaceful recovery of the Tribal Courthouse by the Judicial Appeals Tribunal, but once again, he was misled and deceived by local forces," Shipley stated. Barker Harrold was not present during the confrontation that took place at the courthouse square on Wednesday. Shipley said he had heard reports that the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office was outraged at Barker-harrold's presence during the June 20 takeover of the tribal courthouse by Byrd's security force. Shipley said it had been reported to him the District Attorney was allegedly warned she risked losing her prosecutorial immunity if she continued to use the authority of her office to become a party in similar incidents. "No matter what Joe Byrd says to the contrary, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal is a valid court and any orders issued by them are also valid according to the position taken by the Department of Justice," Shipley said. [**CO Note: For reference see, Letter From Last Summer: Marshal Ragsdale to Chief Byrd] -=+=+=+=+=- Provided by: The CHEROKEE OBSERVER P.O. Box 1301 Jay, OK. 74346-1301 Phone/FAX: (918) 253-8752 cwyob@mailhost.galstar.com -=+=+=+=+=- The Cherokee National Holiday is Labor Day weekend in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. --------- "RE: Gustafsen: Lightbown Interview" --------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 12:19:21 -0700 From: "S.I.S.I.S." Subj: Lightbown interview: Latin American Connexions :-:-:-:-:-:-:-Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty-:-:-:-:-:-:-: INDIGENOUS RIGHTS GUSTAFSEN LAKE TRIAL: THE CUTTING EDGE OF COLONIALISM Interview by Fiona Jeffries - reprinted from Latin America Connexions magazine, July/August '97 conexion@vcn.com The media silence surrounding the events of the RCMP siege on Aboriginal people at Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia in the summer of 1995 and the ongoing trial of activists arrested there speaks to a much larger complicity in the process of attacks on Aboriginal rights in this country. The connections between the violence against indigenous people at Gustafsen Lake and what we read and write about Latin America are striking. A rancher operating his business on land illegally taken, and, an over zealous police force apparently acting in the rancher's interests with the collusion of the political establishment typify the kind of onslaught indigenous people are facing daily throughout Latin America. After several years of holding ceremonies at the same site without conflict, the sundancers were besieged by one of the biggest police operations in Canadian history. After leaving the camp peacefully the defenders were arrested, charged and brought to trial. One of the main leaders, Wolverine, was denied bail throughout the lengthy proceedings. Defendants were convicted on some charges and now await sentencing. Supporters are calling for a public inquiry. Fiona Jeffries of Latin America Connexions interviewed Bill Lightbown, a Kootenai Elder, sovereigntist, and social justice activist for over 40 years. He is a spokesperson for the Ts'peten Defence Committee. He is a founding member and former President of the United Native Nations. *** Lightbown: The assault on Aboriginal people at Gustafsen Lake did not start in August 1995, the whole process began in January when Sundancer organizers and now defendants Percy Rosette and Jones Ignace (Wolverine) signed a legal document demanding a third party tribunal to look into the issue of unceded territory there. Under cross-examination by defender Shelagh Franklin, Len Olfert, RCMP operational commander admitted that there was a plan put together in May to make it look like the whole affair was started by the Aboriginal people there. Lyle James (the rancher who claims ownership of the land) had no previous concern about the sundance taking place, but was brought into the process by the RCMP, who started the initial confrontation. Early on, the climate was set for a confrontation by the police through James. At one point one of the ranch hands who confronted the sundancer organizers threatened, "this would be a good day to hang a red nigger". They used him as a conduit for their own agenda, which was to delegitimize any jurisdictional argument surrounding the legality of land tenure in this province. The police orchestrated the escalation of violence which despite the propaganda, was perpetrated solely on their part throughout the siege. LAX: Those of us who watched the event on TV witnessed the surprising level of military force used by the RCMP. Why would the RCMP raise that kind of force to get 18 women, men and children off a piece of land? Lightbown: There is a so-called treaty making process going on in BC right now and many nations involved are expressing discontent in the process, as it is increasingly exposed as a tool to codify and contractualize the relationship of aboriginal people to the land. It is designed as a method which will sign away forever the existing rights referred to as "aboriginal rights" and replace them with "treaty rights." It is important to understand the political and cultural implications of re-defining rights in this way. The Canadian Constitution includes in it the rights of Aboriginal people and it also includes the Royal Proclamation which states clearly that the colonial governments cannot claim jurisdiction over any land that has not been signed away by treaty. Since only two treaties have been signed in BC, it is clear that the BC government has assumed ownership of land illegally. When the Constitution [Act] was created in 1982 it gave protection to aboriginal rights forever and this can only be changed through amendments to the constitution and only upon agreement by Aboriginal people. There are 1100 hours of footage of the siege taken by RCMP cameras. Here we can see clearly all the incidents that were created. It's ironic that the RCMP taped their own criminal activity and were caught in numerous lies on the witness stand due to this footage. They shot up their flak jackets in a shooting range and then stated the holes were from the camp, they also shot up their Suburban vehicle in an attempt to frame the defenders. In another incident, a camp truck was blown up with two sundancers and a dog on their way to get water. They were in a no-shoot zone and it was clear from the footage that the members were going to get water as it shows them loading the water containers. It's a miracle that they weren't killed by the explosion, sharpshooters did kill the dog as it was running from the explosion. According to court testimony when the truck blew up [by a "land mine" as reported by Oct. 8, 1996 Globe and Mail] that was a green light for the RCMP to start shooting, they shot 77,000 rounds that day. Afterwards, the police ordered James to log that tract of land in order to destroy evidence of such clearly unwarranted police violence. In the police notes it became obvious that the orders to shoot people came through the BC government and the final decision to issue personnel carriers came from the Federal government. The official cover-up by the Provincial and Federal governments, the media and the RCMP have now reached the courts. The judge has been complicit by disallowing evidence presented in court. As for the trial itself, I have never seen such an abuse of the court process. The Judge consistently disallowed evidence without reason and informed the jury not to consider evidence presented by Dr. Bruce Clark (who was on the stand for three weeks), OJ Pitawanakwat, Wolverine and Shelagh Franklin who are all representing themselves. He also told the jury that when considering the testimony they had to assume the rancher owned that property that the Sundance was on, and for this reason they would have no choice but to find everyone guilty of private property violations - Lyle James doesn't own that property and the Judge knows it. Judge Josephson ordered that the arguments of sovereignty and jurisdiction could not be raised. He also ignored the Colour of Right defence [the honest belief of the defendants they had a legal right to use the land] which had never failed in a legal case involving Aboriginal people and would have succeeded had it been allowed. [The Judge also disallowed the defence of self-defence and again gave no explanation.] There have been numerous contraventions of the judicial process on the part of the Judge, and over 100 legal justifications to throw the case out of court altogether. These are all reasons why the media are staying away in droves. The contradictions are too transparent. LAX: Could you comment on the role of the media throughout the whole process? Lightbown: First I need to place the media's complicity from the start of the siege to the trial itself within the wider historical context within which all this is taking place. There is no question of an ongoing process of genocide in this country. The most obvious perpetrators are the politicians, the police and the judiciary. The second most serious offender in this process is the media because it is most responsible for informing the public. Their deliberate racist attitudes towards aboriginal people makes them complicit. The media consistently goes out of its way to make us look like idiots or outlaws. In BC it is worse because through the land-claims and so-called treaty process it's becoming increasingly apparent that the majority of territory in BC is unceded and therefore occupied illegally. The media was complicit in encouraging hostility against Aboriginal people in BC and support for killing everyone in the camp. There is no question that the media misrepresented everything that was going on at Gustafsen Lake. Almost every time Sgt. Montague held a press conference, which was sometimes twice a day, I would follow with another where I would explain to the media what was going on. They must have a mountain of tapes and notes of that. Where is all that information? The media knows who the aggressors were. There was media from all over the country at the site -- around 80 reporters at any given time. Some truthful reporting managed to get out back east and in Edmonton, and more probably would have if the media had not been so tightly censored by the police too! LAX: The defenders and supporters are demanding a public inquiry into the whole affair, can you explain the role an inquiry could play? Lightbown: A public inquiry is the most practical. There should be a third party arbitration - if the government is right then it should not be afraid of that. So far there is no indication that this will happen however. In the appeal we refer to the demand that came out of the camp: that they were prepared to withdraw or leave at any time as long as a third party arbitration was to take place. This demand was to go to the Solicitor General, then the Lieutenant Governor and finally the Queen. Instead the RCMP sent it to Ujjal Dosanjh (BC's Attorney-General) who killed it there, stating this was not a land or rights issue but a law and order issue. We are prepared to go into proper legal processes and the government is afraid because it will expose the illegality of not only what happened at Gustafsen Lake, but also the whole issue of land and aboriginal rights. We cannot possibly get a public inquiry unless the information gets out to civil society who should be demanding an inquiry. We'll be concentrating on getting information out to the public both in Canada and internationally -- this is the role the media SHOULD be playing if they have any interest in exposing the truth. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2 EMAIL : WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html PLEASE NOTE: Our server crashed recently and repairs are still underway. You may receive a message if you send us mail stating that the mail has bounced. This is not so. We ARE receiving mail sent to us. According to our service provider, this glitch will be cleared up soon. SOVERNET-L is a news-only listserv concerned with indigenous sovereigntist struggles around the world. To subscribe, send "subscribe sovernet-l" in the body of an email message to For more information on sovernet-l, contact S.I.S.I.S. --------- "RE: Ban the "s" Word" --------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 97 20:06:44 PDT From: kolahq@skynet.be Subj: Ban the "s" word Mailing List: NAT-REL BACKGROUND INFO *********************************************************************** In whatever dictionary you look the "s" word up in, it is always stated that it is often derogatory. The Encyclopedia of Slang defines the "s" word as a synonym for "prostitute", along with such words as "hussy" and "floozy". The Pocket Dictionary of American Slang defines it as "an ugly prostitute", also mentioning that it is WWII U.S. Navy use. The definition in Webster's Desk Dictionary (1993) reads : "often offensive : - an American Indian woman". From various sources we learned that the word is derived from the Mohawk word "otsikwaw", which we can politely translate "vagina". It identifies an American Indian woman by that part of her body alone. It is equivalent to calling her the "c" word. Yes, you guessed it right... We're talking about THE "s" word: squaw. In the Algonquin languages, however, it does not have a diminutive connotation. In fact, in the Algonquin language "squa" or "skwa" is a suffix used to make a word feminine. Massachusetts "squa" was an ancient and thoroughly decent word. But white colonizers only remembered the offensive term, which is still in use today. The "s" word is derogatory and demeaning and therefore should be banned. Today, it is never used in an honorable manner. In the movies, for example, it is always used as a hateful and hurtful term. American Indian women feel hurt, insulted, and degraded. Any name place that includes the word "squaw" represents the sexual objectification of all women and of American Indian women in particular. In 1995, Minnesota became the first state to require counties to rename geographic features -- 19 lakes, streams and points -- with the word squaw in them. Squaw Lake, the lake, has been changed to Nature's Lake. Squaw Point is now Oak Point. But Squaw Lake, the city, has not changed. The law, a small first step, applied only to such geographic features as lakes, streams, hills, tourist points of interest, etc., not to city names. The anti-squaw campaign has spread to the rest of the USA as well. The "s" word appears on more than 1,050 geographic features around the country, most of them concentrated in the Midwest and the West. This compares to only 143 places named "Nigger" and only 26 places named "Jap". The U.S. Geological Survey's Board on Geographic Names can ban names. In 1967, it outlawed the use of the words "nigger" and "jap" on geographic features. Nigger was changed to "Negro", and Jap was changed to "Japanese". Today, the Board is being inundated with "s" word complaints, and it intends to take them up one at a time. For example, a local Indian nation requested that Squaw Gulch in Siskiyou County, California, be changed to Taritsi Gulch. The California advisory committee on geographic names endorsed the change, despite opposition from local non-Indians and county officials, and sent it along to the national board. In Oregon, where 161 features have the "s" word in their name, there was talk of changing them all. So far, only Squaw Butte is changing. If approved by the national board and the Secretary of Interior, it will become Paiute Butte. In Arizona, where there are 73 place names with the "s" word, an American Indian legislator and a Phoenix City councilman have tried, unsuccessfully so far, to delete the "s" word from the atlases. US Representative Jack Jackson, who is Dineh, was even called over-sensitive and criticized for political correctness! Several groups, such as the AIM Arizona Chapter Youth Council, are now pressuring Arizona state officials to ban the "s" word. Rugged Squaw Peak, for example, is a prominent feature of the Phoenix city skyline and a popular hiking area. Native Americans want it changed to Iron Mountain, the Akimel O'Otham (Pima) name for it. We are asking for your support in this matter and hope that, very soon, American Indian derogatory names, logos, mascots, and so on, will be a thing of the past. We can empower ourselves by refraining from using the term and educating others about the word. The issue is not only an American Indian women's issue, but a gender issue. The American Indian men should feel offended, for the "s" word degrades their mothers, wives, daughters, sisters and grandmothers. And it's an all-men's issue out of respect for all women, the givers of life. Please write letters, ask friends and relatives, politicians, professors, etc. to do the same. You can use the sample letter below. Thank you ! *********************************************************************** SAMPLE LETTER You can either sent the letter handwritten or typed by snail mail to KOLA (see address at end of message) or by email sign-on. In the latter case, please cut and paste this message so that only the letter below remains. Make sure your full name and address are underneath the text, and sent it to with in the subject of your email message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To the Department of Library Archives & Public Records State Capitol 1700 W. Washington, suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 To the Arizona State Legislature, To Bruce Babbitt, U.S. Secretary of Interior, Re: Geographic Site Names Sirs, We have learned from American Indian elders, who speak the original languages of the Indigenous People of the American continent, that the word "squaw" is a term referring to female genitalia, and by its usage represents the sexual objectification of all women and of American Indian women in particular. We wish to add our name to the list of people, including Senator Paul D. Well stone of Minnesota, Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Arizona State Representatives Jack Jackson, Sally Gonzalez, Debora Norris and Debra Brimhall, Arizona businessman and governatorial candidate Eddie Basha, the Tribal Councils of the Colorado River Indian Nations and the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Paul Magnusun (Department of Modern Languages, Carnegie Mellon University), the National Coalition of Racism in Sports & the Media, the League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations, HONOR Inc., AIM National, AIM Arizona Chapter, AIM Southern & Northern California Chapters, the AIM Arizona Chapter Youth Council, and KOLA who support a petition for name change. Therefore, we demand and support the request for the name change of "Squaw Peak" and all geographical locations throughout Arizona and the rest of the United States, which contain this derogatory and insulting term. Out of respect for all women, American Indian women in particular. Sincerely, (your name, address + country) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********************************************* KOLA (International Campaign Office) Van Boeckel St. 20 B-1140 Brussels Belgium Tel&Fax +32-2-241-8322 Email : kolahq@skynet.be ********************************************* FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!! FREE WOLVERINE!!! --------- "RE: Innu denounces Quebec to UN" --------- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 09:47:01 -0400 From: Larry Innes Subj: INNU STATEMENT AT THE UN - GENEVA (Fwd) ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- From: amck@globetrotter.qc.ca Subj: INNU STATEMENT AT THE UN - GENEVA Mailing List: Innu People Forum list July 31, 1997 Innu denounces Quebec to UN by Campbell Clark, The Gazette ______________________________________________________________________ QUEBEC - Quebec native leaders presented a stinging condemnation of the Quebec government to a United Nations group in Switzerland yesterday, accusing the Quebec government of practicing a double standard by claiming a right to self-determination as a people while denying the same right to native communities. At a meeting of the UN Working Group on Aboriginal Peoples, they charged Quebec's leaders are acting as neo-colonialists, denying to native peoples the self-determination that the same leaders declare is Quebec's right. "On the one hand, the premier of Quebec and his predecessor, Jacques Parizeau, declare loud and clear and clamour on all political stages that Quebecers have a sacred right as a people to decide their future," said Armand McKenzie, a representative of the 12,000-strong Innu, an Indian people also known as the Montagnais. "They say the territory of Quebec is inviolable and indivisible. They denounce anyone that has aspirations that oppose their dogma. "However, these same leaders who, in the same of democracy and freedom, say they recognize for the people of Quebec an inherent right to self- determination refuse to recognize this same fundamental right for the aboriginal peoples of Quebec." In his presentation, McKenzie said the Quebec government is practicing discrimination that must be brought to the attention of the international community. "We reject all double standards on the concept of a people, the right to self-determination or territorial integrity," he said in a statement, a copy of which was sent to The Gazette. In a telephone interview from Geneva, McKenzie said other native groups from communities across the province have presented similar statements at the meeting, decrying the Quebec government's attitude as racist and discriminatory. "It's part of an international lobby effort," McKenzie said. And he said the Quebec government is obviously concerned, because they have sent officials to Geneva to counter the native groups' arguments, and to other international forums. The Gazette contacted a spokesman for Quebec's International Relations Department to ask what position Quebec officials were in Geneva to present, but they did not respond yesterday. McKenzie said native peoples have the same right to decide on their future as any other people, including the right to decide on whether to stay within the Canadian confederation if Quebec should to secede. The Innu held their own plebiscite in October 1995, and overwhelmingly voted to remain in Canada in the event Quebec secedes from Canada. McKenzie said the Quebec government's attitude is blocking efforts to solve land claims and establish self-government in native communities, because they oppose the federal policy of moving toward recognition of aboriginal peoples' inherent right to self-government. AND HERE IS A COPY OF THE STATEMENT AT THE UN.... DECLARATION OF INNU COUNCIL OF NITASSINAN ARMAND MCKENZIE MEMBER OF THE INNU NATION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. 15th session 28 july - 1st august 1997 Point 5 of the agenda Madam Chairperson, Brothers and sisters indigenous Distinguished representants, My name is Armand McKenzie, member of the Innu People and representing the Innu Council of Nitassinan. My people lives in the Quebec and Labrador provinces in Canada. We have lived on a territory, Nitassinan since immemorial times. Allow me to make an intervention at this stage of our meeting in order to make a report of the situation of indigenous peoples living in Canada, in the province of Quebec. In Quebec, we have a provincial government directed by separatist leaders that do no want to recognise indigenous peoples living in the province of Quebec. The government of Quebec wants to separate from Canada for historical, cultural, social, political and economical reasons. Behind these reasons, Quebec is showing spite and racism not wanting to recognise Mamit Innuat inherent right to self-government within the frame of territorial and governmental negotiations. How can separatist leaders of Quebec's government honestly declare in front of everyone that the indigenous peoples of the province of Quebec are the better treated in the whole world when they deny at the same time, that their existence or their most fundamental human rights? How can they state in front of everyone that Quebec has an inherent right to self- determination when at the same time they refuse this same right to the first inhabitants of the province of Quebec, the indigenous peoples. According to us, if Quebec keeps on refusing to recognise indigenous peoples inherent right to self-government, Lucien Bouchard and the other separatist leaders of the Quebec government may have a serious problem of credibility on the national and international scene about their secession project. This is why we are in Vancouver and in Geneva. We are there to denounce the attitude of the leaders of this separatist government for their contempt to the one they should dedicate their best regard: the indigenous peoples of Quebec. We are here before you, Madam Chairperson, to denounce Quebec's separatist leaders hypocrisy. On one side Quebec's Prime Minister and his predecessor Jacques Parizeau strongly stated and claimed on all scenes that Quebecers have a sacred right as a people to decide of their own future. They say that Quebec's territory is inviolable and indivisible. On the other side they denounce all those that have contrary aspirations to their dogma. Nevertheless, these same leaders that, in the name of democracy and freedom, pretend to recognise an inherent right to self-determination for Quebecers, refuse at the same time to consider this fundamental right for indigenous peoples of the province of Quebec. According to us, separatist leaders of the province of Quebec simply act as neo-colonialist leaders. In the name of their political and economical interests, they deny what they seek for themselves before the English Canada to the indigenous peoples of the Province of Quebec: such as the recognition of their distinctive character as a People. While they state the integrity of a mythical "quebecer territory" - of which they don't have the knowledge, relative to the indigenous peoples - those separatist leaders pursue the sacking of indigenous territory in the name of the major interests of Quebec. It is for these reasons Madam Chairman, that we want to bring to your special attention, as well as the UN member states attention the discriminatory practices of Quebec's government. We reject all double- standard concerning the idea of people, right to self- determination or territorial integrity. This might lead to serious violations of fundamental human rights. Any people has the right to self-determination and respect of its territorial integrity. Indigenous' People's right of deciding of their own political, economical, social and cultural future can not be subdued to a state's or province's political and economical interest. Those states or provinces who seek liberation on the basis of the same motives or justifications used by these same indigenous peoples living from immemorial times on the territories belonging to them. To conclude Madam Chairperson, if you allow I also annexed my declaration with a copy of the many new elements affecting Nitassinan our territory, which involves multinationals, Canada, provincial governments of Quebec and Terre Neuve/Labrador at the same time. This brief report demonstrates our territorial and environmental situation and shows the numerous environmental threats shared by other indigenous peoples from the whole world in the areas of hydroelectric, mining and forested developments. Developments that go against certain international conventions promoting sustainable development. --------- "RE: Is Hawaii a Really State" --------- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 00:19:02 -1000 (HST) From: Hawaii Nation Info Subj: Is Hawaii a Really State of the Union? UUCP email August 18 is commemorated as "Admissions Day" in Hawaii, but... Is Hawaii a Really State of the Union? The following information provides an historical perspective on how Hawaii came to be integrated into the United States as a state of the Union, and the fact that this status is not and has never been legally valid. Obviously America claims that Hawaii is part of their country, and most people, in Hawaii, on the 'mainland' and around the world, have tended to accept that as so. The common understanding is that in 1959, a plebiscite was held in which the people of Hawaii voted to become a state of the Union, and on August 18, 1959, Hawaii was admitted to the Union. What led up to this event? In 1945, at the end of World War II, the United Nations was established. In the Charter of the UN, a special provision was made for certain areas of land, including Hawaii, which was placed under CHAPTER XI, DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES Article 73 http://hawaii-nation.org/art73.html "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses; b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement; c. to further international peace and security; [d. - concerns "constructive measures of development," research, etc.] e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General, for informational purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply." So Hawaii, under Article 73, was a part of the UN system, and was placed under the administering authority of the United States, which, to reiterate, agreed to "develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions..." with "due respect for the cultures of the peoples concerned..." Did the United States fulfill this "sacred trust obligation"? Under Section (e) of this article, the United States was responsible to transmit information to the UN regarding Hawaii and the provisions of Article 73. Transmission A/2135, from the US to the UN in 1952, states that: "Throughout the school system, the social studies programme aims at creating an understanding of American ideals and purposes, knowledge of American history and government, practice and principles of citizenship...." Self-government? Due account of the political aspirations of the people? At one point, a former territorial senator, Alice Kamokila Campbell, filed suit to halt the spending of public funds to "propagandize and subsidize" the Hawaii statehood campaign. She said, as quoted in a Honolulu Advertiser article, "the illegal expenditures are to the detriment of citizens and taxpayers opposed to statehood ... Moneys are now being expended for liquor, luaus, dinners, entertainment and other purposes and objectives contrary to law ... the acts and conduct are of a purely political nature." Self-government? Progressive development of free political institutions? Then, in 1959, the "plebiscite" was held. It is important to consider two central questions: 1) What was voted on? 2) Who voted? 1) What was voted on? The question on the ballot was: "Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a state?" Yes or No? Become a state, or remain a territory? Why was the option of independence not on the ballot? Did Hawaii not have the option to become an independent country in 1959? In fact it did. The document guiding the process for removal of territories from the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories was UN Resolution 742 (VIII). "Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government." This resolution stated: "...the manner in which Territories... can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence..." One year after Hawaii's "plebiscite" vote, on 14 December 1960, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 1514, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This resolution includes the following passages: All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. Immediate steps shall be taken, in trust and non-self- governing territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire... These UN resolutions clearly indicate that independence was not only an option at the time, it was the primary option under international principles and the fundamental inalienable right to self-determination, and specifically with regard to non-self-governing territories under article 73 of the UN Charter. Not only was the option of independence not on the ballot, it was not even discussed, while statehood was actively propagandized with public funds, and American political ideals were indoctrinated through the schools. In truth it was the United States' obligation to fully inform the Hawaiian people and assist in the attainment of the goal of independence, not to extend their manifest destiny thousands miles across international waters. Violating the obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and "supreme law of the land" under Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, is also a violation of the US Constitution itself. The United States government did not uphold their "sacred trust obligation." The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law. 2) Who voted? Anyone who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly illegal annexation in 1898. Native Hawaiians who refused to become American citizens were not allowed to vote. The island of Ni'ihau, which was almost totally Native Hawaiian, and was relatively free from the propaganda of statehood, voted overwhelmingly against statehood, as did the island of Lana'i. In 1993 Congress and the President decided they had something to apologize for. Most of Public Law 103-150 deals with the events of the 1893 overthrow and the 1898 annexation. But one important clause relates directly to 1959 and the present: "the indigenous Hawaiian people NEVER directly RELINQUISHED their claims to their INHERENT SOVEREIGNTY as a people or over their NATIONAL LANDS to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a PLEBISCITE or REFERENDUM." (emphasis added) "National lands" means the entire archipelago of Hawaii. "Inherent" means a birthright, given by Akua, that no one can take away. "Sovereignty" means total control over land and natural resources, and is virtually synonymous with independence under international law. Sovereignty (partial definition): "The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent." - Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) Interpreting the above-quoted clause of the Apology Resolution, international law Prof. Francis A. Boyle (Univ. of Illinois College of Law) stated on Dec. 28, 1993, before the state's Hawaiian Sovereignty Advisory Commission: "Congress is effectively conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and United States domestic law. So you're not bound by it. Rather I'm suggesting you're now free to determine your own fate pursuant to the principal of self-determination." America gained possession of Hawaii through a succession of illegal acts, in 1893, 1898, and 1959, and has confessed to these crimes. The inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people, according to the US, has never been relinquished. Essentially, the country of Hawaii is currently illegally occupied by a foreign military colonial power. The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States. The option of independence for Hawaii exists to this day, and the voices supporting this option are growing steadily. Please consider these facts carefully this "Admissions Day" and share them with all who may be interested, including your local media and political representatives. Mahalo. ____________________________________________________________________________ This message is distributed as part of the Hawaii Nation Info educational service. Please redistribute in its entirety. To subscribe send a note to info@hawaii-nation.org or sign in at http://hawaii-nation.org/guestbook.html To unsubscribe send a note with "remove" in the subject line. Mahalo. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ | Hawai`i - Independent & Sovereign | | info@hawaii-nation.org http://hawaii-nation.org | |___________________________________________________________| "The cause of Hawaii and independence is larger and dearer than the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep- seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station." - Queen Lili`uokalani --------- "RE: 9th Circuit Court Decision-Part III" --------- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:12:50 -0800 From: redorman@plix.com (Dorman, Robert ) Subj: 9th Circuit Court Decision-Part III Mailing List: Big Mountain List Here is my quick take on the 9th Circuit Court "OPINION" just posted. No mention of "accommodation agreement" in the text. Apparently this opinion relates to other appeals. "The Navajo appeal the judgment in the use case and the Navajo and the Hopi both appeal the judgments in the owelty and damages cases. We affirm the use case in its entirety, and in large part, we affirm the owelty and damages cases as well. We discuss each case separately." i.e., the appeal has been denied in the "use case" and mostly denied in the "owelty and damages cases." "use case" (No. 94-17022) "The district court awarded the Hopi $18,187,132 for the Navajo's combined grazing and agricultural use of the Tribe's one-half interest in the JUA from 1962 to 1979. The case was litigated pursuant to 25 U.S.C. S 640d-17(a)(2), which allowed the Hopi to recover one-half the "fair value of the [Navajo] grazing and agricultural use" between the time of the JUA's creation (Healing decision of September 28, 1962) and the partition of the JUA on April 18, 1979" "owelty case" (Appeal Nos. 94-17031, 95-15015) "Owelty is a sum of money paid by one former joint tenant to another after a partition results in an unequal division of their land; the owelty compensates the former tenant who received the lesser value for the disparity." "In this owelty case, the district court held that after partition there was no statistically meaningful difference in value between the Hopi half of the land and the Navajo half. Thus, it ordered no owelty award." "damage case" (Appeals Nos. 94-17032, 95-15029) "In the action giving rise to these appeals, the Hopi sued the Navajo and the United States to recover for damages to the HPL caused by Navajo overgrazing prior to the 1979 partition. The district court held that while the conduct creating liability occurred before the 1979 partition, the Hopi's compensation would be measured by the value of the lost grazing opportunity that the Hopi suffered after partition. In other words, the Hopi could recover the post-partition difference in value between the land "as is" and the land fully restored. None of the parties contest this ruling on appeal. [15] After trial, the district court awarded the Hopi $3,167,388.84 in damages against the Navajo, and absolved the United States of liability on the ground that the government made reasonable efforts to protect the range. Both the Hopi and the Navajo challenge the district court's calculations. Their contentions lack merit, except for the Hopi complaint that the district court wrongly denied damages for lost grazing opportunity on lands that the Hopi set aside for wildlife. Accordingly, we remand so the district court can add the value of that lost opportunity to the damages award. Further, the Navajo argue that the United States should be held liable for its failure to adequately protect the range. We agree with the district court's application of a reasonableness standard and affirm the district court's denial of liability on the basis of factual findings that are not challenged as clearly erroneous." ************************************************** Bob Dorman redorman@plix.com "The Activist Page" http://www.plix.com/~users/redorman/ --------- "RE: Sovereignty/Part 3" --------- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:29:35 -0400 (EDT) From: GrayDeer@aol.com Subj: Sovereignty: Does Today's Tribal Government Truly Represent Traditional Native Nations? UUCP email [Editorial Note: Sincere thanks to Kanatiyosh for sharing this paper on tribal sovereignty. Due to it's length it will be presented in 4 parts. This is part 3 of 4. Saving all parts is recommended.] Se:kon I thought you might like to read this paper I wrote for law school. Barbara Gray Kanatiyosh +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Part 3 of 4 Sovereignty: Does Today's Tribal Government Truly Represent Traditional Native Nations? by Kanatiyosh Prepared for Professor Rebecca Tsosie. Arizona State University Law School. Independent Study. Spring 1997. Kanatiyosh is a Mohawk 3rd year law student from Akwesasne, NY and Canada. ++++ 2. Today's Seneca Nation Government The Seneca Nation government of today does not look much different then it did in 1848. The Seneca Indian Tribal Council looks remarkably similar to the United State's form of government. Although the Seneca Nation government consists of three interdependent branches; the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch, it functions slightly differently than the United State's government. For example, the difference can easily be seen in the judicial branch. The judicial branch consists of two Peacemarker Courts, two Surrogate Courts, a Court of Appeals, and a Tribal Council that acts as the Supreme Court. Allowing the Tribal Council to act as the Supreme Court is like allowing the United States senators, who are endowed with making and passing laws, to interpret and uphold these same laws. This does not sound like a good system of checks and balances of power. Another difference from the United States seen in the tribal council system is that although one may be represented by a lawyer, usually a person is represented by a family member or they represent themselves. Furthermore, the Peacemaker Courts and Surrogate Courts "are informal and conciliatory, " for their goal is to restore and maintain harmony within the community; rather then, the adversarial system of the United States courts. The Peacemaker Courts hear cases of divorce, land issues, impose fines for fishing, and perform marriages. While the surrogate courts hear cases concerning deeds, wills, adoptions, and guardianship. Interestingly, it seems ironic that the Seneca chose to name their courts, Peacemaker Courts, especially after they purposely separated church and State when they rejected the traditional form of government in 1848. The Seneca Indian Tribal Council states that they needed to abolish their traditional form of government in order "to protect the community from outside threats." While it may be argued that change is needed to protect the community, this change should not be at the expense of one's religion, nor to the expense of traditional people who still exist and continue to do the ceremonies in an attempt to protect Mother Earth for future generations. In defense of the Seneca tribal council, they have been instrumental in protecting many issues important to the Seneca community. For example, in a recent case Bowen v. Doyle the Court reaffirmed the inherent sovereignty of the Seneca to determine the internal affairs of their Nation. Dennis J. Bowen President of the Seneca Nation, sought in the Peacemaker Courts to remove some council members because they violated the terms of their office. Justice Doyle of the New York Supreme Court ordered that the Peacemakers' decision to remove the councilors should be denied and that the members should stay in office. The United States District Court prohibited New York State from exercising jurisdiction, stating "the Nation's rights to self-government and exclusive jurisdiction over its internal affairs are treaty rights [Treaty of 1794 Canandaigua Treaty] and cannot be abrogated absent a `clear and plain' showing that Congress intended to interfere with those rights. The recognition of the 1794 Canandaigua Treaty is very important to the Sovereignty of the Haudenosaunee, for it recognizes their aboriginal rights to govern and set laws as individual Nations. The tribal court was beneficial in reaffirming the Canandaigua Treaty, however, one must keep in mind that it was the traditional government that secured the treaty with the United States, in the first place! The preceding paragraphs have discussed how Christianity helped to assimilate many Iroquois to disregard and reject their traditional Haudenosaunee way of life and adopt a tribal form of government. That tribal government's roots can be traced back to New York State. New York State had an agenda to dispose of the traditional government as quickly as possible so they could take a substantial amount of lands that were held in the hands of the Haudenosaunee. Through "Trustees" and then later a mandated elective government, New York appointed then persuade the Christianized Iroquois to form Tribal Councils. While the Tribal Councils have been instrumental in reaffirming Indian sovereignty, they have also divided the community. The traditional Haudenosaunee, existing parallel to the tribal government, have continued to practice self-government and the ceremonies. In the proceeding paragraphs, the tribal government of the Indian Reorganization Act and the effect the Act had on native peoples will be examined. 2. Tribal Governments of Federal Statute When the federal Indian policy shifted from the Allotment and Assimilation The Seneca Nation government of today does not look much different then it did in 1848. The Seneca Indian Tribal Council looks remarkably similar to the United State's form of government. Although the Seneca Nation government consists of three interdependent branches; the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch, it functions slightly differently than the United State's government. For example, the difference can easily be seen in the judicial branch. The judicial branch consists of two Peacemarker Courts, two Surrogate Courts, a Court of Appeals, and a Tribal Council that acts as the Supreme Court. Allowing the Tribal Council to act as the Supreme Court is like allowing the United States senators, who are endowed with making and passing laws, to interpret and uphold these same laws. This does not sound like a good system of checks and balances of power. Another difference from the United States seen in the tribal council system is that although one may be represented by a lawyer, usually a person is represented by a family member or they represent themselves. Furthermore, the Peacemaker Courts and Surrogate Courts "are informal and conciliatory, " for their goal is to restore and maintain harmony within the community; rather then, the adversarial system of the United States courts. The Peacemaker Courts hear cases of divorce, land issues, impose fines for fishing, and perform marriages. While the surrogate courts hear cases concerning deeds, wills, adoptions, and guardianship. Interestingly, it seems ironic that the Seneca chose to name their courts, Peacemaker Courts, especially after they purposely separated church and State when they rejected the traditional form of government in 1848. The Seneca Indian Tribal Council states that they needed to abolish their traditional form of government in order "to protect the community from outside threats." While it may be argued that change is needed to protect the community, this change should not be at the expense of one's religion, nor to the expense of traditional people who still exist and continue to do the ceremonies in an attempt to protect Mother Earth for future generations. In defense of the Seneca tribal council, they have been instrumental in protecting many issues important to the Seneca community. For example, in a recent case Bowen v. Doyle the Court reaffirmed the inherent sovereignty of the Seneca to determine the internal affairs of their Nation. Dennis J. Bowen President of the Seneca Nation, sought in the Peacemaker Courts to remove some council members because they violated the terms of their office. Justice Doyle of the New York Supreme Court ordered that the Peacemakers' decision to remove the councilors should be denied and that the members should stay in office. The United States District Court prohibited New York State from exercising jurisdiction, stating "the Nation's rights to self-government and exclusive jurisdiction over its internal affairs are treaty rights [Treaty of 1794 Canandaigua Treaty] and cannot be abrogated absent a `clear and plain' showing that Congress intended to interfere with those rights. The recognition of the 1794 Canandaigua Treaty is very important to the Sovereignty of the Haudenosaunee, for it recognizes their aboriginal rights to govern and set laws as individual Nations. The tribal court was beneficial in reaffirming the Canandaigua Treaty, however, one must keep in mind that it was the traditional government that secured the treaty with the United States, in the first place! The preceding paragraphs have discussed how Christianity helped to assimilate many Iroquois to disregard and reject their traditional Haudenosaunee way of life and adopt a tribal form of government. That tribal government's roots can be traced back to New York State. New York State had an agenda to dispose of the traditional government as quickly as possible so they could take a substantial amount of lands that were held in the hands of the Haudenosaunee. Through "Trustees" and then later a mandated elective government, New York appointed then persuade the Christianized Iroquois to form Tribal Councils. While the Tribal Councils have been instrumental in reaffirming Indian sovereignty, they have also divided the community. The traditional Haudenosaunee, existing parallel to the tribal government, have continued to practice self-government and the ceremonies. In the proceeding paragraphs, the tribal government of the Indian Reorganization Act and the effect the Act had on native peoples will be examined. era, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was enacted in an attempt to remedy the atrocities caused by the prior policies of the United States government towards native peoples. The Indian Reorganization Act, like New York State's dealings with the Indian Nations, had its advantages and disadvantages. In this section of the paper, the underpinnings of the Indian Reorganization Act and the Act's benefits and disadvantages will be discussed. Then, the use of native peoples' testimony will be explored in order to allow the native voices of those who have experienced the Act firsthand to be heard. A. Underpinnings Of The Indian Reorganization Act Prior to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), individuals and organizations unhappy with federal Indian policy in the 1920's began to submit bills to change the policy of the Allotment Act and assimilation. The Allotment Act sought to end communally owned land, for it gave each Indian a certain amount of land that would be held in trust for 25 years after which the land would be owned in fee; thus, hastening assimilation into the white man's culture. However, in actuality the Act robbed the native peoples of a vast amount of land, weakened traditional forms of government, and led to dependency. The Merriam Report is credited as being the primary catalyst for change in Indian policy, for it compiled the effects of federal Indian policy and illustrated the deplorable conditions in which the Indians were now forced to live. The Merriam report has been criticized for its continuation of assimilation attitudes, but is said to have given a "greater respect to Indian culture." At the time of this shift in policy, there were conflicting ideas on how to deal with the native peoples. John Collier's bill was more sympathetic and respectful to the plight of the native peoples, for it advocated restoration and embracing Indian societies and culture. Whereas, the Merriam Report sought only to remove the restrictions imposed upon their activities. In response, Collier outlined six principles that: [S]howed that the government's job was to enable Indian's to recapture their own genius, whereas the Merriam Report had not believed that there was anything of value in the old ways, nor did it believe that the principles of Indian tribal life could be successfully revived and transposed into procedures that could energize and provide substance for modern corporate existence. Although many of Collier's ideas found expression in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the underpinnings of the IRA were imbued with the somewhat conflicting recommendations of the Merriam Report, which seems to perpetuate a schizophrenic federal policy towards native peoples. 1. Indian Reorganization Act Benefits And Disadvantages Some of the benefits of the IRA is that it stopped the further allotment of land, restored tribal land use of lands not allotted lands, it acquisitioned lands and exempted the land from taxes for Indians, it set- up a revolving credit fund, and regardless of other laws, it required Indian preference in employment. Another benefit the IRA offered the tribes was a chance for tribes to create tribal corporations and charters. However, whether one sees the various changes as benefits or disadvantages depends on how they view tribal governments versus traditional forms of government! If one sees tribal governments as, white constructs, it is hard to look past the infringement that these tribal governments impose on the traditional peoples and their forms of government to see the benefits. The premise of the IRA to "encourage economic development, self- determination, cultural plurality, and the revival of tribalism" seems strange. The Act seems strange in that the federal government through its policies of isolation and then assimilation, would now venture on a new policy to remedy the disorganization of the native peoples that they themselves caused. The federal government's remedy "did little to revive them [Indians] in their familiar form. Instead, the Act built upon the tribal situation as it found it, and created an entirely new framework for tribal self-government." An entirely new framework of tribal self government that hardly reflected nor respected the once powerful traditional forms of government that preceded Anglo-American forms.1 These impositions were placed on native peoples and continues today. The IRA gave the Indian tribes the right to organize and adopt a constitution. This idea of giving the Indians the right to self-government is consistent with the policy of the federal government, at the time, of federal absolute power; however, it completely ignored the fact that tribes have inherent sovereignty. The IRA's form of tribal government allows the native peoples only a limited tribal autonomy, for it requires, in a paternalistic fashion, approval from the Secretary of the Interior for ordinances, laws, and resolutions. Although the IRA allowed for a tribe to reject or accept the Act, it contained a provision that counted abstentions from voting as a yes vote. Therefore, a traditional people like the Hopis who do not partake in elections were said to have accepted the IRA tribal government when they did not. Furthermore, some critics argue that the IRA was an Act to further the assimilation of the native peoples, which can be seen by the IRA's usage of boilerplate tribal constitutions that the tribes were supposed to adopt. The 1944 report by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs recommended repealing the IRA constitution because: The Indians were suppose to write their own constitutions but they had no experience in such matters; besides they did not know what the Bureau wanted them to want. The only way to organize them was to offer them model constitutions acceptable to the Indian Bureau or else reject them. Using standard forms a constitution could be pieced together in a conference with the Indians by allowing them to fill in the blank forms as suggested, between the items required by the Bureau. These constitutions were replicas of federal law and contained little or no tribal customary law; therefore, they lacked the uniqueness of each Nation and also lacked the traditional ways of life that is important to the continuity of the native peoples and Mother Earth. 2. IRA Constitutions of today The constitution of today defines the tribal government, the tribal council, the territories, membership, the governing bodies, and their powers, and some allow for the inclusion of tribal concerns and customary law. However, most of the constitutions still remain with the same "boilerplate" structure and language of the originals. The tribal governments vary depending on what criteria they chose to fill in the blanks, but are generally composed of the following: A tribal council, whose members are elected into office for a certain amount of years, and a tribal chairman, that may also be called president or governor who is elected by either the tribal council or tribal members. The constitution also provides for Tribal courts whose judges are either elected by the tribal members or appointed by the tribal council. These judges may or may not be tribal members and are rarely trained lawyers. Formal training is usually obtained while in office. While it is true that the IRA reorganized Indian communities, this reorganization is based on Anglo-American constructs, with very little, if any, traditional ways incorporated within their tribal governments. B. Native Testimony In this section, native testimony will be explored in an attempt to allow the voices of the native peoples who experienced the effects of the IRA firsthand to be heard and to break away from those who have thought of native peoples as incompetent children unable to speak for themselves. The IRA had vastly different effects on the peoples involved in the imposition of the tribal government and the so-called provision which allowed tribes to accept or deny the IRA tribal government. Oren Lyons spoke about the Haudenosaunee rejection of the IRA government: Our people had a vote on the IRA, and it was rather close. The reason why it was close was because people did not believe in voting, but one of the chiefs went house to house at the last minute and said, 'If you ever vote in your whole life, you better vote this time." They overturned the process, and we have survived, and we are in existence today. However, not all native nations were as lucky as the Haudenosaunee in rejecting the IRA. For example, the traditional Hopi of Hotevilla, in their traditional way abstained from voting, and the United States government counted their abstentions as yes votes. Thus, allowing the United States to impose a foreign government on the traditional Hopis who wanted to continue their traditional form of government. Some native peoples saw the IRA as beneficial; "the white man has driven us around like cattle for many years. We need to take advantage of the opportunity to form our own government and run our own business." While other native peoples felt the IRA was a complete failure, for it "achieved none of its central policy objections. Foremost among these were the promise of 'complete economic independence' and 'self-determination' for Indian tribes." Elmer Savilla, director, of the Battional Tribal Chairmen's Association said concerning the IRA constitution and economic development: The principle thing wrong with IRA is that it is based on the theory that the government can make the tribes operate according to Euro-American ethics. These ethics assume that economic development and profit making are the backbone of progress. ... The government did not take into account that the Indians had a different way of living. All that the older people wanted was a piece of their land to live on the rest of their lives. Instead, they were saddled with Christian work ethics. ... The IRA destroyed the Indian way of doing things. The manner of handling Indian affairs in the old days worked. Savilla describes his unhappiness with the IRA's failure to allow for the uniqueness of each nation's notion of economic development and tradition. The tribal governments whether state of federally imposed do not truly represent the traditional peoples' whose inherent sovereignty goes unrecognized and their voices go unheard. From a traditional native peoples perspective, the IRA's language, cloaked in the federal government's belief of having absolute power over Indians is offensive in a variety of ways. First, the IRA assumes that traditional governments no longer exist and need to be reorganized. Second, the IRA forgets that native peoples have inherent sovereignty and insist that the IRA tribal constitutions define their powers. Third, the IRA allows tribes to form business corporations; to in effect, run a reservation like a business, which, in many cases, goes against traditional ways of life and subsistence economies. While there is no denying that many reservations have poverty, this poverty was caused by the imposition of the federal and state governments who hindered traditional economies and ways of life. However, the answer to economic development on Indian reservations should not have to be found in the building of gaming enterprises that furthers the gap between tribal and traditional governments. The answer is not simple, but somehow the traditional peoples' voice needs to be heard and recognized as the legitimate governments of the native peoples. A bridge needs to be built from the tribal government back to the traditional forms of government to help the tribal peoples who have lost there way to find their ways home. --------- "RE: A Hundred Years Ago" --------- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 00:34:20 -0700 From: Landis Subj: A Hundred Years Ago - Week 16 Mailing List: NAT-FILM [Editorial Note: These reprints are being included in this newsletter so that you might know the mind of those who ran institutions like Carlisle.] ==================================== THE INDIAN HELPER ------------------------------------ PRINTED EVERY FRIDAY --AT THE-- Indian Industrial School, Carlisle, Pa., BY INDIAN BOYS. ---> THE INDIAN HELPER is PRINTED by Indian boys, but EDITED by The man-on-the band-stand who is NOT an Indian. --------------------------------------------- P R I C E: --10 C E N T S A Y E A R ============================================= Entered in the P.O. at Carlisle as second class mail matter. ============================================= Address INDIAN HELPER, Carlisle, Pa. Miss M. Burgess, Manager. ============================================= Do not hesitate to take the HELPER from the Post Office for if you have not paid for it some one else has. It is paid for in advance. ============================================== VOL. XII. FRIDAY, August 20, 1897 NUMBER 45 =============================================== WHAT, INDEED? ------- "The old times, the good times, The times that are dead and gone, The only times worth living in, That's how folks rattle on," Joys of the past cling to the mind, Its troubles fade away. I'm glad to live in the present-- What's the matter with today? =============== THE INDIAN WAY OF SHOWING DISAPPOINTMENT. ________________ Some traits of character borne by the red boys are worthy of emulation, and make Indian youth desirable pupils to instruct and direct. The following little occurrence in our own printing office will serve to illustrate the point: By Friday morning of last week, 17,000 impressions, inside and out, of that issue of THE INDIAN HELPER had been made. Two or three thousand were tied up into routes ready for the mail-bags. There were eight or nine thousand still to mail, and 7,000 inside impressions to run off, when the Thursday evening shop-bell rang to stop work. We were what we consider on time; that is, by good work we should be able to clear up everything, and have the edition in the mail-bags by 5 o'clock, Friday afternoon, which we aim to do every week. If the work be finished before five o'clock, the printers turn to the case or some other department till the bell rings. These are vacatio