FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#143431 --- 03/30/05 04:41 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
As to land reacquired in the Cayuga reservation, we will see what we will see. The attorneys are still assessing the impact of the Sherrill decision. The justices were considering just the Oneida vs Sherrill matter, and did not address the Cayuga claim directly. There are distinct differences between the Oneida claim and the Cayuga Claim. The most glaring, the Cayuga have not occupied nor had a presence here in 200 years or more. There is a crack in the wall, small at the moment, but watch it grow. The balance of power is shifting.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#143432 --- 03/31/05 12:23 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

As to land reacquired in the Cayuga reservation, we will see what we will see. The attorneys are still assessing the impact of the Sherrill decision. The justices were considering just the Oneida vs Sherrill matter, and did not address the Cayuga claim directly. There are distinct differences between the Oneida claim and the Cayuga Claim. The most glaring, the Cayuga have not occupied nor had a presence here in 200 years or more. There is a crack in the wall, small at the moment, but watch it grow. The balance of power is shifting.


grinch like I said the fact that we haven't been there is from our being removed with an illegal treaty like the Oneida. But the record shows we have been trying to come to an agreement for almost 200 years. grinch you can read all you want into this ruling but our case is still standing strong. What balance of power are you talking about the court didn't change anything it cleared up something for the Oneidas we already knew. Only the right way gets things done now they know what they have to do. A lot of Tribes have been buying back land they sold and getting it put into trust. I live on a res. that most of the land belongs to non Indians. When you come from the next co. over you don't pass a sign that reads you are entering Osage co. it reads you are intering the Osage Nation res. it didn't use to be like that. Im not sure how the Osage got it done but they did. I know that it had to do with the fact that congress didn't make an act to do away with the res. The acts of congress that have resized or done away with res. lands have been clear as to what congress was doing. Show me an act of congress that has reduced or done away with the Cayuga res.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143433 --- 03/31/05 07:57 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
"Recognizing these practical concerns, Congress has provided a mechanism for the acquisition of lands for tribal communities that takes account of the interests of others with stakes in the area's governance and well being," the court said.
The statement quoted above is from the Sherrill ruling and refers to the proper way land can be acquired and declared sovereign. The tribes are well versed in that procedure but have chosen not to do that. Now, they must follow established procedure. The Oneida tribe is contemplating putting their properties into trust, and other tribes are thinking along those same lines We can expect the BIA to be overwhelmed with requests to take land into trust. By law the BIA is required to take into account the impact on states, local governments and non-indians. The BIA is biased towards the tribes, and we can expect they will approve most requests with little or no input from others. This being a political process now is the time to begin a counter campaign.. Our legislators, political leaders and community leaders should be contacted and your views made known. A show of unity has to be presented to demonstrate how the expansion of Indian sovereignty will effect our governmental entities. Through the years we have read of the adverse effects on the tax base in areas such as Connecticut, Madison CO, California amongst many others. We should decide for ourselves, is that what we want?

Top
#143434 --- 04/16/05 06:45 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Bump

Top
#143435 --- 04/16/05 07:55 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Indian Sovereign Immunity - Not in NY state.....
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143436 --- 04/17/05 07:21 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Blue Zone: You may be right, the attached article points out a major problem the BIA may have taking land into trust. This article can be found in Indian Times today dated 4/15/2005



ONEIDA NATION HOMELAND, N.Y. - As central New York tribes scramble to preserve their sovereignty in the aftershock of the U.S. Supreme Court Sherrill decision, the BIA is puzzling over a major, and possibly unforeseen, consequence of the decision. The 8 - 1 majority decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected ''unilateral'' assertions of tribal sovereignty on tribally-reacquired land, instead offering the Interior Department's process of taking ''land into trust.'' The Oneida Indian Nation, respondent in the case, announced April 12 it has put in an application for roughly 17,000 acres under the process, and the Cayuga Indian Nation has indicated it will follow suit. According to Mark Emery, spokesman for the Oneida Nation, ''The Supreme Court detailed a roadmap for providing certainty regarding the nation's rights in its lands, and the nation is going to follow that roadmap.'' But the BIA is discovering that these reservations would be its first trust land in New York state. The existing tribal reservations in New York - the Mohawk St. Regis (Akwesasne) reservation, the three territories of the Seneca Nation of Indians, the separate Tonawanda Seneca and Tuscarora lands, Onondaga Castle south of Syracuse, and two state-recognized tribes on Long Island - are not federal trust lands. Franklin Keel, director of the BIA's eastern region, wrote in a letter to the Cayuga Nation: ''The history of Indian lands in the state of New York is quite unique ... [T]here are no Indian lands held in federal trust in the state of New York.'' Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations base their ''aboriginal title'' on a term drawn from European feudal law; their lands are ''allodial'': owing title to no other sovereign. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council has nonetheless called for its land settlement to go forward. In an April 7 release, it said its circumstances differed sharply from the Oneidas' in that its settlement established ''contiguous reservation lands with sizable Mohawk populations.'' The council cited substantial local support for the settlement, including an April 4 resolution by the St. Lawrence County Legislature. ''Our land claim settlement is continuing to move forward and receive the support of local communities,'' said Chief Barbara A. Lazore. ''It's a fair settlement and the ratification of the governor's Program Bill benefits all the parties.'' Chief James W. Ransom denounced the Supreme Court's opinion as ''unjust.'' He said it ''overturns fundamental bedrock principles of Indian law.'' He added, however, that it ''does not stop litigation ... and exposes all the parties to years of uncertainty and legal costs.'' None of this background appears in Ginsburg's decision, nor is there evidence she was even aware of it. Her reliance on a process previously unused in New York state could throw large quantities of sand into the gears of a land settlement already grinding to a halt. Five tribes, including three out-of-state claimants, negotiated land settlements with New York state Gov. George Pataki, who has submitted an omnibus bill to the state Legislature. One major deal that would double the size of the St. Regis reservation appears to assume that the new land would assume the same sovereign status as the existing reservation. But since the current reservation is not federal trust land, it is unclear under the Sherrill opinion how this result could be achieved. There is even a remote possibility that the status of existing New York reservations could be called into question. From the widespread gloating over Ginsberg's opinion, there seems no shortage of anti-sovereignty citizens' groups willing to make the challenge. Ginsburg did note that earlier Supreme Court decisions upholding Oneida land rights suits ''recognized the Oneida's aboriginal title to their ancient reservation land.'' But she rejected what she called the Oneida's ''unification theory'' whereby its purchases of its aboriginal land on the open market gave it both ''fee title,'' its rights as a property owner, and ''aboriginal title,'' with national sovereignty. Daniel French, a lawyer for the Cayuga Indian Nation, told the Syracuse Post-Standard that his clients were leaning toward applying to put land they own in Union Springs and Seneca Falls into trust. Until recently the Cayugas were landless, although they are pursuing a suit for their 64,000-acre former reservation. Federal courts have held the land was illegally conveyed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and have awarded nearly $250 million in damages. An appeal of the award in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was in abeyance pending the Supreme Court decision in Sherrill. In the meantime, the Seneca-Cayuga Nation of Oklahoma has avoided a showdown with Cayuga County by announcing they will pay back taxes on a 229-acre farm they own in Aurelius and will drop plans to open an electronic bingo hall. The back tax bill, including interest and penalties, reportedly amounts to $86,000.


http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?feature=yes&id=1096410754


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 08:47 AM)

Top
#143437 --- 04/17/05 07:41 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
My opinion: Those tribes attempting to establish reservations that were never under Federal Trust status have put their brothers the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and others who have or thought they had federal reservations in a difficult situation. Just as titles to our land in the Cayuga and Oneida territories were questioned, turn around is now fair play. According to this article quoting a letter from Mr Keel regional director of the BIA, existing reservations in New York State are not Federal Trust lands. That might indicate they are not sovereign territories. If that holds true, it would appear they are subject to the control of New York State. That would indicate the Tribes (all tribes) in New York State should be collecting sales taxes paying real estate taxes, and abiding by our laws. That brings up questions concerning whatever federal benefits they have received or are receiving, should they have been paid? Our political leaders should press this point forcibly. I would believe the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Nation) are getting very upset over the Sherrill Decision. I have said before, if the Indians push too hard they may lose what they all ready have.

If what this article said is fact, Indian Lands in New York State are not, and apparently never have been under Federal control (trust lands) must be considered by the appelate court during the appeal of the Cayuga claim. If the land in question is not and never was considered federal trust lands, how can the Federal government legally justify its suit against NYS and the land holders for title on behalf of the Indians? This should have been considered a State matter. This was a bogus suit to begin with and if it had been adequately defended from the beginning we would have saved millions of dollars in legal costs.


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 08:50 AM)

Top
#143438 --- 04/17/05 10:34 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

My opinion: Those tribes attempting to establish reservations that were never under Federal Trust status have put their brothers the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas and others who have or thought they had federal reservations in a difficult situation. Just as titles to our land in the Cayuga and Oneida territories were questioned, turn around is now fair play. According to this article quoting a letter from Mr Keel regional director of the BIA, existing reservations in New York State are not Federal Trust lands. That might indicate they are not sovereign territories. If that holds true, it would appear they are subject to the control of New York State. That would indicate the Tribes (all tribes) in New York State should be collecting sales taxes paying real estate taxes, and abiding by our laws. That brings up questions concerning whatever federal benefits they have received or are receiving, should they have been paid? Our political leaders should press this point forcibly. I would believe the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Nation) are getting very upset over the Sherrill Decision. I have said before, if the Indians push too hard they may lose what they all ready have.

If what this article said is fact, Indian Lands in New York State are not, and apparently never have been under Federal control (trust lands) must be considered by the appelate court during the appeal of the Cayuga claim. If the land in question is not and never was considered federal trust lands, how can the Federal government legally justify its suit against NYS and the land holders for title on behalf of the Indians? This should have been considered a State matter. This was a bogus suit to begin with and if it had been adequately defended from the beginning we would have saved millions of dollars in legal costs.


You have it all wrong grinch all indian owned land in New York state is held by and protected by aboriginal title. The sherrill ruling was done against fed. laws and will not stand the test of time. The Tribes are under fed. protection by treaties, the land is protected by aboriginal title belonging to the Indians. Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by an act of congress, that has not been done. The state government. fed.courts does not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title or trust status of Indian lands. The records show we hold aboriginal title to that land. What activities done by the Tribes on aboriginal or fed. trust land falls under fed. law. Therefore aboriginal title land does not need trust status to be protected by fed. laws. You see it your way grinch but its just as I have said it to be all along. Congress will have to act to remove our title on our land. And for them to do so the USA will have to compensate us for our loss of our aboriginal right to our land. Now maybe you can understand why the fed. government is on our side in the land claim case. I base my opinion on fed. Indian laws. Your opinion is based on a wish to do away with the land claim.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143439 --- 04/17/05 11:07 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Okla: You better give Mr Keel of the BIA a call and explain all of this to him. If this is the new loop hole, aboriginal title vs Federal trust lands, I doubt it will be accepted by the courts. Lots of luck with that angle. I will remind you the Cayuga lost their "aboriginal title" (if there ever was one) when they fought against the USA during the Revolution. The land became New York State land,a sovereign state at the end of the revolution. It was theirs by right of conquest. Sort of like how the Cayuga, while not a sovereign, forced the other tribes out that were here before them. Look that up in Indian law. The land the Cayuga are claiming in the law suit was GIVEN to the Cayuga during the time of Gov Dewitt Clinton. No aboriginal title, NOt a federal tile, but a State title. They never should have given the Cayuga anything and they came to regret having done so when the Cayuga again fought against the USA in the War of 1812. That GIFT was SOLD back to New York State, and paid for 8 different times. Aboriginal Title? Where ever did you dig that up? LOL


Edited by grinch (04/17/05 03:49 PM)

Top
#143440 --- 04/17/05 11:16 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
dwarren Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/20/03
Posts: 1542
Loc: West Seneca, NY
Quote:

You have it all wrong grinch all indian owned land in New York state is held by and protected by aboriginal title. The sherrill ruling was done against fed. laws and will not stand the test of time. The Tribes are under fed. protection by treaties, the land is protected by aboriginal title belonging to the Indians. Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by an act of congress, that has not been done. The state government. fed.courts does not have the power to extinguish aboriginal title or trust status of Indian lands. The records show we hold aboriginal title to that land. What activities done by the Tribes on aboriginal or fed. trust land falls under fed. law. Therefore aboriginal title land does not need trust status to be protected by fed. laws. You see it your way grinch but its just as I have said it to be all along. Congress will have to act to remove our title on our land. And for them to do so the USA will have to compensate us for our loss of our aboriginal right to our land. Now maybe you can understand why the fed. government is on our side in the land claim case. I base my opinion on fed. Indian laws. Your opinion is based on a wish to do away with the land claim.




You appear to be confused on what is aboriginal title and trust land and how each can be extinguished.

Aboriginal title refers to the Indians' exclusive right to use and occupy lands they have inhabited "from time immemorial," but that have subsequently become "discovered" by European settlers. County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 470 U.S. 226, 233-34 (1985) (Oneida I); Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 572-74 (1823). Under the doctrine of discovery, European nations that "discovered" lands in North America held fee title to those lands, subject to the inhabiting Indians' aboriginal right of occupancy and use. See Oneida I, 470 U.S. at 234. Aboriginal title, however, was not inviolable. Indians were secure in their possession of aboriginal land until their aboriginal title was "extinguished" by the sovereign discoverer. See Oneida Indian Nation v. New York, 860 F.2d 1145, 1150 (2d Cir. 1988) (Oneida II). Extinguishment could occur through a taking by war or physical dispossession, or by contract or treaty, id. at 1159 (citing 3 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 19 (Lipscomb et al. eds. 1904)), and did not give rise to an obligation to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, see Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 283-85 (1955). The decision in Sherrill is consistent with this position in that it held that despite the claim to aboriginal title the Indians abandoned or was physically disposessed from the land for over 200 years.

Trust land may only be taken by an act of Congress and and would result in compensation being required under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Top
#143441 --- 04/17/05 11:23 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Thanks Dan for providing the case law on this.

Top
#143442 --- 04/17/05 11:44 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
OKla: Thank you for reposting my message. I believe that is a very strong point that bears furthur examination.

Top
#143443 --- 04/17/05 11:44 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Thanks Dan for providing the case law on this.



"Franklin Keel, director of the BIA's eastern region, wrote in a letter to the Cayuga Nation: ''The history of Indian lands in the state of New York is quite unique ... [T]here are no Indian lands held in federal trust in the state of New York.''

Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) nations base their ''aboriginal title'' on a term drawn from European feudal law; their lands are ''allodial'': owing title to no other sovereign."
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143444 --- 04/18/05 06:25 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Indian Sovereign Immuntiy not in NY state.....
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143445 --- 04/18/05 09:57 AM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
Okla.ndn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/21/02
Posts: 3074
Loc: Osage Indian Nation in Oklahom...
Quote:

Indian Sovereign Immuntiy not in NY state.....


LOL d.a.
_________________________
I am a General Council member of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe I speak for my self not my Tribe.

Top
#143446 --- 04/18/05 01:59 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Sorry Okla - no casino in NY for you.......
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#143447 --- 04/18/05 03:24 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Quote:

This is an older article, it points up some of the abuses of Tribal Sovereign Immunity. Its message is still pertinent today. There are enough people shining the light on the abuses of tribal soveriegnty. This situation will change in the not so distant future.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (Senate - September 03, 1997)




[Page: S8721] GPO's PDF
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on October 25, 1994, Jered Gamache lost his life, and his brother, Andy, was seriously injured on their way home from school when a Yakama tribal police officer, driving at 68 miles per hour, ran through a red light and crashed into their truck. Jered was 18 and Andy was 16. Despite the loss of Jered's life and the injuries to Andrew, the Gamache family has been totally unable to seek damages against the Yakama tribal government for the actions of its police officer.

Now, let us compare this situation, Mr. President, to the case of Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant who was brutalized a few weeks ago by New York City police officers. According to the New York Times, in addition to the ongoing criminal investigation, Mr. Louima's attorneys are planning to file a $465 million civil damage suit against New York City.

Now, Mr. President, what makes the case of Jered and Andy Gamache different from the case of Abner Louima? The answer is simple: Tribal sovereign immunity. Unlike New York City, the Yakama tribal government can claim immunity from any civil lawsuit, including suits involving public safety and bodily harm, in both State and Federal courts. As a consequence, the lawyers retained by the Gamache family have told them it is pointless to bring any kind of lawsuit. They have no recourse.

New York City does not have sovereign immunity, and thus, of course, is subject to a lawsuit in any amount of money on the part of victims of malfeasance, on the part of members of its police department.

A few weeks ago, up until the present time, the New York Times has run articles and editorials showcasing the Louima case as an example of police brutality and the need for permanent reform. While that case has sparked outrage from editorialists in New York and elsewhere, last Sunday the New York Times vilified my efforts to provide exactly the same avenue for relief to the Gamache family as the New York Times eloquently advocates for Mr. Louima. The New York Times has decided that while it is unacceptable for New York City to brutalize a person, it rejects non-Indians' right to bring similar claims against tribal police agencies in the U.S. courts. So we have 18- and 16-year-old victims who have no recourse.

Enormous injustices can be done whenever a technical claim can prevent the adjudication of a just claim on the part of an individual against a government. It is for exactly that reason that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was long ago dropped by the Federal Government and the State government in cases of this nature.

Let us consider another case, Mr. President, the case of Sally Matsch. When she was fired from an American Indian casino in Minnesota she felt that she was a victim of age discrimination, so she sued the Prairie Island Indian Tribe. The tribe, however, invoked its sovereign immunity against lawsuits in State or Federal courts, and her case was heard by an Indian court on the second floor of the casino and was dismissed amid the sounds of slot machines by a judge who served at the pleasure of the tribal council that ran the casino.

Seventeen years ago I was attorney general of the State of Washington. I brought a lawsuit that asserted the right of the State of Washington to tax the sale of cigarettes in Indian smoke shops to non-Indians. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld our position that those sales were taxable. For all practical purposes, however, in the 17 years since that time, States have been unable to enforce a right that the Supreme Court of the United States said they had because they cannot sue the tribe or the tribal business entities in order to collect those taxes or to enforce their collection. Why? Tribal sovereign immunity.

Barbara Lindsey, Mr. President, is president of an organization of Puget Sound beach property owners in Washington State. In 1989, 16 Indian tribes sued those property owners in the State of Washington claiming that `treaty rights' gave them the right to enter private property to remove clams and oysters. A Federal district court in large measure has accepted that claim, but Barbara Lindsey and the thousands of property owners she represents, Mr. President, cannot sue the Indian tribes for violations of their property rights, even in cases when those violations are obvious and open. The problem? Tribal sovereign immunity.

So, Mr. President, this body will debate next week when it debates the Interior appropriations bill a provision that for a period of 1 year, as a rider on the appropriations bill, requires the waiver of tribal sovereign immunity on the part of those tribes--and I believe it is all of them--whose governmental entities, whose police forces, are being funded by money appropriated by the Congress out of the taxes collected from all of the American people. The proposal does not change any substantive laws. It simply says if, in fact, the law has been violated, there should be a remedy in a neutral Federal court--we have not extended it to State courts--but in a neutral Federal court.

Is it fair to prevent a family from seeking justice for the wrongful death of their son? Is it fair that a claim of age discrimination cannot be made or decided in a neutral court? Is it fair that a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on taxes cannot effectively be enforced? It is not, Mr. President, and claims that sovereignty is somehow undercut by saying that the sovereign is subject to the laws is simply not the case.

The claim of those who believe we should make no change is a claim that an Indian tribe can act in a totally lawless fashion and not be held responsible in any court of the United States for those lawless actions.

It can be dressed up in whatever fancy language about sovereignty that one may propose, but it comes right down to that proposition: Is it fair that if you are injured by a New York City policeman you can sue New York City,

but if you are injured by a Yakama tribal police officer, you may not sue its tribe. The doctrine is one that stems from the kings of England. It is an anachronism in today's world. Under constitutional guarantees of due process to every American citizen, every American citizen should be granted the opportunity to bring his or her case in a neutral court and get an answer as to whether or not crimes have, in fact, been committed. The only issue that will be involved in this case is, Should any government be permitted to act in an entirely lawless fashion and not be called to account for its acts? The answer to that question is `no'. We should not be involved in that kind of action, and the only body with constitutional authority to make that decision across this United States is the Congress of the United States. The buck stops here.


[Page: S8722] GPO's PDF






same o same o.you keep posting the same article.but truth be known the tribes have had alot more lives lost at the hands of the u.s. gov..not just during war but by this goverments attempt to exterminate the tribes over the last 200 years.
go spy on your nieghbor.

uce=tax dodgers
_________________________

Top
#143448 --- 04/18/05 03:55 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
American Indian delegation to Washington urges clean energy
© Indian Country Today April 15, 2005. All Rights Reserved
Posted: April 15, 2005
by: Brenda Norrell / Indian Country Today
Click to Enlarge

Photo courtesy Clayton Thomas-Muller -- Delegation members in Washington included Sharon Buchino; Manny Pino, Acoma Pueblo; Jodie White, Three Affiliated Tribes; Daniel Moon, Goshute; Jihan Gearon, Navajo; Wahleah Johns, Navajo; Gernaldo Lopez, Southwest Workers Union, San Antonio, Texas; and Margene Bullcreek (front), Skull Valley Goshute.
WASHINGTON - A coalition of American Indians recently lobbied Congress for clean energy and a halt to the long-held tradition of making Indian country a dumping ground for nuclear waste, disease-producing coal mines and power plants that destroy the environment.

''American Indians and Alaska Natives disproportionately suffer health and environmental damage from the cradle to the grave of the nuclear fuel chain,'' Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, told the National Press Club on April 5. ''Locating high-level radioactive waste facilities on Indian lands violates the trust responsibility of the United States government, federal laws and treaties, and is an extreme example of the continuing environmental racist policies against Indian people.''

American Indians urged Congress to reject the energy bill again, saying it was essentially the same controversial, pro-industry bill favored by the White House that failed to pass in previous years - and instead initiate legislation to cut levels of greenhouse gases, promote energy efficiency and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

American Indian environmental groups said in a statement that Indian country should no longer be a sacrifice zone for the nation's energy policy: ''Indigenous peoples reject the concept that lands we rely upon to meet our physical, cultural, spiritual and economic means should be viewed as a short-term solution to offset the U.S. energy dilemma. Our cultures should not be sacrificed for the high energy consumption needs of America.''

American Indian groups maintained their opposition to nuclear waste dumping on Goshute tribal land in Utah and on Western Shoshone's Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

As part of the nuclear industry's revitalization, the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress have proposed that the first new nuclear reactors in 30 years would initially be built on or near Indian lands in Idaho and Alaska.

Clean water along the Yukon River in Alaska is also at risk. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting a license for a new reactor in Galena, Alaska. Among those concerned is the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, representing 76 Alaska Native governments in the United States and Canada that depend on the Yukon River for clean drinking water and healthy salmon.

Goldtooth said the council has questions regarding ''this nuclear experiment to build this untested reactor on the Yukon River.''

''The high-level radioactive waste from this new reactor in Alaska could end up being transported and dumped at the Private Fuel Storage facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation in Utah.''

Currently, Native environmental groups and the state of Utah oppose the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's granting of a license to the proposed Private Fuel Storage high-level radioactive waste dump. The proposed dump, located 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, would ''temporarily'' store 44,000 tons of irradiated fuel in above-ground dry cask containers.

Goldtooth pointed out that Xcel Energy, formerly known as Northern States Power, is one of the chief proponents for the Private Fuel Storage dump targeted at the Skull Valley Goshutes in Utah.

He noted that since 1987, the nuclear establishment in government and industry has targeted dozens of American Indian reservations for high-level radioactive waste facilities.

''Currently, all have been stopped by concerned Indian grassroots members and our families that have held strong to our traditional spirituality, values and culture. We have formed alliances with other Indian and non-Indian environmental and environmental justice organizations across the country.''


and we say the tribes pollute.





http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410749
_________________________

Top
#143449 --- 04/18/05 06:40 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Quote:

Quote:

way2savory We pay more to the feds then we get back. We pay to the state and get nothing back. So who needs to pull their hands back and stop taken from who.





You say that you pay to the feds and get nothing back?

If you are a sovereign nation then why do you pay the feds????
Because you are not sovereign, you are a ward of the US government.

Well, who has protected your tribe from other nations/countries for the last 200 years? The US military. How much would this be worth if you had to have your OWN military forces????

The tribes use all the infrastructure that has been built by the feds, the state, the counties, the cities...
Do yu expect to use this infrastucture without supporting it?

The tribes receieve BILIONS of dollars FROM the US government each year but you get nothing back???
More propaganda.......

The tribe abuses and exploits the justice system that was established by our forefathers.

You fought the colonists and LOST --- go live with your war partner..


.







Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/news/2003/001213.asp


Navajo vice president addresses Iraq war
Thursday, March 20, 2003

The following is text of a message from Navajo Nation Vice President Frank Dayish Jr.

To: THE PEOPLE OF THE NAVAJO NATION

From: THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NAVAJO NATION

Our great country is facing an almost certain war with Iraq and their leader Saddam Hussein. As your Navajo Nation leaders, we encourage all our Dine’ people to pray for our Navajo military service men and women and all U.S. soldiers, who are prepared to defend our freedom, democracy, and patriotism.

Whether you support this war or not, now is the time for us to unify as a Nation and strengthen our beliefs in our Creator. We humbly ask that you pray for those soldiers on the front lines, overseas, and with homeland security, as they prepare to defend our country against further terrorists attacks.

Let us not forget our Dine’ military soldiers and Native American forefathers who have a long history of fighting for our country and Indian Nations. Native Americans proudly continue to have the highest rate per capita of military service men and women enlisted in our country’s U.S. Armed Forces.

In the event that the United States enters into a large-scale military operation in Iraq, the Navajo Nation will remain open and conduct business as usual. We encourage individuals to stay informed of world events and its impact on the Nation. If anything should change the ‘business as usual’ status, we will use various means of communi-cations to get information to you as soon as possible, which will include Navajo Nation radio stations.

Regardless of our own personal views, we must continue to respect the rights of all individuals and groups who gather peacefully on public property to express their opinions or display their patriotism. Respecting others, regardless of their beliefs, back- grounds, and political affiliations, is part of our culture and what makes the Navajo Nation the great Nation that it is. Without infringing on freedom of expression, we will not tolerate violent behavior or intimidation, and we will closely monitor demonstrations to ensure they do not disrupt the mission of the Nation.

To ensure the safety of our Nation’s security we are currently reviewing a funding grant to apply for a portion of $600 million that is being made available from Homeland Security. Which will enable us to prepare our Public Safety Agency and Office of Emergency Management to prevent, prepare and respond to terrorism.

In addition, the Navajo Nation homepage will update the status of the Nation as needed and provide instructions in the event there is an emergency. The Navajo Nation homepage is at: www.Navajo.org. If you are feeling uneasy or overly stressed, we encourage you to seek out numerous options for counseling and consultation.

Respectfully,

Frank Dayish Jr., Vice-President

THE NAVAJO NATION
_________________________

Top
#143450 --- 04/18/05 07:29 PM Re: Indian Sovereign Immunity
sworldt Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/14/04
Posts: 2163
Loc: Auburn,NY
Indianz.Com. In Print.
URL: http://www.indianz.com/news/2003/000825.asp


Inouye ties sovereignty to homeland security
Tuesday, February 25, 2003


CHAMPION: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) at the winter session of the National Congress of American Indians in Washington, D.C. February 24, 2003. Photo © NSM.

The vice-chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs on Monday said he would introduce a measure this week to restore full sovereignty to tribal governments.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said the bill, which he described as a draft discussion, would be included as part of a homeland security package. He told attendees of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) that the goal was to overturn recent Supreme Court rulings by recognizing that tribes have primary law enforcement duties on their lands.

"Homeland security presents an opportunity," he said, "to secure a status under federal law that will not only recognize your powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments but will strengthen your position and your status in the family of governments that make up the United States."

"Least of all, you should be as sovereign as any state in the union," he added to heavy applause.

Legislation to restore full criminal and civil jurisdiction to tribes has been under intense discussion for the past two years in response to a series of negative Supreme Court decisions that have limited tribal authority over non-Indians. Tribal leaders have cited two cases in particular: Nevada v. Hicks, which expanded state police powers on reservations, and Atkinson v. Shirley, which struck down the Navajo Nation's hotel and occupancy tax. Both cases were decided in 2001.

Inouye urged tribal leaders to capitalize on the focus on the war on terrorism, stating that threats of attacks are indeed very "real." He said his bill will ensure that tribes are treated the same as states for homeland security purposes.

A veteran of World War II, he also sought to draw a distinction between conflicts many in the audience have served in and witnessed. "In those wars, we knew where the front line was -- it was out there," he told NCAI. "This time, the front line is right here."

John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), promoted the effort and said tribes are willing to give up measure of their rights by allowing federal court review of tribal court decisions affecting non-Indians, a sticking point in the debate over tribal sovereignty. He described this "opt in" provision as voluntary.

"It allows the tribes to exercise as much authority as they choose," he said of the bill. "In exchange, because this is a very serious proposal, tribal leaders have had to make some very difficult decisions about one of the reasons why the court has been ruling against us in these cases."

The legislation, which Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), chairman of the Indian panel has said he will support, is part of a larger tribal sovereignty initiative that had its official start on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, when tribal leaders were meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss overturning the cases. Tribes have organized the 2,800-mile Sovereignty Run to the steps of the Supreme Court and are working on other projects affecting the court and the federal judiciary.

John Gonzales of San Ildefonso Pueblo of New Mexico said the project will be a struggle not just for the tribes. "It's going to test the will, it's going to test the political resolve of those we consider our friends," he said. Gonzales is an area vice president of NCAI.

Inouye said the federal government owes it to Indian people to support their rights. "In many different ways you have paid your dues," he said. "You have not only given your land, you have not only given your culture, you have given your blood for this country."

"It is about time we have a payback."

Relevant Links:
Sen. Daniel Inouye - http://inouye.senate.gov
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs - http://indian.senate.gov



Homeland security presents an opportunity," he said, "to secure a status under federal law that will not only recognize your powers and responsibilities as sovereign governments but will strengthen your position and your status in the family of governments that make up the United States."

family of governments that make up the United States."
_________________________

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >