Freedmen vs Cherokee Nation

This is a separate case than the case filed in the Federal District Court. They appear to be asking for a bit more than just citizenship and voting rights in the Cherokee Nation. Those Freedmen involved in this case, are those that do not have a Cherokee Ancestor on the Cherokee base roll required for citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. Complaint Filed Against U.S. Department of Interior Seeking Treaty Benefits for Black Indians and Freedmen WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Dr. Claud Anderson, president of the Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation (HIFF) announced that it has filed a Complaint in the United States Federal Court of Claims in Washington, D.C. against the United States Department of Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) seeking legal redress and civil and property rights for the descendants of Black Indians and Black Freedmen. HIFF discussed background and details of the Complaint at a noon press conference at the National Press Club in downtown W...

June 22, 2007 Chad Smith, Principal Chief Cherokee Nation P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah , OK 74465 Dear Principal Chief Smith: This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding whether the Department of the Interior intends to continue providing Federal funding to the Cherokee Nation, in light of the activities in Vann v. Kcmpthome , Civil Action 03-01711 ( HHK ), (D. DC). The Department intends to continue providing Federal funding to the Cherokee Nation, unless otherwise directed by a Federal court or Federal legislation. The Department's position has been expressed in the United States Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed May 29, 2007, in Vann , and accepted by the district court's decision dated June 13, 2007. Sincerely, Jerry Gidner Deputy Bureau Director -·Indian Services cc: Jeanette Hanna, Director, Eastern Oklahoma Region (to see an actual copy of the letter click the title above to go to the Cherokee Nation official site...

Basically the only difference between this case and the Freedman vs Cherokee Nation case is: a civil war slave relic treaty of 1866 - The only Indian Nations I'm aware that have these types of Civil War Treaties are the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma - shouldn't they be allowed, like any other Indian Tribe in the U.S., to determine their own membership? Or will Congress continue to treat this group of Tribes differently only because some Native Americans fought on the side of the Confederate Army - there were also a good many Native Americans from this area that fought on the side of the Union during the civil war. Congress - let our people go!! 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 19706,*;424 F.3d 959 KATHY LYNNETTE LEWIS, LARRY PAUL LEWIS, JR., JERRY LEE LEWIS, and CHAD ELLIOTT LEWIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GAIL NORTON, in her capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Interior; TERRY VIRDEN, in his official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a bur...

This case appears to state that the Indian Civil Rights Act only applies in Criminal cases for Habeas Corpus or when there is no other forum available to plaintiffs. In the Freedmen's case, the Cherokee Nation not only has a full judicial system, their case is currently being heard in the Cherokee Courts. Federal Courts generally appear to abstain from getting involved in internal Tribal Affairs, membership requirements being an internal Tribal Affair. 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8791,*; 443 F.3d 1274 DON WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellee - Cross-Appellant, v. TESUQUE PUEBLO; TESUQUE PUEBLO FLEA MARKET; MARVIN HERRERA, individually and in his official capacity as Governor of Tesuque Pueblo; CLARENCE CORIZ; NORBERT LENO; MICHAEL ALBERT VIGIL; HAROLD SAMUEL; GARY MOQUINO; ALLEN DURAN; ROBERT DORAME, JR.; CLIFFORD MOQUINO, individually and in their official capacities as Tribal Councilors of Tesuque Pueblo; DUANE SILVA, individually and as an officer of Tesuque Pueblo; TESUQUE TRIBAL COURT; TESUQUE...

TRIBAL SELF GOVERNANCE: Tribal Self Governance rules are covered under CFR Title 25 Chapter 6. Tribes must meet the following criteria for self governance: Be a federally recognized tribe as defined in Public Law 93-638; Tribal governing body with an official action, presents a written formal request to enter negotiations with the Department of Interior under the Tribal Self-Governance Act authority; Demonstrate financial stability and financial management capability by furnishing organization-wide single audit reports for the previous three years. These audits must not contain material audit exceptions; A final planning report must be submitted which demonstrates that the tribe has conducted-- (1) Legal and budgetary research; and (2) Internal tribal government and organizational planning; Tribes may submit their applications at any time. The application should state which year the tribe desires to enter negotiations. Upon receipt of an application, it is reviewed and determined wheth...

MINNESOTA v. MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS The US Supreme Court case of Minnesota v Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, No. 97-1337, decided March 24, 1999, is an interpretation of Native American current rights based on historical treaties. This case is a modern opinion upholding treaty rights from the early 1800s. Full decision at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1337.ZS.html The State of Minnesota argued that the State retained authority over the Chippewa land ceded in an earlier treaty between the Chippewa and the US Government. At issue was whether or not the Chippewa Indians could still hunt and fish on land which they ceded to the US government in an earlier treaty. The court opinion delivered by Justice O'Connor, held that the Chippewa Indians retained these rights guaranteed to them by the 1837 Treaty. Pp. 15—35. In 1990 the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians instituted suit in Federal District Court against the State of Minnesota, among others, seeking ...

INDIAN COUNTRY Indians, Native Americans we prefer to be called today, were on the North American Continent prior to the 1700s. Native Tribes believe they have always been here. There are several other theories as to how they came here. One theory supposes that they came across the Bering Strait into Alaska. Another theory states they came from South America through Mexico and into the Great Lakes Basin. Today, DNA seems to point to the origins as coming via the Bering STraits of Alaska, from there, they scattered to New York where the Iroquois are found. The Iroquois Nation was composed of The Five Nations, including the Cherokee Nation. All originally located on the Eastern Coast of the North American Continent until the great removals of the early 1800’s. The Iroquois Nation is believed to have had a constitution as early as the 1500s. Natives first came into contact with the Europeans, with the burgeoning European presence after the landing of De Soto in Haiti believing it to be...

Disenrolled Tribal Members, Incl. Pechanga oppose Romero Bill Dis-enrolled tribal members oppose Romero bill Capitol Weekly By Malcolm Maclachlan Dis-enrolled tribal members are raising concerns that a bill from Senator Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, could result in them being kicked off of reservations. Tribes say the bill, SB 331 , is needed to help them enforce their property rights and tribal sovereignty. Such protections are particularly needed in rural areas where non-tribal law-enforcement responses can be slow, supporters say. Titled "Unlawful entry: tribal land," the bill would create a new infraction against non tribal members entering "Indian lands" without permission from the tribe. Romero wrote the bill on behalf of the Barona Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino and resort northeast of San Diego. Tribes could issue a fine of up to $250 for a first offense and $500 for a second offense. A representative from the Barona Tribe did not return ca...

She also cites a Court of Claims case dated 1895, Whitmire, Trustee for the Cherokee Freedmen vs Cherokee Nation, 30 CT CL. 138, 180 (CT Cl. 1895) which again is an old case that stated the Freedmen were entitled to share the tribe's land sale proceeds and the Cherokee Nation sovereignty could not be exercised in a manner that breached this treaty obligation. However, this Whitmire case which is a court of claims case, did in fact limit Freedmen rights under the 1866 Treaty. Again she cites a 1906 Supreme Court cases noting the Freedmen were citizens of the Cherokee Nation and entitled to the same property rights as other Cherokee Nation members under the 1866 Treaty (Red Bird vs United States, 203 U.S. 76, 84) And finally the December 19, 2006 ruling in Vann v Kempthorne which found there was a Cherokee by Blood Dawes Roll and a Freedmen Dawes Roll. She then goes into how the Cherokee Nation voted on and passed a constitutional amendment removing federal approval of it's Const...

If you click the title above you can read the entire text of the 1866 treaty. The opening article declares a prior treaty void - isn't that interesting: ARTICLE 1. The pretended treaty made with the so-called Confederate States by the Cherokee Nation on the seventh day of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and repudiated by the national council of the Cherokee Nation on the eighteenth day of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, is hereby declared to be void. Articel 4 states very clearly, these were freed slaves: ARTICLE 4. All the Cherokees and freed persons who were formerly slaves to any Cherokee, and all free negroes not having been such slaves, who resided in the Cherokee Nation prior to June first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one , who may within two years elect not to reside northeast of the Arkansas River and southeast of Grand River, shall have the right to settle in and occupy the Canadian district southwest of the Arkansas River, and also all that tract of ...

What exactly is the Dawes Roll - well some time in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, a congressman by the name of Dawes formed a commission, which back then was known as the Dawes Commission thus the Dawes Rolls - you know, like the Warren Commission and all those other modern day commissions we've had. This commission embarked on counting and identifying all Indians within the Nations which is where they removed all the 5 Civilized Tribes and then some, which is now the current state of Oklahoma. This is the Title page of the Dawes Roll: This is a sample page of the Cherokee by Blood section of the Dawes Roll: Another list gives you Cherokees by Intermarriage - now this can be confusing, since at one time the BIA or in those days the Indian agency or commission allowed Cherokee by Intermarriage but by the early 1900s there is a Commission case which disallowed Cherokee by Intermarriage - so in other words if you were white and you married a Cherokee, you were no longer considere...

Well, just exactly what does this bill say? It starts like this: To sever United States ’ government relations with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until such time as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma restores full tribal citizenship to the Cherokee Freedmen disenfranchised in the March 3, 2007, Cherokee Nation vote and fulfills all its treaty obligations with the Government of the United States,and for other purposes. No mention of any obligations the U.S. has under the treaty obligations? So do we still have a one sided treaty platform, do as we say, not what we do? Currently all Freedmen are enrolled citizens and will remain so until the matter has been resolved. The distinction comes between those Freedmen that can prove they have a Cherokee Ancestor on the Cherokee Base roll, commonly refered to as the Dawes Roll. There are both Freedmen who can not prove they have a Cherokee Ancestor on this roll and many Cherokee that can not prove they have an ancestor on this Dawes Roll. As of t...