From gars@netcom.com Sun Jul 5 02:01:13 1998 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary Night Owl To: Internet Recipients of Wotanging Ikche Subject: Wotanging Ikche--nanews06.027 _ __ _____ __ _ __ ___ ____ _ __ ___ ' ) / / ') / / ) ' ) ) / ) / ' ) ) / ) / / / / / / /--/ / / / ___ / / / / ___ (_(_/ (__/ ( / (_ / (_ (___/ '__/_ / (_ (___/ ' O ____ _ , ___ _ , ___ O o O / ' ) / / ) ' ) / / ' O o O / /-< / /--/ /-- VOLUME 06, ISSUE 027 O o o o o O __/_ / ) (___/ / ( (___, July 4, 1998 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 AisesNet, MinnInd, Tribalaw & Nat-Film Lists; Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty; UUCP email; Newsgroup: alt.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. IMPORTANT!! ----------- To all who send copywrite protected articles, make very sure you have permission from the copywrite holder (a newspaper, the AP, a magazine, an author) because a new law is now in effect that says you can be prosecuted even if there is no monetary gain. Just because a newspaper has a website where it posts some or all of its editions does not grant permission for their redistribution. Be careful and be sure you pass on the items you do with full permission. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, all material appearing in this newsletter is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for educational purposes. <----<<<< >>>>----> 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 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. Downloading Wotanging Ikche on AOL From: MAANG1419@aol.com Just thought I would share some info. I could not download on to a .txt because I kept getting the message (when I tried to retrieve it) that the text editor could not handle the volume. This time I downloaded it on to a .doc and when I retrieved it out of file manager, IT WORKED. "Upon suffering beyond suffering, the Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing for a sick world. A world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separations. A World longing for light again. I see a time long after the skies have grown dark and dirty and the water has become bad smelling. I see a time of seven generations when all the colors of mankind will gather under the Sacred Tree of Life and one whole earth will become one circle again. In that day, there will be those among the Lakota who will carry the knowledge and understanding of unity among all living things and the young white ones will come to those of my People and ask for this wisdom. I salute the light within your eyes where the whole universe dwells. For when you are at that center within you and I am at that place within me, we shall be One." __ Crazy Horse Shared by Joseph Chasing Horse, Sacred Lakota Leader, 1997, 505 AC (after Columbus) +- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -+ | 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! This week, Jane Fonda (Mrs. Ted Turner) was quoted as saying the "Tomahawk Chop", the idiotic Hollywood like chant accompanied with a chopping hand motion, was "just fine". "The fans like it, and Native Americans have more important issues to worry about." I don't understand why some people who should know better seem not to understand that this is a serious issue. When one human being serves as the mascot for another it demeans and makes the person or persons so belittled a "lesser" human being. This second class humans status is very much key to many of these "more important issues" we do. in fact, worry about. =/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\= The remainder editorial space this week will be given to others. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:36:27 -0700 From: Laura B Subj: Peltier Action: print and mail Making this as easy as possible, it will only take a few moments of your time, if most of us do this, it WILL make a difference. Leonard's problem with his jaw is worsening, and dental problems (which have the potential to be fatal if not treated) cannot be treated until the jaw is. But he is caught in a catch-22: he needs to sign a medical release to get treatment; if he signs the release, the prison officials can decide WHO provides the treatment. At the Peltier Rally in DC on Saturday (June 29, 1998) his attorney, Ramsey Clark, made a simple enough request: we should all send a brief letter to Kathleen Hawk, asking that the MAYO CLINIC be authorized to treat Leonard. I have the one liner he suggested below, all you need to do is print it on your printer, add your own name, address, then fax it or put it in an envelope, stamp it, and mail. Couldn't be easier. If you want to spend more time, the best story I've seen in awhile explaining it is posted at http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9806a/peltierhealth.html Read it, print it, share it if you are able, but at very least, get this letter off to Kathleen Hawk TODAY. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv print,clip, sign and MAIL! vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv June 30, 1998 Kathleen Hawk, Director Bureau of Prisons 320 First Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20534 (Fax 202-514-6878) Greetings Ms Hawk, Please authorize the MAYO CLINIC to provide medical treatment for Leonard Peltier. Respectfully, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ print, clip, sign and mail ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ =/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\= I received a response to last issue's editorial. I now offer it with permission of the writer and without comment. Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:00:19 -0700 From: Deb Huglin Subj: news Dear Gary, We are all glad that you offer this important news service! I am just wondering if it was you that wrote this " The descendants of these Europeans have no understanding of why we don't feel like they have done a thing in the last 500 hundred years of occupation that justifies them telling the First People how to live.", even though you run many stories by the settlers group who so obviously are not insensitive to any of these issues? Also, are you familiar with the fact that one out of every 130 individuals in North America are of Indian decent? Not all of us are put bloods, even of one Tribe or another. But the assimilation has sorta backfired, and the settlers and the invaders (two entirely separate entities) are long gone, and the Creator has been the one to decide what people are made out of. We all breathe the same breath! It is fine for you to personally assume things about total strangers in your own mind. But that does not necessarily make it real. The reason I am telling you this is because I have been working to define and destroy the separatist propaganda that the American governments cooked up from the time of Andrew Jackson. The blessing is that we, as a vast number of different Tribes and cultures, are blessed with a common language with which we can freely communicate and understand each other. This insistence on a common language was a gift of the Creator, and has worked against those who would have had us all enemies because of a lack of communications. Also, the all out take-over of the South and the West in the U.S. came about, not as a weapon against the indigenous Peoples, but as an attempt to break the economy of the South during and after the CIvil War. In the original propaganda, the influx of farmers from foreign countries who could not communicate and therefore could not understand what was going on with ANYONE, not just the Indians, was the key to breaking the Southern Confederacy's flow of money and support. In the economic policy derived during the Civil War, it was decided to implement this take over of all farmable lands in the continent to make a glut of farm product from any regional source except the Confederates (Cherokees included). You may notice that most of the "displacements" began at this time. This was to insure that there would be no local land owners lest to create money to continue the war. Unfortunately, all the other Peoples were "in the way" of this policy as well. Then again, prior to this date, there was little need to "expand" into the uncharted areas. Also, there were many males from the armies who had what the People of the Plains called the "killing sickness". As these individuals came back to the areas where they were born (as offspring of immigrants or as mixed blood with the indigenous Peoples), they were violent and uncontrollable. This was not all the warriors, but there were enough for the government to "reclaim" them into "service" for their "fighting abilities". This loosely translates to the fact that the mass killing with the high technology of the day (repeating rifles and hand guns) had destroyed their value of human life...and race, color or creed had no bearing on their actions. Just the sick need to kill and destroy. these are the people who were placed in the "units" designed to "handle" the "Indian problem". At no time were all the settlers, immigrants or other persons of mixed lineage insensitive to the plight of the Indian Tribes. The reason that anybody survived at all is because masses and masses of people intervened. In fact many of the individuals and families who's bloodlines may have started somewhere else not only stepped in, but took the People into their own homes and families. This is not a fantasy. If it was not for this fact I personally would not be here to write to you. Perhaps you could reconsider your words and thoughts. Part of the propaganda of the past 150 years was strictly to separate and isolate, creating enmity where none actually exists. Everyone is not your enemy. And, granted, everyone may not be your friend. Maybe it is time to stop being fooled into this unnatural separatism by long dead people who held government positions? Is their Medicine actually so powerful that it can continuously control the living from their graves? Or can we wake up now and shake off the cobwebs of their heartless actions? I am not extinct, and I don't know anybody who is. Aho. Deb =/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\=/\= The language project I have started is moving very slowly, but it is moving. The need for this is a thing I truly believe. Without language a culture dies. What is said in any language seldom translates literally to another. It, at best, approximates the meaning. Our languages are dying. Our cultures will not linger long without our own words to describe the events in our lives, the ways passed down by our ancestors and our prophecies. I am collecting language resource information. Please send me all information each of you have regarding language resources. This should include all written teachings including dictionaries, grammar books and stories. Include all audio and video resources. Include the source, how it is distributed, the publisher, ISBN or other catalogue information that might be known. Include cost and current availability if you have it. Finally, include _your_ opinion. Is it good, bad, indifferent? I will keep this information, by language/nation and make what I have available to any who request it. Send what you can via email to gars@netcom.com You may also send info via snail mail to P O Box 672168. Marietta GA 30006. 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 ---------- - GAO Faults Ward Valley Contractor - Kiowa v. - Ward Valley Opposition Increases Manufacturing Technologies - Utilities Bailing Out of - Stoney Point: Records Destroyed Ward Valley - NYM's Rose Caldwell - Special Instructions on - Chiapas Aflame Osage Initative Petition - Logging Blockade - Treaty Rights/Casinos/ - Native Prisoner Revenue Sharing - A Hundred Years Ago - Legal Brief on Wolves - Poem: Some Thoughts - Appalling Wolf Massacre in Canada - Verse: Hawaiian Book of Days - The On-Going Six Nations Saga - Conferences and Powwows - Traditional Inupiat Law --------- "RE: GAO Faults Ward Valley Contractor" --------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:22:54 -0700 (MST) From: swv1@ctaz.com (Save Ward Valley) Subj: GAO Faults Ward Valley Contractor UUCP email NEWS FROM CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER 7th District, California Committee on Resources Committee on Education and the Workforce FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Daniel Weiss/John Lawrence Tuesday, June 23, 1998 202/225-2095 GAO FAULTS WARD VALLEY CONTRACTOR; RAISES NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new study by the non-partisan General Accounting Office on the proposed Ward Valley low-level nuclear waste dump, commissioned by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) confirms their long-standing concerns about the safety of the proposed site, the poor record of performance by US Ecology, the project's licensee, and the existence of serious outstanding environmental issues not yet analyzed. The GAO also found that U.S. Ecology's parent company, American Ecology, had disposed of a significantly larger amount of the high-level nuclear waste, plutonium, at the Richland, low-level waste site, in Hanford, Washington, than had previously been identified. The new GAO report, released today, found that American Ecology had disposed of approximately 450 pounds of plutonium, including 270 pounds of plutonium-239 at the Richland facility. The GAO also reported that American Ecology had disposed about 47 pounds of plutonium at it Nevada site, and 140 pounds at it Kentucky facility. Radioactive material has leaked from all of these facilities. Ward Valley, like these other sites, has always been described as a low- level nuclear waste facility, implying that only relatively low-risk medical wastes would be stored in the desert site. Initially, American Ecology said that only a few ounces of plutonium would be stored at Ward Valley. However, the GAO reports that they have since revised that estimate to as high as 124 pounds of plutonium-239 -- an amount equal to several dozen nuclear bombs. Congressman Miller said the report compounds his long-standing economic and environmental concerns about the Ward Valley project. "These findings, together with questions raised in the Hayden report about the necessity for a low-level disposal site in California and the ongoing environmental concerns must raise very serious questions about the wisdom of going forward with the Ward Valley project at all," he said. "I would hope that, in light of all this evidence, Gov. Wilson would terminate the project and end this very contentious and litigious controversy once and for all." The GAO report also noted that American Ecology, previously called the Nuclear Engineering Company, disposed of "low-level" nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the San Francisco Bay near the Farallon Islands. According to the report, visual observations using remote equipment show that many nuclear waste drums have ruptured and spilled their contents onto the sea floor. In the past, American Ecology operated waste dumps at Sheffield, Illinois; Maxey Flats, Kentucky; and Beatty, Nevada. According to GAO, all of these sites failed to contain nuclear wastes and have been closed. The Kentucky site is now listed on the Superfund list. After years of litigation, in 1988, the State of Illinois and American Ecology entered into a settlement agreement, which required, among other things, the company to buy acreage surrounding the site. However, in 1997, the State went back to court to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Recent studies of radioactive contamination at the Beatty, Nevada site by the U.S. Geological Survey, have shown a dramatic increase in both the scope and level of leakage from the disposal trenches. American Ecology continues to operate the Richland, Washington "low-level" waste facility, located near the Hanford high-level waste site. The GAO found that existing environmental compliance documents had not assessed the potential for contamination of the Colorado River, nor the related issues of upward migration of radioactive contaminants, release into the atmosphere of radio nuclides, connections via aquifers and collection of water within the facility that could harm wildlife. GAO acknowledged the existence of numerous additional reports and documents on Ward Valley completed after and therefore not considered in the 1991 environmental compliance documents. Copies of the report can be obtained from Congressman Miller by calling 202/226-2311, or on the Internet from the GAO at http://www.gao.gov. Save Ward Valley 107 F St. Needles, CA 92363 ph. 760/326-6267 fax 760/326-6268 http://www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley http://www.ctaz.com/~swv1 http://banwaste.envirolink.org http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr --------- "RE: Ward Valley Opposition Increases" --------- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 17:55:55 -0700 (PDT) From: swv1@ctaz.com (Save Ward Valley) Subj: Ward Valley Opposition Increases! UUCP email Opponents level new attacks on nuclear dump By Jack McCarthy The Press-Enterprise Opponents of a proposed nuclear dump at Ward Valley turned up the heat Wednesday, warning that the dump would cost taxpayers $1 billion and would harbor plutonium in quantities equal to dozens of nuclear bombs. Dump proponents immediately called both estimates wild exaggerations that were evidence of calculated efforts to sidetrack the project, which Gov. Wilson has pursued for more than eight years. Wilson has been battling the Clinton administration to force the U.S. Department of the Interior to transfer 1,000 acres of land near the Nevada border to California for use as a dump. The state has resorted to filing a lawsuit to compel the the U.S. Department of Interior to hand over the land. Anti-nuclear activists and Indian tribes have protested the proposed dump, saying nuclear waste would leak into the Colorado River drinking water supply about 20 miles away. The Department of Interior said last month it was suspending work on the land transfer until the lawsuit is resolved. In the latest criticism of the dump project, Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, cited a U.S. General Accounting Office report on the possibility that 124 pounds of plutonium would be kept at the dump -- enough for an arsenal of nuclear bombs. These findings . . . and ongoing environmental concerns must raise very serious questions about the wisdom of going forward with the Ward Valley project at all," Miller said. "I would hope that Gov. Wilson would terminate this project and end this very contentious and litigious controversy once and for all." However, Wilson administration and U.S. Ecology representatives said plutonium would be stored at the dump in small, safe amounts. "We expect no more than one pound in all the millions of pounds of cubic feet of material that will go there," said Scott Peyron, spokesman for U.S. Ecology, the company licensed to operate the dump. The manager of the state's low-level waste program, Carl Lischeske, said projections of the amount of plutonium bound for the dump were based on overestimates in the late 1980s from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state Department of Health Services, which is overseeing the Ward Valley project for the Wilson administration The GAO report said that, although estimates on the amount of plutonium varied -- the most authoritative conclusion came from the Congressional Research Service, which said about 1.3 pounds of plutonium -- most probably would end up at the dump. On a second front of attack, Democratic leaders in the state Legislature said state utility companies would have to pay more to store nuclear waste at Ward Valley than they currently do at a facilities at Barnwell, S.C., and Clive, Utah. The legislators cited a report from the state Public Utilities Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates that said Pacific Gas and Electric Co. may be forced to raise rates. "PGE's forecasts indicate that a requirement to use the Ward Valley facility will cost Californians hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily," the report said. The cost would reach $1 billion if the cost of nuclear waste disposal of all utilities were taken into consideration, legislators said. Pacific Gas Electric Wednesday denied making such a forecast, said PGE spokesman Jeff Lewis. "We did not forecast it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more." Lewis would not say what the eventual cost to electricity consumers would be, except to assert it would be far less than $100 million. "We don't know what it will cost," Lewis said. "If it does cost more, we believe it's a tradeoff in creating a reliable place to take our low-level nuclear waste." Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles; Senate President John Burton, D-San Francisco; and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, repeated previous calls for an end to efforts to build the dump. "It's time -- in fact it's way past time -- the governor had some serious second thoughts about this project," Villaraigosa said. Published 6/25/1998 Save Ward Valley 107 F St. Needles, CA 92363 ph. 760/326-6267 fax 760/326-6268 http://www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley http://www.ctaz.com/~swv1 http://banwaste.envirolink.org http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr --------- "RE: Utilities Bailing Out of Ward Valley" --------- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:56:28 -0700 (MST) From: swv1@ctaz.com (Save Ward Valley) Subj: Another $1 Billion for Ward Valley? UUCP email ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 24, 1998 CONTACT: Richard Zeiger 916/319-2408~Villaraigosa Syrus Devers 916/319-2041~Kuehl LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IRATE ABOUT HIDDEN COSTS FOR RATEPAYERS IF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP AT WARD VALLEY IS OPENED Utilities Bailing Out of Ward Valley SACRAMENTO -- Californians will have to spend more than a $1 billion in higher electric bills if a proposed low-level nuclear waste dump is constructed at Ward Valley, according to new information from the state Public Utilities Commission. Senate President pro Tempore John Burton, D-San Francisco, said that, "Ward Valley's proponents have failed to tell us that opening the dump would actually impose a billion dollar tax increase on California's utility ratepayers. One company has already asked for a big rate increase and the increased cost of using the Ward Valley site is included as part of the justification. The legislature is on record in support of lowering, not raising, the cost of electricity in this state." If the Ward Valley site is opened, generators of radioactive waste in California will be required to use the site instead of using out-of-state facilities that are far less expensive. Documents from Southern California Edison (Edison) to the PUC indicate that disposal fees at Ward Valley will be almost 9 times as much as the fees charged by an existing facility in Utah. The documents came to light when PG&E submitted a billion-dollar rate increase to the PUC. The PUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates investigated the request and found that, "PG&E's forecasts indicate that a requirement to use the Ward Valley facility will cost Californians hundreds of millions of dollars unnecessarily." That figure, however, is only the tip of the iceberg because it only refers to the cost of decommissioning the three nuclear reactors owned by PG&E. Including out-of-state reactors partially owned by California utilities, California has ten nuclear reactors that must eventually be decommissioned. The PUC report reveals the state's key utilities would prefer to not have to use Ward Valley because of the huge additional costs imposed if the site were to open. PG&E has informed the PUC that the other waste facilities are less expensive, that it would prefer to use the existing less expensive facilities, but that its permits to do so would be revoked were Ward Valley to open. Indeed, Southern California Edison is rushing to decommission one of its San Onofre reactors before Ward Valley opens in order to avoid the higher cost by using the cheaper waste facilities. "The primary customers for the proposed Ward Valley dump, the nuclear utilities, are 'voting with their feet,'" said Sheila Kuehl, Speaker Pro Tem of the Assembly, D-Santa Monica. "In the past they were vocal proponents of the project, but now, recognizing the huge extra and unnecessary costs involved to themselves and the ratepayers, they are bailing out." "I raised concerns about Ward Valley when we discovered the state may have acquired the land illegally. I raised questions about Ward Valley when we discovered they we going to desecrate sacred Indian burial sites. And now we discover that Ward Valley will cost Californians an additional $1 billion. It's time -- in fact it's way past time -- the Governor had some serious second thoughts about this project." said Assembly Speaker Antonio R. Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles. In April, Villaraigosa, Burton, and Kuehl sent a letter to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior alleging that the Department of Health Services (DHS) had no authority to purchase the Ward Valley site to use as a radioactive waste dump, and that DHS was attempting to purchase the site with unauthorized private funds. After independently confirming the allegations in the letter, the Department of Interior stopped processing the request to transfer the Ward Valley site to DHS for use as a radioactive waste dump. In December, a report from Professor Greg Hayden of Nebraska found that Ward Valley was not needed because existing low-level radioactive waste facilities had sufficient capacity to handle all of the waste generated in the U.S. for the next 30 years and beyond. Environmental groups oppose the Ward Valley site because it proposes to use open, unlined trenches to dispose of dangerous wastes near the Colorado River, and because unlined trenches have allowed radioactive wastes to escape every time they're used. "The most recent piece of information, that Ward Valley is not even cost effective for the utilities, should be enough to close the door on the project," said Kuehl. Save Ward Valley 107 F St. Needles, CA 92363 ph. 760/326-6267 fax 760/326-6268 http://www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley http://www.ctaz.com/~swv1 http://banwaste.envirolink.org http://www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html http://www.wildrockies.org/cmcr --------- "RE: Special Instructions on Osage Initative Petition" --------- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:04:23 EDT From: MaDark@aol.com Subj: Fwd: Special Instructions on Osage Initative Petition My friends - The fate of the Osage Nation is in danger. I am asking that you post this urgent information so that all Osage will know. MaryAnn ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- From: WmBattles@aol.com Please alert all you know or come into contact with... this is most urgent to the survival on an Indian Nation.... with quickest dispatch... I ask for your assistance in making this issue well known to the Osage people... enrolled and not enrolled... Shareholder and non-shareholder... There will likely never again be another opportunity for this tribe to have this opportunity to reunite its people.... Thank you for your thoughts and assistance........ Bill Battles..... and please do not hesitate to pass this on.... ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:39:27 EDT From: RATheis2@aol.com Dear Osage Friends, If someone on the mailing list is not Osage or does not wish to receive postings regarding the Osage Nation, please contact me and I will remove your name from the mailing list. I do not wish to offend or have anyone who does not wish to be contacted on my list. To my knowledge, as of this date the Osage Tribal Council has not come up with any document that will preserve the Osage Tribe by means of a new membership roll. Therefore, an Osage attorney has prepared an "Initative Petition" that we are asking all Osages, shareholders and non-shareholders, over the age of 18-years to sign. This petition will in no manner infringe on or effect the minerals estate in any form. It will though, begin the process whereby the Osage Tribe will have a chance to remain a federally recognized tribe. Many Osages that are not able to keep updated regularly on what is happening with the tribe, which are those that are non-shareholders living off the Osage Reservation, do not know of what might happen when the last original allottee dies. Some do not wish to believe that the U. S. Government would really want to dissolve their trust responsibility to the Osage People. Every lawyer and knowledgeable Osage that I have talked with tells me that the Osage Act of 1906 was just written for the 2,229 original allottees.... and no one else. Another original allottee passed away this month. This leaves only 20 remaining and the youngest will be 92-years old this year. I have been informed that only half of these are competent. When the last original allottee dies the government could easily say that they do not recognize ANY Osages, shareholders or non-shareholders, and then the trust responsibility would CEASE. I do not believe that there is one Osage who would want to see this happen. When you sign this "Initative Petition" you are sending a message to the President of the United States and Congress that you are an Osage and you want to be recognized. Please sign the petition and help us save our Osage Tribe. It is very simple and easy for you to get a petition. If you have a computer or a friend has a computer, go to the following website and read about the petition and then near the bottom of that page you just "click" on where it will say, "For a version of this Petition which you can print out on your printer,". All who will be receiving this message, of course, will have a computer. We are asking you to make several copies of the petition, take them to your Osage relatives and friends, ask them to sign them, and then mail the filled out petition back to me at the following address: Raymond A. Theis, II 2640 Evergreen Dr. Bartlesville OK 74006-4702 If you have any questions or need any assistance with this process, you can contact me at: (918) 333-4073, telephone/FAX, or by e-mail: RATheis2@aol.com A very good and compassionate Osage friend by the name of Charles W. Campbell has created and is the webmaster of the Official Osage Nation Homepage. He has provided information over the past many months regarding the Osage situation and then the OTC election of June 1, 1998. He has now set up one page that will make it convenient for you to read the instructions and then print out a copy of the petition directly from his website. One thing to remember is that ONLY a hard copy original can be signed by Osages and then returned to me. After you have copied the petition from your computer, please cut off the writing at the very top of the page and then at the line indicated at the end of the petition. Then make an 8 1/2 X 11 inch copy at a print shop, or if you have some "white out" you can use that and then make a copy. We want the signed petitions to be "without" any signs of removal of written words on them. This could make them "not valid" when the count of names is submitted by petition. The following is the website where you can go to make a copy of the petition. http://www.northrim.net/bgbiller/petition.html Remember.... we are all Osages. And all Osages should be able to become members of the tribe. Knowing this, how can you NOT sign the petition. Pray that we can continue to be the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma..... a federally recognized tribe, not one that the government can just wipe off their records by the sweep of a pen. They did this to the Osage Nation Government....... they can do this to the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma. Blessings, peace, and strength, Thank you Raymond A. Theis, II --------- "RE: Treaty Rights/Casinos/Revenue Sharing" --------- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 15:28:14 -0600 From: "Christine A. Penney" Subj: Treaty Rights/casinos/revenue sharing Mailing List: Minnesota Indian Affairs Karen Waterman Wittstock wrote: "I'm confused by the arguments that tribes are supposed to give money to all needy Indians because they are generating some wealth. It goes against the very sovereignty principles that we are all trying to promote and secure." This is an important issue for discussion, particularly for those of us who are trying to educate and inform the dominant culture. I don't have a class unit on casinos because my area of expertise is in natural resources, however casinos are a volatile issue and one that participants in my Treaty Rights class or readers of my web page always bring up. The issues seem to pool themselves around these themes: 1. Indians have casinos, why do they need to hunt and fish, 2. Why don't the Indians share their "wealth" with others, 3. Why don't casino Indians pay benefits to members who live off-rez, and 4. Indians shouldn't have casinos/sovereignty because of the corruption. The point that most non-Indians miss is that it is none of their business and these questions are irrelevant. None of these questions would be asked about a non-Indian enterprise. Nevertheless, these points are used as rationalization for denying treaty rights or shutting down casinos or extorting money from Indian nations. We must, therefore, be ready for them. My boiler plate responses to these questions follow: I am very interested in additional comments and input from subscribers. 1.Indian nations need to diversify their economic base, just like non-Indian communities. Anybody remember the Iron Range? Not every one wants to work in a casino and it is not valid for non-Indians to decree a specific employment path for Indians. Further, MANY people in America, not just Indians, rely on hunting and gathering to sustain themselves. This is true for the white and black rural poor and most Asian and Hispanic immigrants. This is important in that many privileged white Americans have NO concept of the degree of poverty that exists all over America today. 2. First, there is very little excess wealth generated. The few exceptions are those reservations located close to metropolitan areas like Minneapolis. Casinos in outstate areas are not necessarily golden geese and generate only moderate revenues. Just like non-Indians, the proceeds of Indians business go where the owners choose. For many reservations, this means into infrastructure like schools, roads, utilities, phones, hospitals, higher education, job training and the like. Non-Indians businesses like Norwest Bank, Neiman-Marcus, and Exxon offer very little to the poor in our society and are not expected to. To expect Indian casinos to contribute beyond their own pressing needs is a double standard which should not be tolerated. 3. It is up to each individual nation to determine how to distribute the proceeds of their resources. Most choose to build infrastructure or reaquire lost land. 4. Corruption on Indian reservations is frequently the result of governmental structures set up by the U.S. government after Indian governmental systems were deliberately destroyed by same. Non-Indian America therefore has a moral responsibility to support Indian nations as they struggle to correct the problem. Additionally, corruption at all levels of government exist in the dominant culture as well. Few would seriously consider doing away with American sovereignty. Again the double standard. In a perfect world, native people would not have to always be defending themselves against a double standard. However, it is not a perfect world. Therefore, revealing that double standard for what it is is an important and necessary chore. I look forward to your comments. Christine Penney Project Coordinator University of Minnesota 187 McNeal Hall - 1987 Buford Ave St. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-1237 cpenney@che2.che.umn.edu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "I have sometime thought of the final cause of dogs having such short lives, and I am quite satisfied it is in compassion to the human race; for if we suffer so much in losing a dog after an acquaintance of ten or twelve years, what would it be if they were to live double that time?" Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) --------- "RE: Legal Brief on Wolves" --------- From: ShngSprt@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:05:26 EDT Subj: Legal Brief on wolves/thanks Diyehii ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- Date: 98-06-24 14:58:16 EDT From: Diyehii BCC: ShngSprt (2) articles. First is a web news account and the second is the full press release that the article was written from. David >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >Wildlife Group Appeals Decision >(DENVER, Colorado) -- An environmental group wants to overturn a judge's >decision that could end the wolf reintroduction program. Defenders of Wildlife has filed federal court papers in Denver, Colorado... appealing a December 1997 decision by Judge William Downes of the U-S District Court in Wyoming. The American Farm Bureau sued... contending the reintroduction of wolves was illegal. Downes agreed and ordered the wolves to be removed. The Farm Bureau and most agricultural groups opposed the wolf program because of the threat to farm animals. In biological terms, experts say the wolf transplant has been a huge success. About two-dozen wolves were transplanted into Yellowstone Park... and there are now almost 100 wolves in the area. The story is much the same in the wilderness of Central Idaho and Western Montana, where wolves were also reintroduced. ################################################################# BELOW IS THE PRESS RELEASE FROM DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: For Immediate Release June 22, 1998 Contact:Joan Moody 202-682-9400 x220 >(Media) Denver, CO - Defenders of Wildlife filed a legal brief in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver today to try to save the lives of more than a hundred and fifty gray wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem and Idaho. Represented by Brian O'Neill, the attorney who won the Exxon Valdez case for plaintiffs, Defenders is asking the appeals court to reverse a district court order that the wolves must be removed. Defenders is appealing a December 12, 1997 decision by Judge William Downes of the U.S. District Court in Wyoming. Downes ruled in favor of the American Farm Bureau's contention that reintroduction of wolves in the region three years ago was illegal, citing an interpretation of technical language in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He also ordered the wolves to be removed, staying the order pending expected appeals by the government and others. "We're appealing not only to save the lives of the wolves but also to secure the future of our nation's most successful wildlife reintroduction effort ever," said Defenders of Wildlife Legal Director Bill Snape. "There is nowhere for the wolves to go if they are removed -- Canada doesn't want them back and the nation's zoos can't accommodate them. Based on an incorrect reading of the Endangered Species Act argued by the Wyoming Farm Bureau, these wolves have received a death sentence," he warned. "The legal brief we are filing today says that not only is the trial court decision wrong, but so is the proposed `remedy' of removing the wolves. The Farm Bureau should be ashamed of its suit and should`drop it. Otherwise, we'll fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary and we'll win." Defenders of Wildlife is collecting petitions from visitors to Yellowstone National Park this summer urging the Farm Bureau to drop its suit. A little more than three years ago the howl of the wolf had been missing from its historic home in Yellowstone for decades. Starting with the release of the first fourteen wolves brought in from Canada in 1995, the packs in the Yellowstone region alone have grown to a population of about a hundred. Additional wolves reintroduced in Idaho also have flourished (Before this year's breeding season, there were an estimated 85-90 wolves in the Yellowstone region and 75-80 in Idaho.) "Right now is denning season and we already know that we've got 23 pups. And that's just three litters counted," says Doug Smith, Project Leader of Yellowstone Wolf Restoration. The judge's order calls for "removal" not only of the reintroduced wolves, but also these pups and other offspring of the original Canadian wolves. The crux of Judge Downes' decision was a determination that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should not have reintroduced the wolves as an "experimental population" under the ESA. The "experimental" designation gives federal managers of reintroduced wild species more flexibility to deal with unintended problems, such as allowing relocation of an animal on the infrequent occasions when a wolf preys on livestock. In addition, the Defenders of Wildlife Wolf Compensation Trust reimburses livestock owners at fair market value for such losses. "The district court erred when it found that FWS unlawfully introduced an 'experimental' population of gray wolves into Yellowstone and central Idaho," Defenders told the appellate court today. "FWS properly exercised its discretion when it released populations of gray wolves outside the current range of any breeding pairs of wolves and when it managed the released populations as experimental populations." Even if the Court of Appeals finds that the FWS did not fully comply with the ESA, Defenders argues that "the proper remedy is not to compel FWS to remove, and most likely kill, experimental gray wolves that are currently aiding the recovery of this species." Noted attorney Brian O'Neill of the Minneapolis-based law firm of Faegre & Benson entered the case on appeal in December on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the National Wildlife Federation and other wolf supporters. O'Neill served as the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the successful historic civil suit against the Exxon Corporation stemming from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. In addition, others filing legal briefs today on the side of Defenders and FWS include the Nez Perce Tribe, which has sole responsibility for coordinating and managing the return and recovery of the gray wolf in its former range in the tribe's treaty territory in Idaho. "The return of the gray wolf and its recovery mirror the path of the Nez Perce people," said Jaime Pinkham, a member of the tribe's executive committee. "When the West was settled, there were obstacles. The Nez Perce people were one of those obstacles; they got in the way and they were removed. The gray wolf suffered a similar fate. Now, both our people and the wolf are struggling to regain their rightful place." --------- "RE: Appalling Wolf Massacre in Canada" --------- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:08:06 +0100 From: chris Subj: Fwd: AN APPALLING WOLF MASSACRE IN CANADA !!!!! Gary I don't know if you already know about this but I received it a little earlier this evening from an acquaintance here in England. I've forwarded it to several people so far and am wondering if you want to do anything with it. Thanks. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- I thought you would be interested It saddens me to see how man can be so afraid of wisdom Sayana In trying to find sympathetic people who would be horrified at what I am enclosing for you to read, I went to the Members Directory, pulling up Native American, Wolves, and found all you many people listed----this is the first time I have ever done anything like this, but after you read my note, and scroll down to see what I am sending you, I am trusting that you, also, will be appalled at the wolf massacre described. I am asking you please to write to the Minister (his name & address are included), and insist that this atrocity be halted immediately. Please make your letters strong- there is no e-mail address and it will require actually putting pen to paper and donating envelope and stamp, but if we can do this right away, we may be able to save future lives of the wolf population. I have also learned that the states of Minnesota (primarily), along with Wisconsin and a few northern most places, are planning on delisting the wolf - which will make it legal to kill here in the states. If you would also be interested in trying to stop this, please email me back and I will give you Bruce Babbitt's internet address. But right now the murder of these wolves in the Northwest Territories proceeding as I type, and I ask that you get involved to try to stop this. Please email me back for any additional information. Thank you (Pilamaya) ... Lupospirit ..... Nelda I am yet again asking for your help.....looks like its open season on Wolves, and I have to step in where I can to protect my guide and protector, Canis Lupus.. Just got a copy of an article in Canada's national newspaper, The Globe & Mail...titled Snowmobile hunt claims hundreds of wolves..... The snowy white tundra of northern Canada was soaked with the blood of hundreds of magnificent wolves. A dozen hunters in Canada's North- west Territories singlehandedly killed more than 460 wolves - one of the worst slaughters of wolves since their near-extermination earlier this century. Terrified wolves were chased at high speeds out onto the open treeless tundra - where there was no place to hide. When the animals collapsed from exhaustion, the hunters circled their snowmobiles and shot the wolves from point blank range.. The final tally of wolves killed will be significantly higher than the 460 thus far reported. Several hunters who are expected to make large kills have not yet prepared the skins for export, so have not been included in the count. Biologists are especially worried because the Northwest Territories has no count of the number of wolves in the region and no data on what damage a kill of this magnitude could do to the nation's wolf population. I am asking you to please take the time to write and protest strongly this appalling massacre of wolves. Say this continued practice will devastate the wolf population and create international bad will and embarrassment for the government of the Northwest Territories. Urge them to ban the practice of using snowmobiles to chase and kill wolves immediately. Tell them you are cancelling vacation plans.. whatever you think will work, but make it strong!! Write to: Mr. Steven Kakfwi, Minister Department of Resources, Wildlife & Economic Development Government of the Northwest Territories Scotia Centre Box 2l 600 5l02-50 Avenue Yellowknife, NT CANADA X1A 2L9 Now, as if that weren't bad enough, I was watching TV last night (something I rarely do), and on the Chilkat River in; Alaska, where bald eagles congregate, they are going to open the area to copper mines...more wildlife endangered. And today, in my hometown newspaper (Nashville, TN), they are going to begin strip mining above Falls Creek Falls, a beautiful pristine area East of Nashville. Creator, where will it all end??? When will the two legged race stop this senseless abuse of our natural resources -- see my earlier Native Wisdom today...I did that one before all this came to my attention... coincidence??? Not likely. Mitakuye Oyasin.....Nelda -- chris --------- "RE: The On-Going Six Nations Saga" --------- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:27:37 -0800 From: "Mohawk Nation News Service" Subj: The On-Going Six Nations Saga - What is the Crown's fiduciary responsibility? UUCP email The On-going Saga: What is the Crown's fiduciary responsibility to the Six Nations Iroquois? MNN. Mohawk Nation News. 16 June 98. In a letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Richard Hill, a Mohawk resident of the Six Nations at Grand River (via Ontario Canada) asks a lot of questions about the doings of the Indian Act band council In 1924 the Canadian government brutally forced their band council system on Six Nations territory. Hill is now asking the Queen to find out what is happening to their funds and affairs which Britain placed in Canada's hands without Six Nations' consent. So far Hill has not been answered.. ILLEGAL BAND COUNCIL. This band council is not legal under Iroquois laws and has inadvertently become illegal under Canadian laws. Three years ago the Indian Act Band Council replaced themselves as a new "customary council". To do this the Order in Council putting the band council under Section 74 of the Indian Act was revoked. There was no consultation with the people. When two members of Six Nations protested, the new "custom" council backed off and stepped down from power. But they returned to the Council House as the old Indian Act Band council without an Order in Council to put themselves back in. In effect there is no legal band council at Six Nations. HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BRITAIN. When the Iroquois moved north, they initially wanted to lease their land. According to Iroquois law, the land title is held by the women on behalf of their future descendants and cannot be sold. But Britain would only help the Iroquois survive if their lands were sold and the Crown took the proceeds and held them in trust. Unfortunately the Crown squandered the trust money after selling the lands. The Iroquois have been asking about the mismanagement of their financial affairs for over a century. Now again they have turned to Her Majesty hoping that the Crown is finally willing to resolve some of the wrongs of the past. They are asking for a forensic audit and proper compensation. The Iroquois want to know how Her Majesty intends to fulfill her trust obligations. HER MAJESTY'S IROQUOIS ALLIES. The Iroquois are allies and not subjects of Britain. Iroquois sovereignty supersedes that of Canada. At first Britain recognized Iroquois sovereignty. The Iroquois never let Britain down. But at the time of the League of Nations Britain collaborated with Canada to prevent international recognition. Which part of its history does Britain want to uphold? The part where it defended its allies honourably or the part where it let them down? Is Britain ready to renew the Silver Covenant Chain? NO ORDER IN COUNCIL. Does Canada support the rule of law? It is not valid in Canadian law to put in a band council without an Order in Council. So why is Canada doing business with this illegal band council? Actually the Iroquois Confederacy can now return to its seat of power at the Six Nations Territory from which it was ousted in 1924. The procedures used at that time would not pass muster under international law today. But will the Crown and Canada honour the traditional government of the Iroquois? Does Canada believe in supporting international law? The Iroquois will just have to wait and see. ROYAL PROCLAMATION 1763. The Royal Proclamation affirms Aboriginal nationhood, sovereignty and ownership of North America. The Six Nations people never consented to Canada imposing the Indian Act and other legislation that meddles in their affairs. They do not consider themselves to be part of Canada. In the beginning Britain did not intend to let the settlers dominate the Indigenous people. The British North America 1867 Act put "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" as a federal relationship because Britain recognized the Iroquois as independent and not part of the settler colony At that time Canada's colonial government was subordinate to Britain without powers of its own. No one considered interfering with the Aboriginal nations' pre-existing power to govern themselves. Unfortunately there was a period in which corrupt and ignorant bureaucrats mismanaged and misinterpreted the law. The Aboriginal right to self-government has now been clarified and reconfirmed by Section 35 of Canada's Constitution Act of 1982. However, Canada seems reluctant to break from its corrupt bureaucratic tradition and uphold its laws. According to natural, international and constitutional law, Canada's band council system has no jurisdiction on unceded land. This status of the Six Nations Territory was guaranteed when the Iroquois came to Britain's defense in the American War of Independence. FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. The Royal Proclamation set up a fiduciary responsibility to Indigenous people in general so the settlers could live on Aboriginal lands. It was the in effect rental payment. The Canadian settlers later declared that Indigenous people had no legal capacity. So they set up trust accounts to hang onto Indian monies to meet their fiduciary obligations. Canada then declared that the fiduciary obligation is in conflict with the original jurisdiction of the Indigenous people. To get their funds, the Indigenous people have been told they have to give up their rights. This is a fallacy. The Royal Proclamation is in fact an international trust concept under which Indigenous nations cannot give up Aboriginal rights and title. In other words, the fiduciary obligation is not in conflict with Aboriginal rights. They co-exist together and cannot be repealed. They represent a sacred trust to future generations as yet unborn. This is a nation to nation obligation which the Crown is being asked to live up to. Canada realizes this trust concept. However, it will only negotiate with their illegitimate band councils, not with the true sovereign governments of the Indigenous nations. The Iroquois Confederacy has always maintained its own constitution known as the Great Law of Peace, the Kaienerekowa, by which their traditional government functions. They are now asking the Queen to help restore the peace that was disrupted by the past negligence of the Crown's servants. INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY MEDIATION. The Iroquois are asking that the law be upheld and that an independent neutral third party be assigned to fairly settle issues between Canada and the Iroquois concerning their trust funds, finances and other matters. This third party adjudication procedure has a precedent. It was established by the Mohengan in 1704 concerning a land dispute between them and the settlers in Connecticut. The Mohegan applied to the Court of Queen Anne and were granted an impartial third party adjudication. It was found that the colonial governments of British North America could not legally adjudicate this dispute as they were one of the parties. When the Six Nations tried to get neutral arbitration in 1924, Canadian bureaucrats stopped it. The Six Nations are asking Her Majesty to give them the due process they were denied in the past and to help bring their concerns to the international level with the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. CONTACT Richard W. Hill, Sour Springs Road, Six Nations, Grand River Territory (Canada) N0A 1H0 519-445-2033 email kanienke@execulink.com Canadian Alliance In Solidarity with the Native Peoples, P.O. Box 574, Toronto Ontario Canada M5S 1X7 416-635-8696 Fax 416-972-6232 casnp@pathcom.com http://www.pathcom.com/~casnp http://www.cyberglobe.net/users/otsira Hill sent copies of the letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations; Ambassador J.H.W. Fietelaars, Embassy of the Netherlands; Cuban President Fidel Castro; Deputy Registrar of the International Court of Justice; French President Jacques Chirac; South African President Nelson Mandela; Governor General of Canada Romeo LeBlanc; and to leaders of the Opposition parties in Parliament. Supporters world wide are being asked to give their assistance, such as sending letters of support for independent neutral mediation between Canada and the Six Nations Confederacy: Queen Elizabeth; Kofi Annan of the United Nations; Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien; Minister of Indian Affairs Jane Stewart; and to Canadian embassies in their countries. --------- "RE: Traditional Inupiat Law" --------- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:56:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Aqiimuk@aol.com Subj: Traditional Inupiat Law, Part 2 Mailing List: TRIBALLAW (triballaw@thecity.sfsu.edu) 1986. The North Slope Borough's Commission on Inupiaq History, Language and Culture's Elder's Conference on the topic of traditional Inupiaq laws. Alaska. A Summary of General Session reports by village Anaktuvuk Pass The Anaktuvuk Pass people say violence and murder were unheard of so they had no comment on this. On neglected children they report that relatives took care of them. Adoption was by common consent and took place between relatives or other well off couples if a family had one too many children. A child grew up knowing who his original parents were. As punishment for disobedience and vandalism child was told horror stories about an imp who plays cat's cradle (string games) with his intestines. Older siblings taught younger children. Oldest brother and sister never got a thrashing because they are to take over if something happens to the parents. The dead were buried with their personal belongings. An adopted child inherited just like others, though there wasn't much to inherit from nomads. A person said who was to inherit what while they were still alive. No food (game) was ever wasted. It could always be stored. A thief always became known and was warned about his behavior by elders. Pt. Lay The group doesn't know about any murders long ago so they can't report on it. For sexual abuse the offender was spoken to until embarrassed enough not to do it again. Sibling acquired through parents' swapping relationships and that was a mean thing (it is not clear what the group means by this) but there was no punishment for it. On child care the group reports that relatives and neighbors pitched in during difficult times. Thrashing was punishment for misbehaving. Parents have authority over their children as do the older brother and sister. Any elder, uncle or grandparent, also has authority over children. People didn't own land but there was an understanding that descendants built on immediate surrounds of family's house and also on the location of out of town cabins (perhaps referring to family fish camp or trapping cabin). Theft was not common and a thief always became known. People never wasted food, it could always be stored. Pt. Hope (My great-grandfather's village--his Eskimo name: Akpayuk) In cases of violence elders could counsel the offender. In cases of murder the relatives of the victim got together and waited for the opportune moment for revenge. Murder of children was not known though the group supposes that revenge would be the response. When a man got his daughter pregnant the community spread his legs apart over a fire as punishment. Uncles, aunts or grandparents took over if a child was neglected. Childless couples adopted from a sister or close relative or anyone who wanted to give up a child. For misbehaving the father thrashed the child with a belt. The eldest son took over responsibility if the parents passed away. There wasn't much property but a person passed it on verbally and publicly before death. A thief was revealed by pounding the vacant place where article was. If you must take something from a cache you must inform the owner when you get home. No food (game) was ever wasted because it could always be preserved and stored. Nuiqsut All violence is the result of alcohol so it is not traditional behavior. Family members may move out if one of them gets violent. The only time a child was abandoned was when the Nunamiut were traveling and had to leave an infant behind. The decision was between man and wife. Sexual abuse may be related to alcohol and only verbal expressions were made to embarrass the offender. Even distant relatives were called niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, cousin so if there was no immediate relative to take care of a child in need it would be taken care of by a more distant relative. An adopted child was often more favored than the natural child. Punishment for disobedience was a thrashing by the sinew. A woman kept a piece of sinew by her side from which she split a strand when needed for sewing. The unsplit band was what she used for spanking. For vandalism you speak to the child. Oldest children help teach the youngest ones. Property that was inherited included kayaks, umiaqs, dogs, fish nets and seal nets. Adopted children got anything extra. If something is stolen you pound the empty spot and the thief's hand swells up. Stealing from a cache was a very serious offense and could result in a killing. Food (game) never was wasted. It was always preserved or cached. Kaktovik The group does not have much information on violence except that when a person was growing up he would be told not to participate in violent acts. Adoption was out of compassion for a childless couple. Adopted children were often favored. For disobedience or vandalism a child was turned over to a council of elders. The oldest child may inherit property or it may be divided equally. A violent person, after a warning, was banned from the community. No food (game) was ever wasted. It was always cached, maybe under rocks. Atkasuk The reporting delegate was offended by some of the questions and did not give a full report on the caucus discussions. He did suggest that many of the court's current cases may not reflect behavior that existed in traditional times. Wainwright In cases of violence, the community leaders would select a group of strong men, along with a brother of the offender, to hold him and take away his weapons. If he was mentally sick they held him in an unoccupied house and took care of him until help arrived. There didn't used to be child neglect as relatives would help out. Inheritance was from father to oldest son and was expressed verbally before the parent died. The Coast Guard started arriving along the coast around 1925 and the U.S. law began affecting inheritance -- it changed to spouse instead of oldest son at that time. The Federal Marshal has brought territorial law to the villages since 1930. It used to be th elders who were leaders, now it is the young people and things have changed so that Inupiat law and language is being lost. Barrow Violence was punished by revenge by the relatives of the victim. In the case of Payyuq, who murdered a child, the whole community took action against him. In cases of sexual abuse against a woman; after repeated warnings the man was executed by the community. Neglect and child abuse are modern offenses and they result of drugs and alcohol. Adoption was by mutual consent. In cases of misbehavior the community pitched in to help. Inheritance was to the eldest son who took care of the family if the father died. The group did not finish all the questions. --------- "RE: Kiowa v. Manufacturing Technologies" --------- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 00:01:27 -0500 From: hdqrs@worldnet.att.net Subj: KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA v. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. UUCP email Bcc: to all. A Supreme Court case for reference. Jim Oyler >http://www.findlaw.com/ >http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html >http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=year&year=1998 >U.S. Supreme Court > >Syllabus > >KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA v. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. > >CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA , FIRST DIVISION > >No. 96-1037. >Argued January 12, 1998 - >Decided May 26, 1998 > >Petitioner, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, owns land in Oklahoma, and the United States holds land in trust for it there. After the Tribe's industrial development commission agreed to buy from respondent certain stock issued by a third party, the then-chairman of its business committee signed a promissory note, in the Tribe's name, agreeing to pay respondent $285,000 plus interest. The note recites it was signed at Carnegie, Oklahoma, where the Tribe has a complex on trust land. According to respondent, however, the note was executed and delivered in Oklahoma City, beyond tribal lands, and obligated the Tribe to make its payments in that city. The note does not specify a governing law, but provides that nothing in it subjects or limits the Tribe's sovereign rights. The Tribe defaulted on the note; respondent sued in state court; and the Tribe moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying in part on its sovereign immunity from suit. The trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for respondent. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding that Indian tribes are subject to suit in state court for breaches of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct. > >Held: Indian tribes enjoy sovereign immunity from civil suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation. As a matter of federal law, a tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. See, e.g., Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U.S. 877, 890. Respondent's request to confine such immunity to transactions on reservations and to tribal governmental activities is rejected. This Court's precedents have not drawn those distinctions, see, e.g., Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., 433 U.S. 165, 168, 172, and its cases allowing States to apply their substantive laws to tribal activities occurring outside Indian country or involving nonmembers have recognized that tribes continue to enjoy immunity from suit, see, e.g., Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 510. The Oklahoma Court of Appeals' belief that federal law does not mandate such immunity is mistaken. It is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States. E.g., Three Affiliated Tribes, supra, at 891. Nevertheless, the tribal immunity doctrine developed almost by accident: The Court's precedents reciting it, see, e.g., United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512, rest on early cases that assumed immunity without extensive reasoning, see, e.g., Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 358. The wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine may be doubted, but the Court chooses to adhere to its earlier decisions in deference to Congress, see Potawatomi, supra, at 510, which may wish to exercise its authority to limit tribal immunity through explicit legislation, see, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58. Congress has not done so thus far, nor has petitioner waived immunity, so it governs here. Pp. 2-8. > >Reversed. KE NNEDY , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST , > >C. J., and O'CONNOR , SCALIA , SOUTER , and BREYER , JJ., joined. > >STEVENS , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GINSBURG , > >JJ., joined. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. > >U.S. Supreme Court >No. 96-1037 > >KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, PETITIONER v. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. > >ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA , FIRST DIVISION >[May 26, 1998] > >JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. > >In this commercial suit against an Indian tribe, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals rejected the tribe's claim of sovereign immunity. Our case law to date often recites the rule of tribal immunity from suit. While these precedents rest on early cases that assumed immunity without extensive reasoning, we adhere to these decisions and reverse the judgment. > >I > >Petitioner Kiowa Tribe is an Indian tribe recognized by the Federal Government. The Tribe owns land in Oklahoma, and, in addition, the United States holds land in that State in trust for the Tribe. Though the record is vague about some key details, the facts appear to be as follows: In 1990, a tribal entity called the Kiowa Industrial Development Commission agreed to buy from respondent Manufacturing Technologies certain stock issued by Clinton-Sherman Aviation, Inc. On April 3, 1990, the then-Chairman of the Tribe's Business Committee signed a promissory note in the name of the Tribe. By its note, the Tribe agreed to pay Manufacturing Technologies $285,000 plus interest. The face of the note recites it was signed at Carnegie, Oklahoma, where the Tribe has a complex on land held in trust for the Tribe. According to respondent, however, the Tribe executed and delivered the note to Manufacturing Technologies in Oklahoma City, beyond the Tribe's lands, and the note obligated the Tribe to make its payments in Oklahoma City. The note does not specify a governing law. In a paragraph entitled "Waivers and Governing Law," it does provide: "Nothing in this Note subjects or limits the sovereign rights of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma." App. 14. > >The Tribe defaulted; respondent sued on the note in state court; and the Tribe moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying in part on its sovereign immunity from suit. The trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for respondent. The Oklahoma Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Indian tribes are subject to suit in state court for breaches of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to review the judgment, and we granted certiorari. 521 U. S. ___ (1997). > >II > >As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U.S. 877, 890 (1986); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 512 (1940) (USF&G) . To date, our cases have sustained tribal immunity from suit without drawing a distinction based on where the tribal activities occurred. In one case, a state court had asserted jurisdiction over tribal fishing "both on and off its reservation." Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., 433 U.S. 165, 167 (1977). We held the Tribe's claim of immunity was "well founded," though we did not discuss the relevance of where the fishing had taken place. Id., at 168, 172. Nor have we yet drawn a distinction between governmental and commercial activities of a tribe. See, e.g., ibid. (recognizing tribal immunity for fishing, which may well be a commercial activity); Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (recognizing tribal immunity from suit over taxation of cigarette sales); USF&G, supra, (recognizing tribal immunity for coal-mining lease). Though respondent asks us to confine immunity from suit to transactions on reservations and to governmental activities, our precedents have not drawn these distinctions. > >Our cases allowing States to apply their substantive laws to tribal activities are not to the contrary. We have recognized that a State may have authority to tax or regulate tribal activities occurring within the State but outside Indian country. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148-149 (1973); see also Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 75 (1962). To say substantive state laws apply to off-reservation conduct, however, is not to say that a tribe no longer enjoys immunity from suit. In Potawatomi , for example, we reaffirmed that while Oklahoma may tax cigarette sales by a Tribe's store to nonmembers, the Tribe enjoys immunity from a suit to collect unpaid state taxes. 498 U.S., at 510. There is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them. See id., at 514. > >The Oklahoma Court of Appeals nonetheless believed federal law did not mandate tribal immunity, resting its holding on the decision in Hoover v. Oklahoma , 909 P. 2d 59 (Okla. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1188 (1996). In Hoover , the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that tribal immunity for off-reservation commercial activity, like the decision not to exercise jurisdiction over a sister State, is solely a matter of comity. 909 P. 2d, at 62 (citing Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 426 (1979)). According to Hoover , because the State holds itself open to breach of contract suits, it may allow its citizens to sue other sovereigns acting within the State. We have often noted, however, that the immunity possessed by Indian tribes is not coextensive with that of the States. See, e.g., Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991). In Blatchford , we distinguished state sovereign immunity from tribal sovereign immunity, as tribes were not at the Constitutional Convention. They were thus not parties to the "mutuality of . . . concession" that "makes the States' surrender of immunity from suit by sister States plausible." Id., at 782; accord Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. ___, ___ (1997) (slip op., at 5-6). So tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to diminution by the States. Three Affiliated Tribes, supra, at 891; Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 154 (1980). > >Though the doctrine of tribal immunity is settled law and controls this case, we note that it developed almost by accident. The doctrine is said by some of our own opinions to rest on the Court's opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). See, e.g., Potawatomi, supra, at 510. Though Turner is indeed cited as authority for the immunity, examination shows it simply does not stand for that proposition. The case arose on lands within the Creek Nation's "public domain" and subject to "the powers of [the] sovereign people." Turner , supra, at 355. The Creek Nation gave each individual Creek grazing rights to a portion of the Creek Nation's public lands, and 100 Creeks in turn leased their grazing rights to Turner, a non-Indian. He built a long fence around the land, but a mob of Creek Indians tore the fence down. Congress then passed a law allowing Turner to sue the Creek Nation in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims dismissed Turner's suit, and the Court, in an opinion by Justice Brandeis, affirmed. The Court stated: "The fundamental obstacle to recovery is not the immunity of a sovereign to suit, but the lack of a substantive right to recover the damages resulting from failure of a government or its officers to keep the peace." Turner, 248 U. S. , at 358. "No such liability existed by the general law." Id., at 357. > >The quoted language is the heart of Turner . It is, at best, an assumption of immunity for the sake of argument, not a reasoned statement of doctrine. One cannot even say the Court or Congress assumed the congressional enactment was needed to overcome tribal immunity. There was a very different reason why Congress had to pass the Act: "The tribal government had been dissolved. Without authorization from Congress, the Nation could not then have been sued in any court; at least without its consent." Id., at 358. The fact of tribal dissolution, not its sovereign status, was the predicate for the legislation authorizing suit. Turner , then, is but a slender reed for supporting the principle of tribal sovereign immunity. Turner 's passing reference to immunity, however, did become an explicit holding that tribes had immunity from suit. We so held in USF&G , saying: "These Indian Nations are exempt from suit without Congressional authorization." 309 U.S., at 512 (citing Turner , supra, at 358). As sovereigns or quasi-sovereigns, the Indian Nations enjoyed immunity "from judicial attack" absent consent to be sued. 309 U.S., at 513-514. Later cases, albeit with little analysis, reiterated the doctrine. E.g., Puyallup, 433 U. S. , at 167, 172-173; Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978); Three Affiliated Tribes , 476 U.S., at 890-891; Blatchford, supra, at 782; Coeur d'Alene, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 6). > >The doctrine of tribal immunity came under attack a few years ago in Potawatomi, supra . The petitioner there asked us to abandon or at least narrow the doctrine be cause tribal businesses had become far removed from tribal self-governance and internal affairs. We retained the doctrine, however, on the theory that Congress had failed to abrogate it in order to promote economic development and tribal self-sufficiency. Potawatomi, 498 U.S., at 510. The rationale, it must be said, can be challenged as inapposite to modern, wide-ranging tribal enterprises extending well beyond traditional tribal customs and activities. JUSTICE STEVENS , in a separate opinion, criticized tribal immunity as "founded upon an anachronistic fiction" and suggested it might not extend to off reservation commercial activity. Id., at 514-515 (concurring opinion). > >There are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine. At one time, the doctrine of tribal immunity from suit might have been thought necessary to protect nascent tribal governments from encroachments by States. In our interdependent and mobile society, however, tribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance. This is evident when tribes take part in the Nation's commerce. Tribal enterprises now include ski resorts, gambling, and sales of cigarettes to non-Indians. See Mescalero v. Jones , 411 U.S. 145 (1973) ; Potawatomi, supra ; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims. > >These considerations might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity, at least as an overarching rule. Respondent does not ask us to repudiate the principle outright, but suggests instead that we confine it to reservations or to noncommercial activities. We decline to draw this distinction in this case, as we defer to the role Congress may wish to exercise in this important judgment. > >Congress has acted against the background of our decisions. It has restricted tribal immunity from suit in limited circumstances. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. - 450f(c)(3) (mandatory liability insurance); 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) (gaming activities). And in other statutes it has declared an intention not to alter it. See, e.g., -450n (nothing in financial-assistance program is to be construed as "affecting, modifying, diminishing, or otherwise impairing the sovereign immunity from suit enjoyed by an Indian tribe"); see also Potawatomi , 498 U.S., at 510 (discussing Indian Financing Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 77, 25 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. ). > >In considering Congress' role in reforming tribal immunity, we find instructive the problems of sovereign immunity for foreign countries. As with tribal immunity, foreign sovereign immunity began as a judicial doctrine. Chief Justice Marshall held that United States courts had no jurisdiction over an armed ship of a foreign state, even while in an American port. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812). While the holding was narrow, "that opinion came to be regarded as extending virtually absolute immunity to foreign sovereigns." Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 486 (1983). In 1952, the State Department issued what came to be known as the Tate Letter, announcing the policy of denying immunity for the commercial acts of a foreign nation. See id., at 486-487. Difficulties in implementing the principle led Congress in 1976 to enact the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, resulting in more predictable and precise rules. See id., at 488-489 (discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. 1604, 1605, 1607). > >Like foreign sovereign immunity, tribal immunity is a matter of federal law. Verlinden , supra, at 486. Although the Court has taken the lead in drawing the bounds of tribal immunity, Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, can alter its limits through explicit legislation. See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S., at 58. > >In both fields, Congress is in a position to weigh and accommodate the competing policy concerns and reliance interests. The capacity of the Legislative Branch to address the issue by comprehensive legislation counsels some caution by us in this area. Congress "has occasionally authorized limited classes of suits against Indian tribes" and "has always been at liberty to dispense with such tribal immunity or to limit it." Potawatomi , supra , at 510. It has not yet done so. > >In light of these concerns, we decline to revisit our case law and choose to defer to Congress. Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation. Congress has not abrogated this immunity, nor has petitioner waived it, so the immunity governs this case. The contrary decision of the Oklahoma Court of Appeals is Reversed. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >U.S. Supreme Court >No. 96-1037 > >KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, PETITIONER v. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. > >ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA , FIRST DIVISION >[May 26, 1998] > >JUSTICE STEVENS , with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. > >"Absent express federal law to the contrary, Indians going beyond reservation boundaries have generally been held subject to nondiscriminatory state law otherwise applicable to all citizens of the State." Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 148-149 (1973). There is no federal statute or treaty that provides petitioner, the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, any immunity from the application of Oklahoma law to its off-reservation commercial activities. Nor, in my opinion, should this Court extend the judge made doctrine of sovereign immunity to pre-empt the authority of the state courts to decide for themselves whether to accord such immunity to Indian tribes as a matter of comity. > >I > >"The doctrine of sovereign immunity is an amalgam of two quite different concepts, one applicable to suits in the sovereign's own courts and the other to suits in the courts of another sovereign." Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 414 (1979). In the former category, the sovereign's power to determine the jurisdiction of its own courts and to define the substantive legal rights of its citizens adequately ex plains the lesser authority to define its own immunity. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353 (1907). The sovereign's claim to immunity in the courts of a second sovereign, however, normally depends on the second sovereign's law. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 136 (1812). An Indian tribe's assertion of immunity in a state judicial proceeding is unique because it implicates the law of three different sovereigns: the tribe itself, the State, and the Federal Government. > >As the Court correctly observes, the doctrine of tribal immunity from judicial jurisdiction "developed almost by accident." Ante , at 4. Its origin is attributed to two federal cases involving three of the Five Civilized Tribes. The former case, Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919), rejected a claim against the Creek Nation, whose tribal government had been dissolved. The Court explains why that case provides no more than "a slender reed" of support for the doctrine even in federal court. Ante , at 4-5. In the latter case, United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 (1940) (USF&G) , the Federal Government sought to recover royalties due under coal leases that the United States had executed on behalf of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. The Court held that the Government's action was not barred by a prior judgment against it entered by a different federal court. The holding that the prior judgment was "void in so far as it undertakes to fix a credit against the Indian Nations," id. , at 512, rested on two grounds. First, in a companion case decided that day, 1 > >the Court ruled that "cross-claims against the United States are justiciable only in those courts where Congress has consented to their consideration," ibid.; but no statute had authorized the prior adjudication of the cross-claim against the Federal Government. The second ground was the statement, supported by a citation of Turner and two Eighth Circuit decisions addressing the immunity of two of the Five Civilized Tribes, that: " These Indian Nations are exempt from suit without Congressional authorization." Ibid. (emphasis added). At most, the holding extends only to federal cases in which the United States is litigating on behalf of a tribe. Moreover, both Turner and USF&G arose out of conduct that occurred on Indian reservations. > >In subsequent cases, we have made it clear that the States have legislative jurisdiction over the off-reservation conduct of Indian tribes, and even over some on reservation activities. 2 > >Thus, in litigation that consumed more than a decade and included three decisions by this Court, we rejected a tribe's claim that the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded the State of Washington from regulating fishing activities on the Puyallup Reservation. Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Wash., 433 U.S. 165, 175-176 (1977). It is true that as an incident to that important holding, we vacated the portions of the state-court decree that were directed against the Tribe itself. Id. , at 172-173. That action, however, had little practical effect because we upheld the portions of the decree granting relief against the entire class of Indians that was represented by the Tribe. Although Justice Blackmun, one of the "strongest supporters of Indian rights on the Court," 3 > >wrote separately to express his "doubts . . . about the continuing vitality in this day of the doctrine of tribal immunity as it was enunciated in United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. ," id., at 178, our opinion did not purport to extend or to explain the doctrine. Moreover, as the Tribe's predominant argument was that "the state courts of Washington are without jurisdiction to regulate fishing activities on its reservation," id. , at 167, we had no occasion to consider the validity of an injunction relating solely to off-reservation fishing. > >In several cases since Puyallup , we have broadly referred to the tribes' immunity from suit, but "with little analysis," ante , at 5, and only considering controversies arising on reservation territory. In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), a Tribe member and her daughter who both lived on the Santa Clara Pueblo reservation sued in federal court to challenge the validity of a tribal membership law. We agreed with the Tribe that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide this "intratribal controvers[y] affecting matters of tribal self-government and sovereignty." Id. , at 53. Our decision in Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U.S. 877 (1986), held that North Dakota could not require a Tribe's blanket waiver of sovereign immunity as a condition for permitting the tribe to sue private parties in state court. That condition was "unduly intrusive on the Tribe's common law sovereign immunity, and thus on its ability to govern itself according to its own laws," because it required "that the Tribe open itself up to the coercive jurisdiction of state courts for all matters occurring on the reservation." Id. , at 891. 4 > >Most recently, we held that a federal court lacked authority to entertain Oklahoma's claims for unpaid taxes on cigarette sales made on tribal trust land, which is treated the same as reservation territory. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509511 (1991). 5 > >In sum, we have treated the doctrine of sovereign immunity from judicial jurisdiction as settled law, but in none of our cases have we applied the doctrine to purely off-reservation conduct. Despite the broad language used in prior cases, it is quite wrong for the Court to suggest that it is merely following precedent, for we have simply never considered whether a tribe is immune from a suit that has no meaningful nexus to the Tribe's land or its sovereign functions. Moreover, none of our opinions has attempted to set forth any reasoned explanation for a distinction between the States' power to regulate the off reservation conduct of Indian tribes and the States' power to adjudicate disputes arising out of such off-reservation conduct. Accordingly, while I agree with the Court that it is now too late to repudiate the doctrine entirely, for the following reasons I would not extend the doctrine beyond its present contours. > >II > >Three compelling reasons favor the exercise of judicial restraint. > >First, the law-making power that the Court has assumed belongs in the first instance to Congress. The fact that Congress may nullify or modify the Court's grant of virtually unlimited tribal immunity does not justify the Court's performance of a legislative function. The Court is not merely announcing a rule of comity for federal judges to observe; it is announcing a rule that pre-empts state power. The reasons that undergird our strong presumption against construing federal statutes to pre-empt state law, see, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 518 (1992), apply with added force to judge-made rules. > >In the absence of any congressional statute or treaty defining the Indian tribes' sovereign immunity, the creation of a federal common-law "default" rule of immunity might in theory be justified by federal interests. By setting such a rule, however, the Court is not deferring to Congress or exercising "caution," ante , at 8-rather, it is creating law. The Court fails to identify federal interests supporting its extension of sovereign immunity-indeed, it all but concedes that the present doctrine lacks such justification, ante , at 6-and completely ignores the State's interests. Its opinion is thus a far cry from the "comprehensive pre-emption inquiry in the Indian law context" described in Three Affiliated Tribes that calls for the examination of "not only the congressional plan, but also 'the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake . . . .' " 476 U.S., at 884 (quoting White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 145 (1980)). Stronger reasons are needed to fill the gap left by Congress. > >Second, the rule is strikingly anomalous. Why should an Indian tribe enjoy broader immunity than the States, the Federal Government, and foreign nations? As a matter of national policy, the United States has waived its immunity from tort liability and from liability arising out of its commercial activities. See 28 U. S. C. 1346(b), 2674 (Federal Tort Claims Act); 1346(a)(2), 1491 (Tucker Act). Congress has also decided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 that foreign states may be sued in the federal and state courts for claims based upon commercial activities carried on in the United States, or such activities elsewhere that have a "direct effect in the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2). And a State may be sued in the courts of another State. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). The fact that the States surrendered aspects of their sovereignty when they joined the Union does not even arguably present a legitimate basis for concluding that the Indian tribes retainedor, indeed, ever had-any sovereign immunity for off reservation commercial conduct. > >Third, the rule is unjust. This is especially so with respect to tort victims who have no opportunity to negotiate for a waiver of sovereign immunity; yet nothing in the Court's reasoning limits the rule to lawsuits arising out of voluntary contractual relationships. Governments, like individuals, should pay their debts and should be held accountable for their unlawful, injurious conduct. > >I respectfully dissent. >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Footnotes > >[Footnote 1] United States v. Shaw, S. 495 (1940). > >[Footnote 2] "The general notion drawn from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Worcester v. Georgia , 6 Pet. 515, 561; The Kansas Indians , 5 Wall. 737, 755-757; and The New York Indians , 5 Wall. 761, that an Indian reservation is a distinct nation within whose boundaries state law cannot penetrate, has yielded to closer analysis when confronted, in the course of subsequent developments, with diverse concrete situations." Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 72 (1962). > >[Footnote 3] Dussias, Heeding the Demands of Justice: Justice Blackmun's Indian Law Opinions, 71 N. D. L. Rev. 41, 43 (1995). > >[Footnote 4] The particular counter-claims asserted by the private party, which we assumed would be barred by sovereign immunity, concerned the construction of a water-supply system on the Tribe's reservation. Three Affiliated Tribes S., at 881. > >[Footnote 5] The Court cites Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991), and Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. ___ (1997), as having "reiterated the doctrine" of tribal sovereign immunity. Ante , at 5. Each of those cases upheld a State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from being sued in federal court by an Indian tribe. The passing references to tribes' immunity from suit did not discuss the scope of that immunity and were, of course, dicta. --------- "RE: Stoney Point: Records Destroyed" --------- Date: 98-06-25 01:41:15 EDT From: SISIS@envirolink.org (S.I.S.I.S.) Subj: Stoney Point: Records destroyed, Ombuddy called :-:-:-:-:-:-:-Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty-:-:-:-:-:-:-: [S.I.S.I.S. note: The following mainstream news articles may contain biased or distorted information and may be missing pertinent facts and/or context. They are provided for reference only.] 1. 1995 Ipperwash Park : ..."some records no longer exist"? 2. Ipperwash Park: Records Destroyed? 3. Ombudsman asked to probe Ipperwash case :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: LOOK HARDER FOR PAPERS, ONTARIO MINISTRY TOLD Globe and Mail, June 23, 1998, Page A7 by Martin Mittelstaedt Ontario's Privacy Commissioner has ordered the Solicitor General's Office to search again for documents compiled by a senior police officer involved in the government's response to native occupiers at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. The commissioner has also told deputy solicitor-general Tim Millard to issue a sworn affidavit by July 3 showing compliance with the order. It is the first time the commissioner has demanded any deputy minister issue a sworn affidavit. The documents, from Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Ron Fox, were sought by the Globe and Mail under a Freedom of Information Act request. At the time of the Ipperwash incident, Mr. Fox was a special adviser on native people in the deputy solicitor general's office. The Privacy Commissioner said in a ruling dated last Friday that the government's effort to locate Supt. Fox's records" was not reasonable." Supt. Fox was a key participant in a committee of government officials who planned the province's response to the native occupation, which led to the fatal shooting by an OPP officer of Dudley George, a protester. The shooting has raised questions about why the police adopted such a violent response to the occupation and whether there was political interference in the OPP's conduct. Premier Mike Harris has denied political interference. The Globe and Mail filed a Freedom of Information Act request a year ago for all records Supt. Fox produced or received during the occupation crisis including E-mails, facsimiles and hand-written notes. The ministry initially said it could locate only one document from Supt. Fox, and then refused to release it. The ministry later found another document. Both documents were eventually released through negotiations with the Privacy Commissioner, but portions were censored. Although Supt. Fox worked for the deputy minister at the time of the occupation, he has since returned to the OPP. In the ruling, the commissioner indicated that Supt. Fox had provided a sworn affidavit in which he indicated that when he left the deputy minister's office, "he left behind all hard copy and electronic documents generated or received by him regarding the Ipperwash incident without retaining copies." The commissioner criticized the affidavit because it didn't outline Supt. Fox's recollection of the records he compiled during the period and because the ministry didn't fully explain what happened to the documents. Under the ruling, Mr. Millard must provide an explanation as part of his sworn affidavit. "If the deputy minister is of the view that responsive records existed, but no longer exist, the affidavit should also include details of why any such records were destroyed," the ruling said. Supt. Fox has also been ordered to provide another sworn affidavit outlining his role and participation in events surrounding the park occupation, including an outline of the records he compiled and details of their fate. The ministry told the commissioner that part of the problem it encountered in fulfilling the information request is that it moved offices since the Ipperwash crisis and had a lot of records to keep track of. According to the Privacy Commissioners' ruling, the ministry also stated "that is conducted an unsuccessful search of its backup systems in an attempt to locate responsive E-mail messages. It also states, without providing details, that 'it is possible that some records existed, but no longer exist.'" :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: RECORDS PRESERVED: MINISTRY Globe and Mail, June 24, 1998 Toronto - The Ontario Solicitor-General's Ministry has not destroyed any relevant records relating to the aboriginal occupation of Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995, according to Solicitor-General Jim Flaherty. "I have been assured by the deputy minister that, in all of his inquiries and searches to date, he had found no evidence that any pertinent records have been destroyed," Mr. Flaherty told the legislature yesterday. He also added that the deputy minister has also "indicated to me that the ministry has gone so far as to search the electronic mail backup system, and no responsive records have been found." Mr. Flaherty was responding to Liberal MPP Gerry Philips, who sought assurance that no records had been destroyed in the wake of a ruling by the provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner, which stated that the ministry had failed to look hard enough for records in answer to a request by The Globe and Mail. The newspaper is seeking documents from Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Ron Fox, who was special adviser on native affairs in the office of the deputy solicitor-general at the time of the Ipperwash incident, in which native protester Dudley George was killed by an OPP officer. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: OMBUDSMAN ASKED TO PROBE IPPERWASH CASE The Province, June 24, 1998 Page A22 (CP) Toronto - a coalition seeking an inquiry into a fatal police shooting of a native protester is taking its case to the Ontario ombudsman. "All of the efforts we have made to get answers, to have an inquiry have been cut off and so we're forced to turn to the last resort...the ombudsman's office," Ann Pohl of the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into the Death of Dudley George said yesterday. George was killed by police in September 1995 during a native protest over a burial ground at Ipperwash Provincial Park. A police officer was convicted of criminal negligence in the shooting. George was unarmed at the time. His family alleges the premier's office directed police to use force against the natives and then launched a coverup of the facts. Premier Mike Harris has denied the interference. Pohl says ombudsman Roberta Jamieson has the authority to examine the government's role in the shooting, but "she cannot call a public inquiry." :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: More information on Stoney Point (aka Ipperwash): http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/Ipperwash/arcmai00.html Letters to The Province - mailto:provedpg@pacpress.southam.ca Letters to the Globe and Mail - mailto:letters@GlobeAndMail.ca In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2 EMAIL: SISIS@envirolink.org WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html --------- "RE: NYM's Rose Caldwell" --------- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:08:54 -0800 From: SISIS@envirolink.org (S.I.S.I.S.) Subj: NYM 's Rose Caldwell: Interview :-:-:-:S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty:-:-:-: June 28, 1998 No Copyright; Reproduce Freely INTERVIEW WITH NATIVE YOUTH MOVEMENT'S ROSE CALDWELL The following is an edited interview conducted on June 25th with the Native Youth Movement's Rose Caldwell from the Westbank Indian reserve. S.I.S.I.S.: For some time the Native Youth Movement (NYM) has been protesting the bogus and fraudulent BC "Treaty" Process, currently ongoing in British Columbia. This process has been described as "legitimizing the theft of our lands" by Haida Elder Lavina White. "Extinguishment by consent" of Indigenous sovereignty is the probable consequence of the BC Treaty negotiation process involving the various Band Councils, settler governments, and the First Nations Summit (FNS). In protest against these "trick or treaty" negotiations, grass roots peoples, traditionalists, and native youth are mobilizing. NYM has protested at the First Nations Summit, and mounted occupations of BC Treaty Commission offices in Vancouver, and the Westbank Band Council office on the Westbank reserve of the Okanagan Nation. That Band Council has threatened, indeed instructed the authorities to remove NYM members from the Westbank reserve. Greetings to you Rose Caldwell and NYM. Perhaps we can start by asking you to briefly sketch in the recent protests of NYM? R.C.: Ok. In April there was a protest down at the BC Treaty Commission offices in Vancouver. My daughter and myself were a part of that. There were 14 of us arrested at that incident. Then my daughter arranged the Okanagan Nation Youth Cultural Gathering, here on our property. Everything was done here, the cooking etc., and everybody stayed here. Through that meeting it was decided that we would protest in the Westbank Band office, because Westbank is one the farthest into this BC Treaty process, and my daughter and myself are from here. On the 25th of May we went into the Westbank Indian Band office and shut it down. We were in there for 33 hours. There were 23 of us at that incident that got arrested. We are now in the process of going through the legal system. They - the Westbank Indian Band Council and BC crown counsel got together and we went to court 2 weeks ago today. They decided that the charges would be raised from civil to criminal [contempt of court]. So we are now charged with... S.I.S.I.S: ...failure to obey the court order? R.C.: Yes. Two weeks ago NYM members were all there. We talked to the judge and asked him whether I could appear for all of us, for the next two court appearances. Then it would go to trial. So today, court dates were set: one for July 9, 1998, to let the court know that I have informed everybody as to when the court date is. There is another court date on September 14, when all of us have to appear. The trial date is set for October 5 - 16th. S.I.S.I.S.: And that will be in BC Supreme Court in Kelowna? R.C.: BC Supreme Court #1 in Kelowna at 9:30 AM S.I.S.I.S.: This business of criminalizing indigenous protesters - in BC Ts'peten Defenders Wolverine and "OJ" are two political prisoners that come to mind, for standing for rights and freedom of expression, is very disturbing, yes? R.C.: It certainly is. It restricts your freedom of speech or freedom to make up our own minds. The Westbank Indian Band (WIB), has gone further than charging us. They have, in fact, served us with a Band Council Resolution (BCR) last Friday that orders all of the demonstrators off of my property. When an individual band council goes into something like that it really raises a lot of questions. The majority of people staying here are of Okanagan Nation descent. So they're [WIB] are in the process of negotiating a "treaty" and already they're setting limits as to what can and can't happen on the reserve. Is this preparing to go into a dictatorship? It just doesn't make sense. The section that they're quoting in the Indian Act is Section 30. If you look at the history of section 30, it comes from when the reserves were first made. A long time ago, there were a lot of non-native "squatters": hunters, trappers, that kind of thing. That's where Section 30 came from. It was very rarely used. There was an attempt to use it against the Gustafsen Lake people. And the judge wouldn't even hear it. So the precedent that they're setting is not very well thought out. I have a few people on this list of 18 names that they've provided me, where it involves a daughter not being able to visit her father, one of the boys not being able to visit his brother, a girl not being able to visit an Auntie, etc. The immediate question in my mind with these negotiations into "self-government" or "land-claims", is they're already dividing family structures, And these are blood ties, blood lines that they're interfering with. Its totally crazy. S.I.S.I.S.: In fact, one of the objections that grassroots, traditionalists and others have with this BC "Treaty" Process, is very real questions about whether any of this proceeds with the consent of peoples affected. Do you think negotiators for the Westbank Indian Act Band have the consent of people here in the Okanagan Nation? R.C: Absolutely not. And that's why there's such a good support system as far as the youth goes, here. It's because they don't [have consent]. We have an elite section of people - negotiators who are primarily white and the band chiefs and councils. In my opinion it's a money grab. S.I.S.I.S.: How much are they making Rose? R.C.: Here the [Indian Act] chief makes $65, 000.00 a year. Our former chief (Robert Louie) made $120,000.00 a year. You bet they're going to try to hang on to that by tooth or nail. S.I.S.I.S.: Some describe what's going on as a process of surrender negotiations not any kind of legitimate treaty process? R.C.: Yes. That's just it. I read some information yesterday that talked about the kind of dollars put into this BC treaty process. Out of $95 million dollars, approximately $75 million of that has to be paid back. Each and every aboriginal person in this province is responsible for paying that money back. S.I.S.I.S.: So these politicians, lawyers and the negotiating industry are making some pretty hefty cheese off of this process? R.C.: You bet they are. Take a look at the First Nations Summit Committee. The Summit Committee member makes a thousand dollars a day. I know they're in the process of a four day Summit meeting in Vancouver now. That's 4 $4,000.00 a day per head for this committee. That doesn't include the incidentals like food, hotels or travel. So yes, the amounts of money that are pushed through this process are phenomenal. S.I.S.I.S.: So now NYM is being subjected to persecution not only by the police and judiciary, but by the DIA Band Council where you are. Am I correct in understanding that you yourself are included in this eviction order - from your own home? R.C.: Yes. Publicly they're saying that I'm not included nor my daughter. But if you read the BCR it says: "all demonstrators". Well, I'm one of the demonstrators. This land is the only thing I have. It's 2 1/2 acres with a house on it. Its the only thing I'm going to be able to pass down through my line. I'll be damned if anybody's going to take it away from me. S.I.S.I.S.: Well I'm amazed to still find you here because the last thing I heard on CBC was a news clip with an RCMP officer serving you with these papers. It looked like the police would shortly be arriving. That hasn't happened so far. R.C.: That's exactly what we had thought. And at that point in time, the people here put out the call for support and for all their relatives to come. We had probably 60 or 70 people here. When I was served, the officer said he had to go back and talk with his superiors and find out what was going on. But he they would be back. S.I.S.I.S.: So at any time, if they decide to play it stupid, you could have the police breaking down the doors? R.C.: That's right, that's exactly right. There have been a lot of phone calls that have gone from these kids' aunts and uncles, grandpas and grandmas, mums and dads, telling the Chief and Council: 'if my child suffers in any way, shape or form it's no longer in Rose Caldwell's hands or even Chief and Council's hands. We'll come and we'll do something about it. And that is the cry across the country. We have contacts all over BC and elsewhere. You know, it really upsets me that is has to come to this point of disarray because they think they're untouchable and can throw the Indian Act at us, bully us and do whatever they want. Well we're still here. I figured maybe this morning when we all left to go to court, that they'd blockade us from coming back. S.I.S.I.S.: ** What can people do if they want to help or keep the heat backed off? Should they be calling their so-called representatives? What kinds of things might they do? R.C.: That's one avenue to go - the positive avenue to go. One of the things we'd like to do is make a call to write us some support letters. My address is NYM c/o Rose Caldwell, 3523 Ridge Estates Drive, Westbank, "British Columbia", "Canada" V4J 2H5. The average ages of our members go from 14 to 30. It really upsets me that they're not being heard. It's almost like the old 'kids should be seen and not heard' thing. Well that era is over. These people are going to be our future leaders and they're very well versed in what they do. That's what attracted me when we went to the Youth Conference in Prince George. They know the dates and proclamations, the White Papers and the history of assimilation. It's really amazing to watch them work. S.I.S.I.S.: Yes it's very inspiring to many people native and non-native. Just to see people standing up for their rights and sovereignty, as well as encouraging other people to stand with them. After all, a crooked politician is a crooked politician and something we're all increasingly familiar with. R.C.: And that is just the way it is. It's really scary to think that a lot of these high wages that certain people are taking advantage of, are something these youth are going to have to pay back out of their future. At any point, these politicians and negotiators can walk away from the whole deal but the whole bill is still attached to the youth, adults and our future. There are certain bands that have no economic base. It they get themselves into the hole $5 million bucks, how are they going to pay it back? These politicians have already put it into their bank accounts and retirement funds. S.I.S.I.S.: The Haida elder Lavina White says the BC Treaty Process is to "legitimize the theft of our lands". R.C.: Exactly! At the end of day they're going to give us a monetary settlement only we're not going to see it. It's going to go to pay off the bill the negotiations have run up. So, we're paying for our own [dispossession] negotiations. How ridiculous is that? S.I.S.I.S.: ...only in BC... R.C.: no kidding... S.I.S.I.S.: It's been a pleasure and we'll keep in touch and see how this persecution masquerading as prosecution goes. R.C.: My final words are that this Band Council is charging us criminally. There are a lot of allegations about damage they say we did. All I can say is that if the Westbank Indian Band Council have made a decision to hose their insurance company off the backs of their children - that's something they will have to answer for in future. S.I.S.I.S.: We'll talk again soon. R.C.: It's been a pleasure. S.I.S.I.S.: Take care. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: STAND FOR DECOLONIZATION AND FOR INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY. STAND WITH NYM! PLEASE SUPPORT THE NATIVE YOUTH MOVEMENT: NYM C/O 3523 Ridge Estates Drive Westbank , "BC" "Canada" V4T - 2H5 VOICE YOUR PROTEST: BC NDP Premier Glen Clark - premier@gov.bc.ca Phone: (250) 387-1715 Westbank Indian Band Council - Phone: (250) 769-4999 Fax: (250) 769-4377 Kelowna RCMP - NO RAID ON NYM! - Phone: (250) 762-3300 Please cc: sisis@envirolink.org "We young people fully understand that the BC Treaty Process was designed to dispossess us youth of our aboriginal title to our lands. No single band or so called, self appointed first nation has the right to sell out our inheritance or birthright. We will not be sold out by these people who pretend to be native leaders." -- NYM :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2 EMAIL: SISIS@envirolink.org WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html --------- "RE: Chiapas Aflame" --------- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:00:16 -0700 From: Arturo Espana Subj: Chiapas Aflame UUCP email Friday June 26 9:00 PM ET Chiapas Aflame June 26, 1998 -- For the past four years, the people of Chiapas have been subjected to classic low-intensity warfare, though the past several months has seen such a military escalation that "low intensity" no longer applies. Since the Christmas massacre in Chiapas, villages within the autonomous indigenous regions of southern Mexico have reported encirclement policies designed to terrorize and starve the suspected Zapatista supporters. The armed forces have also moved in on entire villages in "search and destroy" missions, while paramilitary forces have enjoyed a free reign, resulting in the assassination of many dozens of civilians and the terrorization of tens of thousands. Since the 1994 uprising, the military has been warring not with the Zapatista army, but against its base, the autonomous villages. Accords between Zapatistas and a governmental peacemaking body had called for the recognition and creation of autonomous indigenous communities. The accords were later rejected by President Zedillo, whose government has done everything but negotiate in good faith. In the name of peace, reconciliation and legality, the government has in the past several months initiated massive, violent actions to bring these self-governing communities "inside the Constitution." This has resulted in a state of siege for the region, new massacres, the false imprisonment of hundreds, the further loss of ancestral lands by Mayans, and the displacement of close to 20,000 civilians. Amid all this conflict, Chiapanecos have been prevented from growing and marketing their crops in a region of Mexico that was already the poorest before the rebellion. The recent police and military actions threaten to turn Chiapas into a Central America-style military conflagration. Because the Zapatistas are poorly armed, renewed full-scale military warfare could result in a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions not seen there since the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The military actions against indigenous peoples have also resulted in massacres in Chiapas and Guerrero and further actions in Oaxaca. Preceding June's large-scale military operations in Chiapas, the government began to expel foreigners en masse. Then Archbishop Samuel Ruiz resigned as head of the mediation commission due to governmental harassment of priests. Within days, government troops began laying siege, Guatemala-style, to the autonomous villages that were loyal to the Zapatistas. But unlike the Acteal massacre of December in which 45 villagers were killed by paramilitary forces, these operations are official government policy and are being flaunted as being within the sovereign right of the nation to "defend" itself. While Mexico has not been so bold as the military government of Guatemala in the early 1980s -- which rejected U.S. military aid at that time because it didn't want to be constrained by minimal codes of conduct -- it nonetheless has acted with impunity. The expulsion of foreigners wasn't simply an effort to eliminate witnesses; it was also a message to the world that Mexico cares little about what the world thinks. The civilian population of Chiapas is apparently being sacrificed in the name of sovereignty. It has long been said that patriotism is the last refuge of political scoundrels. If so, then national sovereignty must be the last refuge of immoral governments. Apparently, it means a nation can do whatever it wants as long as it acts within its borders. This notion -- recently asserted in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia -- has been soundly rejected by the world's nations. The situation in Mexico has now moved from cultural to physical genocide. The government's deeds are more than actions against an indigenous population. They constitute an arrogance of power, a power that lashes out worldwide whenever a population stands in the way of "progress," profit or does not racially or ethnically conform to those in power. In response to the atrocities of the Mexican armed forces, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has begun to voice U.S. concerns. The United States has no moral authority on this matter, particularly because it is virtually the lone obstacle to creating a world court that would try individual war criminals. Notwithstanding, the recent massacres in Chiapas could wind up in such a court to try those high-level authorities responsible for the various recent massacres in southern Mexico. The world can ill afford a Central America in Chiapas. Neither can we afford arrogance of power to dictate the course of human actions. For updates regarding situation in Chiapas, contact the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico at: moonlight@igc.apc.org Patrisia Gonzales & Roberto Rodriguez write this syndicated column. --------- "RE: Logging Blockade" --------- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:59:09 -0800 From: SISIS@envirolink.org (S.I.S.I.S.) Subj: Logging Blockade: BC "prepared to take action" :-:-:-:-:-:-:-Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty-:-:-:-:-:-:-: June 21, 1998 BC NDP GOVERNMENT WILL "ENFORCE THE LAWS AS NECESSARY" AGAINST TSILQOTINS The Anaham Indian Band of the Tsilqotin Nation is currently blockading the Raven Lake road, a main access road into their unceded territory. On Wednesday Anaham Chief Leslie Stump held a press conference carried in part on CBC Vancouver's AM 690 Almanac program: CBC: the band is demanding more jobs from the various silviculture and forestry projects going on within lands they claim. Is it fair for band members to get jobs at the expense of non band members that may be doing them now? Chief Stump: "We've been here the longest. We've got seniority around here. Who owns the trees back here? Who owns the land back here? They've got nothing on paper saying we've ever turned anything over to them [BC]. That's good enough for me. CBC: There were plenty of other aboriginal leaders present at that same news conference and the message was consistent: No compromise. Delgamuukw opened the door to aboriginal people having a greater say in jurisdiction and they want it. The main target of the blockade is the BC Forest Industry. Not everyone is sympathetic. Ross Haines runs a log hauling company out of Williams Lake. He's fed up with the government and really fed up with Indian blockades. Haines: "The only thing we can do is make noise back and go out and put up our own blockades I guess. I think it's coming to the point where people are going too soon. There's a lotta people talking about it and I probably will be there to support it because I'm as frustrated and tired of hearing about it, as everybody is. CBC: So it's hard to predict what might happen. Indian people believe Delgamuukw should have led to solid progress by now. Louise Mandel, one of the lawyers who argued the original BC Supreme Court case, said it [progress] is not happening. L. Mandel: Governments have got to change. If there's going to be resources taken from these territories, there has to be consent to that. I think that what you're seeing here is just this overwhelming groundswell of frustration. CBC: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is supposed to fly up on Monday for some meetings. Meanwhile Chief Stump says the barricade stays up until he sees some progress. In fact he'll create more barricades if nothing happens. The Province says it won't negotiate while the barricades are up. BC Forests Minister Dave Zirnhelt had this to say: BC NDP Forests Minister Zirnhelt: We're watching it carefully. If there's a public safety issue we have to take that into account. The police are there and we are prepared to take action at the appropriate time. We will enforce the laws as necessary. Chief Stump: We are eyeing other logging roads. We got two more major logging roads that's in Anaham traditional territory. They're hauling a lot of logs out of there right now. And we're eyeing them to shut them down. CBC: So we'll have to see what happens Monday. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: Anaham Indian Band, Tsilqotin Nation P.O. Box 168 Alexis Creek BC VOL 1A0 Canada Ph.(250) 394-4212 Fax (250) 294-4275 BC NDP Premier Glen Clark: premier@gov.bc.ca More information on Delgamuukw: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/Clark/gitksan.html In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2 EMAIL: SISIS@envirolink.org WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html --------- "RE: Native Prisoner" --------- Date: Mon, 29 June 1998 23:14:49 -0400 From: Janet Smith (evestar@juno.com) Subj: Contacting those in the Ironhouse UUCP email Tell a Native American Prisoner someone cares! The following is a portion of the list of Native American Prisoners incarcerated in prisons throughout the United States. The full list is found at the Native Prisoners Pen Pal list the following web site: http://www.brooks.simplenet.com/penpal.html. The list is compiled from contributions by Wotanging Ikche readers, other friends and from Laura Brooks' research on Native American Spiritual Freedom in Prison. If you know of a Native prisoner who would like to be included here, please e-mail Janet Smith at jans@atlcom.net. My thanks to Laura Brooks for giving this list a home on the web. Laura Brooks and Janet Smith, The following are Native American brothers who would like to be added to your Prisoner Penpal lists. (Inmate name and number go here) Turney Center (cell number goes here) Route 1 Only, TN 37140-9709 The following lis