Blog – Dying In Indian Country

Did Spirit Lake use ICWA to kidnap children? Birth Mom testifies at hearing

Oct 062024

https://caicw.org/2022/07/01/mother-says-her-tribe-kidnapped-her-baby-through-icwa/

This mom testified in June 2022 before the congressional Commission on Native Children (Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children) at their hearing in Bismarck, North Dakota.

Please listen to her story. She is not alone in this type of treatment. She is one of the few brave enough to step forward and talk about it.

Those hired by the Commission to take this Video did not record it properly. Nevertheless, her testimony is clear and understandable.

Option: Watch video on Rumble

From The Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare – https://CAICW.org

October 6, 2024 No Responses »

Minority Report: Congressional Commission on Native Children

Mar 012024

To the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

Pursuant to the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children authorizing legislation (Public Law 114-244), October 14, 2016, as amended, I respectfully submit a Minority Report of the Commission on Native Children.

This report attempts to include the perspective of those Native Americans who live outside of the reservation system and do not use any form of tribal benefit or program. Indeed, about 75% of Native Americans do not live on reservation land or participate in reservation politics. As a result, countless families of Native American heritage are not heard through methods normally employed by those assessing the needs of the United States’ native population.

This is significant as legislation and administrative rules often include them and their children, whether they have chosen to be involved with the reservation system or not.

With their voices in mind, this report presents additional recommendations, several of which were presented to the Commission but were not put forward for discussion or vote.

Due to the strength of an ‘iron triangle’ encompassing federal Indian policy, it is necessary to submit this minority report.

A Minority Report – February 27 2024 Download

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Morris

Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children

About the Author:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris was also a Commissioner on the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.’ After holding several hearings in regions across the country, the Commission submitted its Final Report and Ms. Morris submitted her Minority Report to Congress in February 2024.

Ms. Morris earned her Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: ‘The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; an Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

CAICW.org

X.com/CAICW

Facebook.com/CAICW.org

Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

March 1, 2024 29 Responses »

Arizona v. Navajo Nation: SCOTUS Zags Back

Jul 012023

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act - https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

By Rob Natelson for the Federalist Society

June 27, 2023

Indian law, including Indian constitutional law, is famously chaotic. With the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, it just got more so.

Although the Court likely reached the correct result, a key part of the majority opinion seems to conflict with a pronouncement last week in Haaland v. Brackeen.

I discussed the Brackeen case in this space a few days ago. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion broadened Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes” into one to regulate all “Indian affairs”—a formulation rejected explicitly by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To buttress her conclusion, Justice Barrett resorted to recitals of federal authority, unstated in the Constitution, but often cited by advocates of congressional power:

We have also noted that principles inherent in the Constitution’s structure empower Congress to act in the field of Indian affairs . . . . With this in mind, we have posited that Congress’s legislative authority might rest in part on “the Constitution’s adoption of preconstitutional powers necessarily inherent in any Federal Government . . . Finally, the “trust relationship between the United States and the Indian people” informs the exercise of legislative power.

However, in Arizona v. Navajo Nation, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion for the court follows the 2011 decision in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation to reject any free floating, extra-constitutional trust relationship:

The Tribe asserts a breach-of-trust claim. To maintain such a claim here, the Tribe must establish, among other things, that the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation imposed certain duties on the United States. See United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation . . . The Federal Government owes judicially enforceable duties to a tribe “only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities.” Jicarilla . . . Whether the Government has expressly accepted such obligations “must train [sic] on specific rights creating or duty-imposing” language in a treaty, statute, or regulation.

Thus, in the Court’s view, any government-tribal trust relationship must be grounded in a “treaty, statute, or regulation.” It is not inherent in all government-tribal relations and cannot be a source of, or even necessarily “inform,” legislative power.

In this case, the Court held that the only possible basis for the Navajos’ claim was an 1868 treaty between the United States Government and the tribe.

The Nuts and Bolts of the Case

Arizona v. Navajo Nation was basically a water rights dispute. Under a rule established in Winters v. United States, when the federal government cedes land to an Indian tribe, in the absence of language to the contrary, the government also impliedly cedes sufficient water rights to meet the purposes of the grant. Thus, when the government conveys land for a reservation, it implicitly conveys sufficient water for the reservation to become a going concern.

Incidentally, in the arid western United States, these “Winters rights” often become a sore point. As the Navajo Nation argued in this case, tribes frequently claim they are entitled to more water than they are getting. But satisfying a tribal claim may require infringing bought-and-paid-for state water rights held by non-tribal members. The resulting animosity between a tribe and its non-tribal neighbors can be bitter.

No one disputed that the 1868 treaty implicitly conveyed water rights to the Navajos. But the tribe contended that the treaty also required the federal government to undertake certain affirmative duties pertaining to that water. The exact scope of those affirmative duties was a matter of dispute between Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote for the four dissenters.

Interpreting treaties—like interpreting almost all other legal documents other than (in modern dogma) the Constitution—is a purely originalist enterprise: Once the court held that the Navajo Nation’s claim could be justified only by the 1868 treaty, the case became a straightforward matter of finding the “intent of the parties.” In Justice Kavanaugh’s words, “[A] treaty’s interpretation, like ‘a contract’s interpretation, [is] a matter of determining the parties’ intent.’ . . . That means courts must look to the ‘shared expectations of the contracting parties.’”

In Indian treaties, finding the “parties’ intent” requires applying the familiar presumptions that ambiguous terms are construed against the drafter (generally the government) and making allowances for power disparities and language and cultural differences.

Justice Kavanaugh points out that, although the 1868 treaty imposed some affirmative obligations on the government, it did not impose affirmative obligations related to water. He therefore concluded that there were none. Of course, this is an exercise of another principle of documentary interpretation: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius—the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of the other. The principle arises because observation tells us that when parties insert a list in a document, they probably intend to exclude items they did not put on the list.

Other Opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the opinion of the Court, but concurred as part of his ongoing plea for more coherence in Indian law. In particular, he noted how the government-tribal “trust relationship” has been characterized both as the result of specific engagements and as a free-floating obligation.

Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, like his concurrence in Brackeen, begins with a lengthy history and a recital of Indian grievances. His more effective argument, however, is that the Navajo request was far narrower than the majority assumed—that the Navajos sought merely that the government determine the scope of the tribe’s reserved water. He added that the Navajo had been waiting a very long time for an answer:

To date, their efforts to find out what water rights the United States holds for them have produced an experience familiar to any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another. . . . At each turn, they have received the same answer: “Try again.” When this routine first began in earnest, Elvis was still making his rounds on The Ed Sullivan Show.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.

###

Robert G. Natelson is a nationally known constitutional scholar and author whose research into the history and legal meaning of the Constitution has been cited repeatedly at the U.S. Supreme Court, both by parties and by justices. For example, justices have cited his works 17 times in five different cases since 2013. During the Supreme Court term ending in June, 2016 parties referenced his work in 12 different briefs and petitions for certiorari. He is is widely acknowledged to be the country’s leading scholar on the Constitution’s amendment procedure and among the leaders on several other topics.

He was a law professor for 25 years, serving at three different universities, where among other subjects he taught Constitutional Law, Constitutional History, Advanced Constitutional Law, and First Amendment. Professor Natelson is currently the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Heartland Institute in Arlington Heights, IL, the Independence Institute in Denver, Colorado, and the Montana Policy Institute in Bozeman, Montana. He heads the Independence Institute’s Article V Information Center.

Professor Natelson’s articles and books span many different parts of the Constitution, including groundbreaking studies of the Necessary and Proper Clause, federalism, Founding-Era interpretation, regulation of elections, and the amendment process of Article V. In addition to his authorship of law journal articles and legal books, he has written the highly influential Article V Handbook for state lawmakers, the popular book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, and numerous shorter pieces for media outlets. Recent contributions have been published by the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Denver Post, the American Spectator, the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, Townhall.com, the American Thinker, CNSNews, and the Daily Caller, among others.

Professor Natelson is especially known for his studies of the Constitution’s original meaning. His research has carried him to libraries throughout the United States and in Britain, including four months at Oxford. The results have included several break-though discoveries.

His publications are too numerous to list; the bibliography listed here is just a sample. In addition to his articles on the U.S. Constitution, he created the first online guide to “originalist” research (now partly duplicated here); created the database the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Montana Constitution; and in conjunction with his eldest daughter Rebecca, edited the first complete Internet versions of the Emperor Justinian’s great Roman law collection (in Latin).

There are several keys to Professor Natelson’s success as a scholar. Unlike most constitutional writers, he has academic training not merely in law or in history, but in both, as well as in the Latin classics that were the mainstay of Founding-Era education. He works to keep his historical investigations objective. He also has the benefit of lessons and habits learned in the “real world,” since prior to entering academia he practiced law in two states, ran his own businesses, and worked as a journalist and at other jobs.

For about a decade, Professor Natelson had a career in public life in his “spare time.” He created and hosted Montana’s first statewide commercial radio talk show; became the state’s best known political activist; led, among other campaigns, the most successful petition-referendum drive in state history; and helped push through several important pieces of legislation. In June 2000, he was the runner-up among five candidates in the party primaries for Governor.

Recreation? he loves to spend time in the great outdoors, where he enjoys hiking and skiing with his wife and three daughters. He also likes travel, science fiction, and opera. He is active in the Denver Lyric Opera Guild.

July 1, 2023 No Responses »

The Cult of Advocacy: Comments on the State of Legal Scholarship

Oct 312022

By Rob Natelson* – October 23, 2022 – Independence Institute.org

This posting relates some experiences from my long career writing for legal academic journals. It was triggered by Professor Gregory Ablavsky’s response to my “Cite Check” of his article, Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause (“Beyond”), and I use features of that response for some of my examples. But if you are interested only in a shortcut telling you who is being accurate in the Natelson-Ablavsky exchange, then I recommend the following:

* Read his quoted extracts from Beyond and from his Fifth Circuit appeals court brief. They are in the Cite Check, which cites to the original documents so you can verify the accuracy of my reproductions.

* Next, read the quotation in the original source. These also are reproduced in the Cite Check.

* Compare the original source with how Ablavsky represented it. The differences should be apparent to any fair minded person. And the reasons behind the differences should be obvious.

The Larger Context: The Cult of Advocacy

That said, the fundamental problem addressed here goes far beyond selective quotation. It is that much—likely most—law review writing is not scholarship at all; it is advocacy in scholarly drag.

The passionate desire to “prove the case” creates incentives to engage in selective quotation. It also fosters other questionable practices: enlisting irrelevant evidence, ignoring and manipulating relevant evidence, and substituting word play for more substantial material. More rarely, you find what appears to be outright plagiarism, as I discovered recently in a law professor’s article in American University Law Review.

The cult of advocacy encourages commission of such misdemeanors, and they are further enabled by how legal academia hires law professors, defines their jobs, and operates law journals.

First Experiences

In 1971, I was a second year law student beginning a stint on the Cornell Law Review. One day a senior editor (i.e., a third year student) assembled us newbies and told us we should start working on our student notes. (A note is a short article on a legal topic by a student law journal staffer.) He handed us a list of suggested topics prepared by the senior editors. Most or all of the topics explicitly prescribed our conclusions. The one I (reluctantly) accepted read something like, “Explain why the New York courts should grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases.”

After researching every relevant case, I concluded that, in fact, New York State courts should not grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases. I reported this to a senior editor, and that proved to be one step in the deterioration of my relationship with the editorial board.

Another step occurred when I was sent to the library to edit an article by a law professor from another school. The text of the article was substantially complete, but the footnotes contained many gaps. Quite a few featured the instruction, “Student: Find sources to support text.” When I inquired as to why we had accepted such an unfinished and obviously biased article, a member of the editorial board told me the…

###

About the Author

October 31, 2022 No Responses »

The Indian Child Welfare Act: An Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom

Mar 082022

Adapted from the thesis

‘Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act,’
by Elizabeth Morris*

PDF: The Indian Child Welfare Act: An Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” (Congress 1787). But for almost 200 years, the U.S. federal government has assumed a power that deprives members of federally recognized Indian tribes of these privileges – and for almost a century, the federal government has claimed wardship over U.S. citizens who happen to be tribal members.

Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are indeed sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights.

Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.
Some tribal representatives argue that the Constitution has no authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress for their community.
Some historians say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide almost every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.

Where Does the Plenary Authority of Congress Come From?

Law professor Robert G. Natelson writes, “For many years, Congress has claimed, and the Supreme Court has conceded, a plenary power over American Indian tribes” (2007, 204). But, according to Natelson, there are problems with how historical documents have been construed. Legal scholar Matthew L. M. Fletcher agrees and notes that the origin of federal authority over Indian tribes is unclear, as the Constitution carried no “clear textual provisions” concerning such power. Due to that lack, the Supreme Court has created a body of “unwritten constitutional law” (Fletcher 2006, 654). Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s 2004 majority opinion in United States v. Lara is an example of Congressional authority in dealing with Indian affairs being categorized as “beyond the strictures of the Constitution” (Fletcher 2006, 656).

Authority is not Inherited from Britain

This unwritten authority, according to Natelson, is said by some to have been inherited from the British Crown, which transmitted “extraconstitutional sovereign authority to the Continental Congress, which then passed it to the Confederation Congress, which in turn conveyed it to the federal government” (2007, 204). However, Natelson argues:

As a matter of historical record, the British Crown did not transfer its foreign affairs powers to the Continental Congress, but to the states. The Confederation Congress did not receive its authority from the Continental Congress, but from the states. The federal government did not receive its powers from the Confederation Congress, but from the people (R. Natelson 2007, 205-206).

Natelson further contends that case law does not support the doctrine of inherent plenary authority. The Supreme Court “has acknowledged the [plenary] theory, but only rarely and in limited respects” (R. Natelson 2007, 204). He added, “The Supreme Court’s reluctance to fully accept inherent sovereign authority is understandable, for the doctrine is fundamentally unconvincing. It clashes with the Constitution’s underlying theory of enumerated powers and would render some enumerated powers redundant.” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Natelson explained that the dicta of Chief Justice Marshal and others has frequently been cited as recognizing Congress’s plenary authority over Indian Affairs – but it does not (R. Natelson 2007, 204). Other cases often cited are similarly lacking. “A passage in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford[1] suggests an inherent sovereignty theory, but later in the opinion Taney made it clear that he was invoking an enumerated power” (R. Natelson 2007, 204). Natelson explained further, “Kansas v. Colorado (1907),[2] the Supreme Court’s clearest pronouncement on inherent sovereign authority in internal affairs, actually rejected the doctrine. United States v. Curtiss-Wright resuscitated it, but only for foreign affairs. In 2004, the Court suggested an application to Indian concerns, but the Court’s language was neither definitive nor necessary to its decision” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Lastly, if inherent authority had in fact existed in any context when the federal government was created, Natelson clarifies its fate: “[T]he doctrine of inherent sovereign authority is simply contradicted by the text of the Constitution. Any extra-constitutional authority inhering in the federal government in 1789 was destroyed two years later, when the Tenth Amendment became effective. By its terms that Amendment precluded any federal power beyond those bestowed by the Constitution… precisely to re-assure Anti-Federalists who feared that the new government might claim powers beyond those enumerated” (R. Natelson 2007, 206-207).

Authority is not from the U.S. Constitution

Another theory is that plenary authority comes from within the Constitution itself. Several Constitutional powers are suggested, including the War Power; the Executive Power; the Necessary and Proper Clause; the Treaty Clause; the Territories and Property Clause; and the Indian Commerce Clause. However, Natelson contends “…[M]ost of those provisions can be readily dismissed” (R. Natelson 2007, 207). For example, Natelson states that if it were true that the Territories and Property Clause, were the source of plenary power:

…then legal title to this land is federal ‘property’ subject to congressional management under the Territories and Property Clause, and such title would give Congress at least some jurisdiction over the minority of Indians who reside on reservations. But this begs the question of the source of authority for holding reservation land in trust. As already noted, pre- or extraconstitutional power is not a viable answer. Nor, as originally understood, is the Territories and Property Clause, for that Clause originally granted Congress the unlimited power to dispose of federal lands within state boundaries, but not the unlimited capacity to retain or acquire such lands. As for the treaty power, it happens that not a single Indian treaty provides that the government has retained or acquired trust title to the reservation. The sole references to trust arrangements in Indian treaties are peripheral provisions, such as temporary trusts incident to sale and trusts to fund Indian schools and other amenities (R. Natelson 2007, 209-210).

Just one theory for the origin of plenary power remains. Felix Cohen, in his ‘Handbook of Federal Indian Law,’ states that Congress has power over tribes through the Indian Commerce Clause as long as members are wards of the government (Cohen [1942] 1971, 353). A large body of law has been written in support of this.

Authority is not from the Commerce Clause, specifically

The United States Constitution was written to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the People. As part of that protection, the Constitution needed to clarify roles and responsibilities necessary for the promotion of a stable and productive economy. The founding fathers understood that regulation of commerce was a proper function of government, and regulation of interstate and international commerce was a proper function of federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers vested in the federal government to regulate commerce between lower and foreign political entities:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes… (Congress 1787). [stresses added]

The commerce clause is one of the Constitution’s central pillars. It prevented states from setting up trade barriers, while at the same time not giving the federal government complete power. In protecting markets, the commerce clause is at the heart of what has become one of the “largest common markets in the world” (Weingast 1995, 8). But this clause also contains one of the limited mentions of tribes within the Constitution. The third point within the Commerce Clause refers to Congress’ power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Congress 1787, Art. 1 Sec 8).

The United States Constitution goes on to reserve all other rights and powers to the people and to the States. Amendment IX declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and Amendment X declares “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Congress 1787).

Despite these clarifying amendments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs claims “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government,” with exclusive authority over the tribes (BIA, 2013). Constitutional Law Attorney Philip J. Prygoski also affirms Congress’s constitutional power to regulate commerce with tribal governments and states the “Indian Commerce Clause” is the primary power source and vehicle for Congress to define tribal sovereignty (Prygoski 2015).

Yet Natelson asks, “[W]hy were treaties understood for so long as the principal method of dealing with tribes if Congress could regulate all affairs under the ICC?” (R. Natelson 2019). Indeed, why were treaties necessary if the Constitution had already given Congress power over the tribes?

In his historical research, Natelson found that the “drafting history of the Constitution, the document’s text and structure, and its ratification history all show emphatically that the Indian Commerce Power was not intended to be exclusive” to the federal government. He further notes, “Throughout the Colonial and Revolutionary period, colonies and states frequently entered into treaties with Indians within their territorial limits. New York even appointed treaty commissioners after the Constitution had been issued and ratified” (R. Natelson 2007, 223). Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, and William Samuel Johnson, also alluded to this state authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes inside their borders (R. Natelson 2007, 225).

State authority over commercial regulation aside, United States v. Kagama (1886)[3] “rejected the Indian Commerce Clause as a source of plenary congressional authority” (R. Natelson 2007, 210). The Supreme Court stated “it would be a ‘very strained construction’ of the Commerce Clause to conclude that it authorized creation of a federal criminal code for Indian country” (R. Natelson 2007, footnote 65, at 210 ). Kagama “did recognize unenumerated federal power over Indian affairs, but the Court’s justification was Indian dependency on the federal government, not inherent sovereignty” (R. Natelson 2007, 204-205).

Patent attorney Nathan Speed notes that when Congress first began asserting authority over tribes beyond trade, the Indian Commerce Clause was not cited as the source of that authority. Further, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Clause was the source of plenary power over tribes (Speed 2007).

Nevertheless, according to Cohen, the Clause has become “the most often cited basis for modern legislation regarding Indian tribes” [ (LexisNexis 2005, 397) ] In the case Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, (1989), it was stated that “the central function of the Indian Commerce Clause is to provide Congress with plenary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs” (R. Natelson 2007, 211).

Many have argued that the Founding Fathers intended the word “commerce” within the cited clause to refer not just to merchant trade, but to all economic activity and even beyond to any and every transaction. Natelson contends that a meaning that expansive would not belong in a list of ‘enumerated’ powers. However, this argument persists, and being so pervasive, several studies have recently examined how the word was employed in constitutional, lay, and legal contexts “before and during the Founding Era” (R. Natelson 2007, 214).

Those studies[4] found that “‘commerce’ meant mercantile trade, and that the phrase ‘to regulate Commerce’ meant to administer the lex mercatoria (law merchant) governing purchase and sale of goods, navigation, marine insurance, commercial paper, money, and banking (R. Natelson 2007, 214). Natelson states:

In both lay and legal discourse in the 18th Century, the term “commerce” “was almost always a synonym for exchange, traffic, or intercourse. When used economically, it referred to mercantile activities: buying, selling, and certain closely-related conduct, such as navigation and commercial finance (2006).

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in United States v. Lopez, (1995)[5], agreed, stating:

At the time the original Constitution was ratified, ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes. See 1 S. Johnson, A. Dictionary of the English Language 361 (4th rev. ed. 1773)[6] (defining commerce as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of anything; trade; traffick”); T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796) (“Exchange of one thing for another; trade, traffick”). This understanding finds support in the etymology of the word, which literally means “with merchandise.” See 3 Oxford English Dictionary 552 (2d ed. 1989) (com–“with”; merci–“merchandise”). In fact, when Federalists and Anti Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably (United States v. Lopez 1995).

Thomas quoted his Lopez comments in his concurrence in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013), and added, “The term ‘commerce’ did not include economic activity such as ‘manufacturing and agriculture,’ ibid., let alone noneconomic activity such as adoption of children” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013). Thomas also cited Natelson nine times in his concurrence.

“Thus,” Natelson writes, “‘commerce’ did not include manufacturing, agriculture, hunting, fishing, other land use, property ownership, religion, education, or domestic family life.” In fact, the Federalists during the Constitution’s ratification explicitly maintained that “all of the latter activities would be outside the sphere of federal control” (R. Natelson 2007, 214-215). He adds in his article concerning the legal meaning of the Commerce Clause, “The fact that other uses of the term “commerce” existed during the pre-ratification and post-ratification periods, does not change the accepted general meaning of the word ‘commerce’” (R. G. Natelson 2006, 789, 811)

Finally – and most obvious – the word ‘commerce’ could not have had a broader meaning for Indian tribes than it had for States and foreign Nations, which are located in the exact same clause (R. Natelson 2007, 215). Natelson notes, “I have been able to find virtually no clear evidence from the Founding Era that users of English varied the meaning of “commerce” among the Indian, interstate, and foreign contexts” (R. Natelson 2007, 216). The United States government has not asserted plenary jurisdiction over state and international actors in the same manner it has tribes and tribal members.

Natelson further asks “If a broad power was intended, why use the same word for Indians as was used for foreign nations and interstate commerce? Why not use instead the readily available and traditional phrase ‘Indian affairs’?” After all, he notes, the writers of the Constitution were meticulous in the word usage and “knew about the presumption of the same word not changing meaning” (R. Natelson 2019). Natelson wrote in 2019:

Edmund Randolph’s list of powers that can be exercised under the Commerce Clause with foreign nations, interstate commerce, and Indian tribes is a list of examples of common kinds of regulation within the three categories. It does not define different scopes. For example, Randolph speaks of restricting the travel of merchants with the Indians, but he could have used exactly the same example for merchants with foreign countries, as in the case of embargoes (R. Natelson 2019).

Attorney Krystal V. Swendsboe concurs, quoting Vielma v. Eureka Co.,[7] “When the terms of a statute are ambiguous, we will employ cannons of statutory construction to discern the legislature’s intent…In the absence of some indication to the contrary, we interpret words or phrases that appear repeatedly in a statute to have the same meaning’(citations omitted) ” (Swendsboe 2019) and in Clark v. Martinez,[8] “To give th[e] same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one” (Swendsboe 2019).

Assistant Professor of Law, Gregory Ablavsky, agrees and stated: “[T]he history of the Indian Commerce Clause’s drafting, ratification, and early interpretation does not support either ‘exclusive’ or ‘plenary’ federal power over Indians. In short, Justice Thomas is right: Indian law’s current doctrinal foundation in the Clause is historically untenable” (Ablavsky 2015).

The final draft of the Constitution gave James Madison, a nationalist, less authority than he had wanted for the federal government and the ratification process reduced the powers even further. But even with this, not even Madison “suggested granting Congress plenary dominion over the Indians. His proposal was for Congress to ‘regulate affairs with the Indians’—to govern transactions between tribes and citizens. Yet this still was more than the convention, or the public, was willing to accept” (R. Natelson 2007, 258). Fellow delegate, John Rutledge of South Carolina, instead suggested to the Committee of Detail a federal power concerning Indians that “stripped down Madison’s proposal to a mere commerce power” (R. Natelson 2007, 258).

Among the issues defined by the Federalists as outside of congressional regulation (and therefore, under state jurisdiction) were “crimes malum in se (except treason, piracy, and counterfeiting), family law, real property titles and conveyances, inheritance, promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights, control of personal property outside of commerce, torts and contracts among citizens of the same state, education, services for the poor and unfortunate, licensing of public houses, roads other than post roads, ferries and bridges, and fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises” (R. Natelson 2007, 248-249).

To summarize, the Indian Commerce Clause was included to give Congress the power to regulate trade between tribes and non-tribal members. It gave Congress the ability to override state laws, but not to abolish or alter “pre-existing state commercial and police power over Indians within state borders” (R. Natelson 2007, 265). The Commerce Clause did not establish a ‘Trust status” authorizing a pupilage condition. Nor did it grant Congress a plenary police power over tribal members or a license to interfere in Indian affairs.

Natelson concludes, “…the results of textual and historical analysis militate overwhelmingly against the federal government having any ‘inherent sovereign power’ over Indians or their tribes” and “…the Founders intended the states to retain their broad residual police power” (R. Natelson 2007, 266).

One of the most Damaging Results of Unconstitutional Congressional Authority: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Tribal member and Family Law Attorney Mark Fiddler examines the constitutional ramifications of the Indian Child Welfare Act through the lens of the case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, and various State ICWA laws. He explains that one of the questions asked in Adoptive Couple was “if a birth father has no rights under state law, what specifically is it in ICWA that accords him greater federal rights?” (2014, 3).

The attorneys for the birth father and Cherokee Nation had argued that the constitutional issues did not apply and cited Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), in which the Supreme Court had construed that preferential treatment for Native Americans was based on their unique political status, not on their heritage. Attorneys for Adoptive Couple, however, argued that “differential treatment predicated solely on “ancestral” classification violates equal protection principles” and cited Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 at 514, 517 (2000). When unequal treatment is predicated on a status unrelated to social, cultural, or political ties, but rather blood lineage, the ancestry underpinning membership is “a proxy for race.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 514.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his Adoptive Couple concurrence, cited Professor Rob Natelson’s white paper concerning the Commerce Clause and the unconstitutionality of the ICWA. Justice Thomas explained he was construing the statute narrowly to avoid opening the door to rule the ICWA unconstitutional. But he noted, “In light of the original understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause, the constitutional problems that would be created by application of the ICWA here are evident. First, the statute deals with “child custody proceedings,” §1903(1), not ‘commerce’” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013).

While the court did not address the constitutional issues, Fiddler believes that “…at a minimum, Adoptive Couple stands as a clear signal from the Court that the application of ICWA, and perhaps other Indian preference statutes, cannot be based merely upon a person’s lineal or blood connection with a tribe. Something more is required. In Adoptive Couple, it was the requirement of parental custody” (Fiddler, Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance 2014, 7-8).

Families and children are not ‘commerce’ with Indian tribes and thus are not legitimately dealt with under the Indian Commerce Clause, yet tribal attorneys continue to claim ICWA is constitutional, and some assert a right to claim any child they choose as a member. In reference to Baby Girl, Chrissi Nimmo, Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation stated, “… we repeatedly explained that… tribes can choose members who don’t have any Indian blood” (Rowley 2015).

The increased push for jurisdiction over other people’s children has increased the push back from those who hold the ICWA is unconstitutional. Swendsboe states in her amicus brief concerning the 2018 ICWA case Brackeen v. Bernhardt:

Because adoption proceedings like this one involve neither “commerce” nor “Indian tribes,” there is simply no constitutional basis for Congress’ assertion of authority over such proceedings. Also, the notion that Congress can direct state courts to apply different rules of evidence and procedure merely because a person of Indian descent is involved raises absurd possibilities. Such plenary power would allow Congress to dictate specific rules of criminal procedure for state-court prosecutions against Indian defendants. Likewise, it would allow Congress to substitute federal law for state law when contract disputes involve Indians. But the Constitution does not grant Congress power to override state law whenever that law happens to be applied to Indians. Accordingly, application of the ICWA to these child custody proceedings would be unconstitutional (Swendsboe 2019).

ICWA: Necessary for the Child’s Well-being …or the Tribal Government’s?

Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005). The MDHS did not mention that there were only twenty, hand-picked participants in the study. All twenty adoptees were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables.

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects (Cleaveland 2015).

While supporters of ICWA often cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, and some children and families faced with foster care, adoption or child custody disputes have felt protection through the ICWA, others have felt forced into relationship with tribal governments – and some have been forced into dangerous, abusive homes (Morris 2019, 194-221, 237-251)[9].

Federal government has focused on how the ‘child drain’ has affected tribal governments and the future of the tribe as an entity but has paid little attention to the children themselves: their needs, passions and diversity of individuals affected by federal Indian policy – many of whom have spiritual beliefs, political views, or parental practices unlike those promoted by the tribal government. There is no acknowledgement that most of the children eligible for tribal membership are multi-racial and live outside of Indian Country. Not only are the views of individual tribal members dissimilar to each other, but it is also unarguable that children of slight tribal heritage have many more non-tribal relatives than they have tribal relatives – and might actually be bonded to non-tribal relatives.

The “best interest” that select federal agencies appear to be more concerned with is that of the tribal government. The Obama administration’s ICWA rules in 2016 prejudicially assumed it is always in the best interest of a child to be under jurisdiction of tribal government, even if parents and grandparents have chosen to raise them in an alternative environment and worldview. The 2016 rules marginalize the rights of birth parents as well the reality of extended tribal and non-tribal birth family.

Yet, the Obama ICWA rules were long called for by tribal leaders. Tribal governments, using ‘wardship’ and ‘trust relationship’ as revenue vehicles, requested Congress enact legislation giving increased control over certain vulnerable children to tribal governments and have repeatedly returned to DC to insist Congress make the resultant ICWA even more stringent – covering more people and closing all “loopholes” for escape. When some members of Congress recognized the overreach and constitutional implications of ICWA amendments and blocked them from passage, tribal leaders went to the White House to insist on the strict regulation of independent families through the executive branch – even going so far as to accuse some families of committing ‘fraud’ by not admitting they had tribal heritage.

Tribal leaders have also asked state governments to take responsibility for ensuring larger numbers of children and families remain within the reservation system – even if against the will of the children and families – and state governments have acquiesced. Ironically, in doing this, tribal leaders, under the premise of strengthening jurisdiction over children of heritage, have essentially admitted their lack of it. In going to Congress and the president with the expectation and demand that they do something about grounding enrollable children to the reservation system, tribal leaders have admitted they lack the authority and are willing to submit to the sovereign authority of the United States of America. They have also essentially admitted that the best interest of children and families are second to the best interest of the tribe as a corporation.

Conclusion

The national dilemma has become whether an individual’s right to privacy, constitutional equal protection, and freedom of association are of less priority than tribal sovereignty and the future of a tribe.

Too many within federal government choose to please political leaders and protect tribal interests and sovereignty rather than save children’s lives. The federal government has reduced children to the status of a ‘resource’ for tribal governments, just as the private property of individual tribal members has been relegated to the control of the BIA as a resource for tribal governments. Children are treated as material assets, and adults are treated as children. Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others. Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty, and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries. While claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have paradoxically requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Independent political communities have a legitimate right to determine their own membership. However, basing that determination on an individual’s heritage and then forcing the individual into political affiliation because of that heritage is the epitome of racism. While family and community are important to children of every culture, tribal government claims that eligible children are lost without tribal culture infer there is something inherently different about children of tribal heritage as opposed to other children. Recognition that children of every heritage are individuals with their own wants, needs and goals is quashed.

While it is unarguable that a certain amount of strain occurs when traversing disparate cultures, children from around the world are successfully and happily adopted into American homes on a regular basis. Yet, it has become accepted belief that children of tribal heritage are, as a rule, unable to thrive outside of Indian Country. The evidence is to the contrary. The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives. Meanwhile, according to statistics provided by numerous tribal organizations, the BIA, FBI, and ACF, crime and physical, and sexual abuse have been steadily worsening on many reservations – even with reservation crime and child abuse frequently under-reported.

A concerned community does not wait for additional studies to act on an obvious and immediately known danger. We do not wait for a study to rush a child out of a burning building. When a child is bleeding to death, we know to immediately put pressure on the wound and get the child to a hospital. Unwillingness to deal effectively with the immediate needs of children suffering extreme physical or sexual abuse from extended family or community – no matter where it is – casts doubt on tribal and federal government assertions that safety of the children is of paramount importance. These ten statements are not absolute to all reservations and individuals, but clarify the general reality witnessed:

Crime and child abuse are rampant on many reservations
Crime and child abuse are rampant because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows for extensive abuse and crime to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
Because a certain amount of crime has been allowed to occur unchecked, many families who desire a safer community for their children (not all) have moved away from the reservation system.
At the same time, gang related tribal members remain or move to the reservation because it is protected from state police. With the increase in gang activity there is an increase in crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, child neglect, child abuse, and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
As a result of the migration off the reservation, tribal governments experience a drop in federal funds.
As an increasing percentage of healthier families leave the reservation system, an increasing percentage who remain willingly participate in the crime and abuse.
As a result of increasing crime and child abuse, more children are in need of care.
Some tribal governments are reticent to admit they no longer have enough safe homes to place children in, and not wanting to place the children off the reservation, have placed children in questionable and even dangerous homes.
It appears more important to some in federal government as well as some in tribal government to protect tribal sovereignty than it is to protect children.
In other words, there seems to be a protection of tribal sovereignty at all costs – even at the cost of children’s lives.

In contrast, the following five points clarify self-evident truths that policy makers need to know:

International law and treaties are valid and relevant
Life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness are rights endowed by the Creator to all men equally, no matter their heritage.
The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives.
A wide body of research confirms that foster care children of every heritage experience higher levels of emotional and psychological trauma.
A growing body of work by legal and historical researchers is finding current federal Indian policy unconstitutional

Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law. While the ICWA itself states it is not to be used in custody battles between birth parents, parents can refuse tribal court jurisdiction, non-tribal grandparents have the same rights as tribally enrolled grandparents, and courts can deviate from placement preferences with “good cause,” what has played out in various state and tribal courts has not always followed the wording and intent of the law. Further, wording in a law is of no help if one does not have the money to hire an attorney who knows Indian law. Many times, families fighting ICWA are low income. Further, many non-tribal courts do not understand the law and defer to the tribal court. The ICWA has given some tribal leaders, social services, and tribal courts a sense of entitlement when it comes to children of heritage.

The era of the Indian Child Welfare Act will become one of the numerous shames in American history. While many have been led to believe the ICWA is a righteous law, the reality is that powerless citizens have again been placed under subjugation.

If the ICWA were to remain law, it would require several amendments:

Children of tribal heritage need protection equal to that of any other child in the United States. State health and welfare requirements for foster and adoptive children should apply equally to all. Importantly, those assigned to child protection, whether federal, state, county or tribal, need to be held accountable if a child is knowingly left in unsafe conditions. (Title 42 USC 1983).
Fit parents, no matter their heritage, should have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage or the overriding wishes of tribal or federal government. US Supreme Court decisions upholding family autonomy under 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection include Meyer vs. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Brown v. Board of Education.
The ‘Existing Indian Family Doctrine’ should be available to families and children who choose not to live within the reservation system. Alexandria had held that “recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA”. Thus, if the existing Indian family doctrine has already been ignored in current ICWA cases, then serious constitutional flaws may have already occurred.
United States citizens, no matter their heritage, are guaranteed civil rights which include fair hearings. When summoned to a tribal court, parents, and legal guardians, whether enrolled or not, should be fully informed of their rights, including 25 USC Chapter 21§1911(b), which states “Transfer of proceedings [to tribal jurisdiction]” will occur only “…in the absence of good cause to the contrary, [or] objection by either parent….” The rights of non-member parents must be upheld. According to 25 USC Chapter 21§1903(1)(iv), ICWA placement preferences “shall not include a placement based … upon an award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody to one of the parents.” ICWA placement preferences also include all grandparents – no matter the heritage. Finally, non-members must be able to serve county and state summons to tribal members within reservation boundaries and must have access to appeal.
A “qualified expert witness” must be someone who is able to advocate for the well-being of the child, first and foremost, not a tribe. An expert witness needs to be a professional person with substantial education and experience in the area of the professional person’s specialty and significant knowledge of and experience with the child, his family – and the culture, family structure, and child-rearing practices the child has been raised in. There is nothing a tribal social worker inherently knows about a child based on nothing more than the child’s ethnic heritage. This includes children of 100% heritage who have been raised apart from the tribal community. A qualified expert witness needs to be someone who has not only met the child, but has worked with the child, is familiar with and understands the environment the child has thus far been raised in and has professional experience with some aspect of the child’s emotional, physical, or academic health. This is far more important than understanding the customs of a particular tribe.
Finally, if tribal membership is truly a political rather than racial designation, than the definition of an “Indian” child is one who is “enrolled” in the tribe, not merely “eligible.”

Allowing tribal governments the right to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights is indeed political. However, relatives being told these children are suddenly now members of an entity with which the family has had no political, social, or cultural relationship betrays the reality that at least in the case of their child, “race” is determining membership.

Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what a State would normally determine to be an unfit home – solely on the basis of tribal government claims that European values do not apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage – is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Tribal members are not just U.S. citizens; they are human beings. They are not chattel owned by tribal governments or servants indentured to the success of tribal governments, nor are they lab rats for Congress, pawns to be used at the negotiating table, or zoo exhibits for patronizing tourists looking for entertainment.

Even if a child had significant relationship with tribal culture, forced application of ICWA conflicts with the Constitution. There is nothing within the U.S. Constitution nor any treaty that gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals stay connected to a tribe, support a particular political viewpoint, or raise their children in a prescribed culture or religion.

For this reason, the ICWA cannot remain law. Natelson has shown that the ICWA goes far beyond the limited scope of the Indian Commerce Clause. While some tribal members appreciate that proper application of the Constitution means that Congress has no plenary power over tribal affairs, it also means that Congress has no power to enact laws such as the ICWA.

In light of constitutional issues inherent to the foundational enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the ICWA must be repealed. The Commerce Clause does not give Congress plenary authority over tribes or children of heritage, and tribal governments do not have the authority to force membership onto individuals, no matter their age.

Allowing individuals to employ their full constitutional rights would preserve to citizens their God-given right to individuality, liberty, and property, which is what the United States government is tasked to do. In the words of Dr. William Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

“… We are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…” (2010)[10]

###

*ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

CAICW.org; X.com/CAICW; Facebook.com/CAICW.org; Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

FOOTNOTES

[1] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

[2] Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46 (1907)

[3] United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375, 378 (1886)

[4] See generally Randy E. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 ARK. L. REV. 847 (2003); Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 101 (2001); (R. Natelson, The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause 2007, Supra note 2, 214 )

[5] United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 585, 586, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995)

[6] (reprint 1978)

[7] 218 F.3d 458, 464–65 (5th Cir. 2000)

[8] 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005)

[9] SEE The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act: ‘ICWA Case Studies’ and ‘Child Abuse.’

[10] Dr. William B. Allen’s keynote speech at the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’s ICWA Teach-In, titled ‘Indian Children: Citizens, not Cultural Artifacts,’ on October 28, 2011, in the chambers of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

REFERENCES

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Allen, William B. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmation (Brackeen v. Zinke, 2018). 4:17-CV-00868 (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, February 2019).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Morris, Elizabeth. “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Scholars Crossing, 8 2019: 337. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Rowley, Sean. 43rd Symposium on the American Indian at Northeastern State University . April 17, 2015. http://m.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/icwa-discussed-at-symposium-seminar/article_08846b3a-e543-11e4-8421-7744ec7971c6.html?mode=jqm (accessed April 20, 2015).

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

March 8, 2022 No Responses »

The Predatory, yet Lucrative Indian Industry:

Oct 262020

Wealthy, Prominent Families – including the BIDENS – have used lax Reservation Tax and Regulatory Laws to rake millions for themselves

A balanced composite of 30 sources over the last six years – including justice.gov, the Securities & Exchange Commission, Native Sun News, Indianz.com, Red State.com, and other liberal, conservative, and neutral sources…See Resources

I have long said that although lobbyist-criminal Jack Abramoff went to prison, none of the Congressmen he paid off went to jail, nor did the tribal leaders who gave Abramoff the money to give to the Congressmen. So why was it assumed that just because Abramoff was sent to jail, the graft had stopped?

“… The scheme was relatively sophisticated, with a lot of moving parts, and involved a variety of “players.” .” (28) One of the main players, Devon Archer, was a long-time friend and business associate of Christopher Heinz, the step-son of John Kerry and heir to the Heinz ketchup family fortune. Archer was also a “fledgling Democrat Party bundler of campaign contributions” following his stint as “National Finance Chairman for John Kerry’s 2004 Presidential campaign.”

Archer and Heinz had met at Yale, where they were roommates. These men are also “Hunter Biden’s primary business partner on matters involving Ukraine and China. Archer, Heinz, and Biden are the founding co-partners of a company called Rosemont Seneca Partners.” (11) “Rosemont ” is the name of the Heinz family’s Pennsylvania estate, and it’s attached to most business ventures connected “to the Heinz family foundation, or members of the Heinz family.” (11)

“Jason Galanis is a career white-collar criminal with multiple felony convictions for securities fraud and other white-collar crimes. His father, John Galanis has a criminal record of white-collar crime going back to the 1970s” and is currently serving a federal prison sentence. (11) Jason Galanis has said his best friend is Bevan Cooney, a co-owner of a Hollywood club called the “The Viper Room.” (11)

If capitalism is outlawed, only the out-laws will have capital.

Some minor players may have been “Chad Jardine, a former marketing executive, and Blake Collins, an Internet entrepreneur” who had “set up an online lending company called Flobridge in 2009. State regulators soon began to notice their success. In December 2010, the state of Idaho issued a cease-and-desist order to one of their lending websites. The order stated that the company had issued Payday loans without a state license and illegally attempted to garnish the wages of two customers who didn’t pay back their loans on time .” (16)

“By then, Jardine and Collins had incorporated a new company, Cash Cloud, in Arizona. It was only a matter of time before new cease-and-desist orders began arriving from other states that regulate payday lending. But Jardine and Collins could continue doing business if they found a sovereign native tribe to serve as their legal shield: The principle of tribal sovereignty offers immunity from the enforcement of state laws. Lending businesses affiliated with tribes are able to operate even in states that cap interest rates on Payday loans.” (16)

“If a payday company has a legal affiliation with a tribe, “there’s really nothing we can do” to stop them in court, explained Deborah Bortner, director of the consumer division of Washington state’s Department of Financial Institutions.” (16)

In comes Raycen Raines. Claiming to be an “entrepreneur” and business owner, Raines is said to have been born on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation but left as a young child.(1) Others claim he might have been born in Oregon and raised in Alaska, but had Oglala heritage on his Dad’s side..(16)

A former insurance salesman, Raines asserted that having been in the Navy, operated the American Horse Consulting prior to moving to Pine Ridge, and having worked various jobs over the years, he is qualified to be a “tribal economic development specialist” and could be a “keynote speaker at every economic development conference in Indian Country.” (1) Around 2009, Raines, who has also been known as Raycen Ballard, Raycen A. Horseballard, and Raycen C. Rummell, began looking into enrolling in the tribe. In 2011, he enrolled in the Oglala Sioux Tribe and changed his name to “Raycen American Horse Raines.” (1) He thenbegan developing a relationship with the Wakpamni community, various tribal officials, and investors from around Indian Country. Claiming he can “bring sustainable economic development to the reservation without the tribe needing to take any significant financial risk,” Raines started a new company, Raindancer Resource Management, to “introduce private enterprise to the community.” (1)

2011

Describing himself as a “Renaissance Indian,” Raines had moved to Pine Ridge in 2011. Promoting himself as an “economic development consultant in Indian Country,” he stated, “I don’t have a wife and kids, as my career with bringing economic development to the [tribe] is my wife and kids.” (16)

Raines promised tribal leaders that his economic development projects would “capitalize on the sovereign status of the Oglala Sioux Tribe” with little or no investment on their part. The projects included “the acquisition of Saigon National Bank, the pursuit of Housing and Urban Development grants, small business development, and a wind farm.” (1)

“The central figures of this organization are Raycen American Horse Raines, R. Dennis Ickes, Valerie Red Horse, Michael “Rawhide” Sierra, Todd Gandy, Stephen Gomes, and Stuart Cohen. Raines calls these individuals his mentors. However, when OST Attorney David Frankel conducted the due diligence on their company, his discovery raised eyebrows and more questions.” (2)

When Raines had become an enrolled member of the OST, he adopted the name American Horse. However, the American Horse Tiospaye has never heard of him. ” (2) Also, Red Horse, a financial broker and investment advisor,” had been “questioned by other sovereign tribal courts for failure to deliver on goods and services while working for tribes” (1) and at the time, had a “pending investigation against her and two other final judgment liens against her.” Gomes and Sierra also had “past dealings with the Tribe, having charged substantial amounts to the Tribe and then failed to produce results. ” (2)

Further, Raindancer had begun “soliciting the Oglala Sioux Tribe months before” it was even a registered business. “In fact, they were meeting with Tribal officials before they had possession of a valid Due-Diligent Pass, which is required under Tribal law. They were eventually granted a 30-day Due-Diligent Pass on September 15, 2011.” However, they were not registered as an Oregon business until October 3, 2011. (2)

While Raines‘ businesses were eventually licensed by the tribal government, the projects were not initially approved by tribal agencies, which labeled the bank high risk, and the Black Hills Sioux Treaty Council claimed his projects would “commandeer, not only Tribal assets, but also private Tribal members’ allotted land assets.” (1)

“The Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Law and Order Code, Chapter 2, Section 122 False Pretenses states…(a)”It shall be unlawful to obtain, take, or receive any property of another by means of a trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation, statement, or pretense with the intent to deprive the owner thereof.” ” (2)

Then came the pitch for a payday loan company. In late 2011, Raines told tribal officials that “lending money to poor people at triple-digit interest rates” was a booming business and that “they, too, could get a cut of the action and bring in ‘a free income stream’ to the tribe.” (16)

Honest people within some of the tribal agencies opposed the plan. “It was predatory lending,” said Arlene Catches the Enemy, an official at the tribe’s economic development office. (16) She also correctly noted that “tribal officials felt Raines’ proposal shortchanged the tribe. Most of the money would go to a non-native-owned company, Arizona-based Cash Cloud LLC, which actually ran the lending business.” (16)

“Payday loans are short-term loans with interest rates usually between 400 and 700 percent or higher. All a customer needs to obtain a loan is access to a computer and a personal bank account. The borrowers, who often have cash-flow problems and aren’t able to get loans from traditional banks, usually agree to let the lender deduct interest and other payments from their bank accounts automatically.” (16)

Despite the initial refusal by tribal agencies, “Raines went ahead and set up an online payday business anyway. FastMoneyStore.net used a post office box on the reservation as its legal address, even though Cash Cloud made and serviced the loans from Arizona. Soon Raines acquired partners” – with at least “14 payday lending websites” eventually claiming “to do business from Pine Ridge. Besides Cash Cloud, the other companies that make the loans appear to be based in Utah, Texas, Canada and Belize, according to an analysis of corporate records and government documents.” (16)

“… in January 2012, Raines made his pitch to the Wakpamni district, one of nine regional subdivisions that make up the reservation. (16) Although the tribe elects a president and a legislative council to govern the reservation, districts like Wakpamni have the power to make business deals without permission from the council. Raines and his relatives lived in the district, and he had allies there.” (16) Located within Oglala Lakota County which was designated by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1980 as the poorest county in the nation,” Wakpamni has a population of about 5,000 (19) “If Wakpamni approved Raines’ plan, Cash Cloud could start making loans around the country as an “official tribal entity,” free from interference by state regulators.” (16)

“Around 40 people showed up that night to the district headquarters…a few miles east of Pine Ridge, the reservation’s largest town (population 3,308) .” (16)

“The meeting grew heated, according to Catches the Enemy, who was in the audience.” (16)

“Raines was working the crowd.“Does everybody here have a good job?” he asked, according to minutes of the meeting. “I didn’t think so.” (16) ““These big industries need to move onto sovereign land,” Raines continued.” (16)

“Raines had brought with him a draft contract that created a partnership between Cash Cloud and the Wakpamni district. Cash Cloud would pay a fee of $5 per new loan, up to $100,000 per month, into a bank account held by Raines. After the $100,000 threshold was reached, the lenders would pay $2.50 per loan.” (16)

“Raines and the district would then split the monthly payments 50-50, which Raines said was fair since he had done “the work and put in the money and expertise to make this opportunity happen.” .” (16)

“Sandy Two Lance, the president of the Wakpamni district, backed the proposal. “I support what they’re doing because we have nothing,” Two Lance said at the meeting. But the other three members of the Wakpamni executive board expressed skepticism.” (16)

““Everything is in [the lenders’] favor,” said Richard Little Hawk, a member of the board. “I want to see a meeting of open negotiation to reach an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.” (16)

““He wants more money,” Raines responded. “I don’t have any more money to give you.” (16)

“But Little Hawk and the other board members wouldn’t budge. A few days earlier, the tribe’s attorney had written Little Hawk an alarming email. “Entering into this agreement,” the attorney warned, “would result into a huge legal liability” for the tribe and the district if state regulators decided to sue.” (16) Two Lance realized she didn’t have the votes she needed on the executive board. So she put the matter to a floor vote, a move that violated district rules because the meeting lacked a proper quorum.” (16)

“If we make $2.50, that is $2.50 we didn’t have before,” said a member of the audience who seconded Two Lance’s motion despite its procedural improprieties.” (16) Only one person in the meeting hall voted against the contract. Little Hawk and the two other board members abstained in protest.” (16) For Two Lance, the matter was settled. “The consensus is here,” she said.” (16)

“It’s not going to be legal, but I’m going to do it and see what happens,” she added, before signing the contract.” (16)

Much has been made about how the payday scam was foisted on an impoverished, unsuspecting tribe. But it needs to be noted that while it was indeed forced on much of the tribe, many were very aware of the illegality of what was happening, and the officials who ultimately approved the scam knowingly intended to enrich themselves through predatory lending – lending that would intentionally prey upon poor people who could not afford the interest rates. Certain tribal members within the tribe wanted to benefit from the scam.

“To get the business going, Raines set up the Wakpamni Lake Community Corp., a holding company that legally owns the lending websites. But the Wakpamni district board refused to honor the contract Two Lance had signed, saying she had done so illegally. Raines kept making the loans anyway.” (16)

Therefore, the companies were operating “without the tribe’s official sanction” and did not share profits with the tribe. “The tribe has no ownership in that business,” confirmed Bob Palmier, director of the tribe’s revenue office.” (16) “That means the company does not have a legal affiliation with the Oglala Sioux, according to tribal officials and legal experts. It also suggests that state regulators could sue if they judge Raines’ company to be breaking state laws.” (16)

“On Wednesday, January 18th, 2012, a judgment was issued in the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court against Raindancer Resource Management/American Horse Ventures LLC, et al, essentially barring them from doing any and all business on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The suit, brought by Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Oglala Delegate Floyd Hand and Itancan Oliver Red Cloud, alleges that Raindancer’s ultimate goal is to commandeer, not only Tribal assets, but also private Tribal members’ allotted land assets.” (2)

“According to their proposed partnership with the OST, they are seeking exclusive rights to allotted lands! This is what caught the attention of the Treaty Council. The Tribal Council has NO authority over individual tribal member’s allotted lands. ” (2)

“Let’s assume the Tribal Council turns a blind eye to all this and allows Raindancer the exclusive rights to economic development. In their proposed contract with the OST, Raines asserts that he has a partnership with Robert McKee of Native American Investment Group (NAIG). Not to be confused with NAEG. According to OST Council Resolution #11-164, McKee has expressed an interest in providing $20,000,000 to fund a tribally owned “central” bank, using the Tribe’s treaty rights and sovereign immunity. The Tribal Council and Executive Committee are not sovereign. They raise their hand to uphold the U.S Flag and Constitution. The Oyate have the sovereignty. ” (2)

“The Tribe’s own due-diligence attorney questioned the legality of the proposed “off shore” or “central” bank, calling it questionable and needing extensive research. The most alarming assertion that Raindancer/NAIG is making is that the Tribe assumes no risk and that the Tribe will not be subject to federal taxes, or the Patriot Act. Really? …Tribal members cannot even grow industrial hemp on their so-called sovereign land without the DEA storming in, but McKee and Raines are confident that they can by-pass the Feds. ” (2)

“In a simple internet search, we discovered that Mr. McKee is party to a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Utah (Case # 2:06CV00109 PGC). McKee is listed as President of Native American Oil Refinery Company (NARCO) which is being sued for failure to produce the promised capital of $50,000,000 to purchase a chain of convenience stores. When NARCO did not come up with the money, they strung the plaintiff along by increasing the payment to $65,000,000, plus offering standby letters of credit from a supposed Indonesian bank partner (another defendant, Bank Negara Indonesia-BNI) in the amount of $25,000,000. ” (2)

“McKee’s NARCO/BNI never paid any of the amounts owed to the plaintiffs, thus forcing the plaintiffs to foreclose on their properties. To that end, the plaintiffs are seeking damages of $115,000,000 from NARCO/BNI for breach of contract. This case has not been settled to date. So how can Mr. McKee offer $20,000,000 in seed money to start a bank on the Pine Ridge Reservation? Through “letters of credit” from a rogue Indonesian bank? That is deception and false representation. ” (2)

“According to McKee’s bio, his background is in oil and gas mining. In fact, he is a proud member of the American Petroleum Institute and the American Gas Association. So while his front may be to help the Oglala Lakota have their own bank, in my personal opinion, NAIG is teaming up with Raindancer to have exclusive rights to the Tribe’s natural resources! It is actually stated in the preamble of the proposed agreement with the Tribe. The bank, wind/solar operation, etc. is just a front, in my own personal opinion. Just as infamous NAEG did a couple of years ago, promising to come in and “clean” our water. Where is NAEG today? Are they promoting their clean water technology on another rez? No, they are mining oil/gas in North Dakota and developing coal-bed methane in the endangered Cook Inlet Basin of Alaska. ” (2)

“Raindancer has also attempted to enter into a contract with the Wakpamni District Executive Board to create a pay day loan operation. This type of enterprise is known as a “predatory” lending operation and is notorious for setting up in low-income communities across the U.S., preying on the disadvantaged. ” (2)

“Although pay day loan businesses are legal, Raindancer’s proposed contract with Wakpamni District Executive Board is illegal, according to Treaty Council legal advocate Bill Bielecki. According to the most recent copy of the Wakpamni District’s Constitution & By-Laws, provided by the OST Secretary, the role of the District’s Executive Board is to simply carry out the wishes of its communities. There is a distinction to be pointed out here. The District Executive Board is not the District Council. The District Council is comprised of members from the 6 communities and must have at least 4 communities with a quorum of 5 members per community, present at a meeting for it to be a legal District Council meeting. When the quorum standards are met, they collectively can vote on issues and business proposals for the progress and welfare of its District’s membership. ” (2)

“Additionally, according to Article VI, Section 2 of the Wakpamni District’s Constitution states, “…Any resolution before the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council will be presented to the Wakpamni District by our Wakpamni District Representatives for discussion before they are voted upon.” Article VI, Section 3 states, “…Any resolutions that the Wakpamni District Representatives present to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council must originate in the Wakpamni District Council.” ” (2)

“While Raindancer/American Horse/NAIG are courting our District elected officials,” it has been asserted that “there was never a legal Wakpamni District Council meeting, because they did not have a legal quorum of membership when discussing a joint venture with this group. ” (2)

“Importantly, why would the Wakpamni District want to partner with a group that has such a questionable performance history? Why was the OST due diligence attorney shut down when he began delving into Raindancer/American Horse group’s background? Why would the Wakpamni District Representatives offer a letter of support/endorsement for Raindancer even after the Treaty Council won a temporary restraining order against Raindancer? I would think that this action by our treaty elders would give them pause and encourage them to investigate Raindancer further. ” (2)

“Perhaps they were all blinded by the bright light of a few shiny coins. We all want progress, employment opportunities and economic growth on Pine Ridge. Today’s Treaty Council delegates are descendants of the original Treaty Council, the men that signed the 1851/1868 Ft. Laramie Treaties. It is their duty to uphold the rights that their ancestors fought and died for…to protect their homeland and its resources from being raped and pillaged by the fat takers. Exploiting what little land and resources that the Oglala Oyate have left is not progress or steps towards self-sufficiency. It will be the end of the Lakota way of life. ” (2)

Nevertheless, the Wakpamni Lake company continued to operate. The company “gets around $4,000 a month from the lenders, according to Geneve Lone Hill, the company’s president.” Lone Hill claimed “half of that money goes to Raines, who uses it to help fund a native culture performance troupe and another group devoted to saving wild mustangs. Lone Hill gets the rest. She said she uses her share to buy fresh meat, fuel and other supplies for needy families in the area.” (16)

“Catches the Enemy had no idea Raines had set up the lending companies without the tribe’s approval. She said the first she heard of it was when Al Jazeera asked about the lender’s connection to the Oglala Sioux. “We’re doing what?” she exclaimed in surprise over the phone.” (16)

“In an interview at her Pine Ridge office…Catches the Enemy said a tribal court had issued a temporary restraining order in early 2012 against Raines, preventing him from doing business on the reservation, and that the order had been served upon him with his attorney present. She said she would contact a lawyer to reopen the case.” (16)

“We need to investigate. We have to look into it,” claimed tribal president, Bryan Brewer, “I’m really sorry we don’t know what’s going on.” (16)

2013

Defending the decision to move forward with the business, “Lone Hill said Ogala Sioux officials have systematically ignored the Wakpamni community, an isolated area with approximately 800 residents on the reservation’s eastern border. “We don’t get services out here,” Lone Hill said. The payday money isn’t much, she added, “but it’s better than nothing.” .” (16)

“In 2013, consumers filed 59 complaints against six of the Wakpamni online lending sites, according to data from the Federal Trade Commission. …“which came from residents of 20 different states, accused the companies of charging unadvertised, hidden fees and harassing customers with threatening phone calls and emails.” (16) Lone Hill, however, is not bothered by the complaints. She said she had no problem with the loans because they were not made on the reservation.” (16)

“Besides, she added, the Oglala Sioux have suffered long enough. “We’re getting hurt here too by our own people and our government and our country, who are not treating us fairly,” she said.” (16)

“When you deal with people who are impoverished, they will go for any idea that promises cash,” said David Mills, the director of the tribe’s economic development office and Catches the Enemy’s boss.” (16)

Raines had successfully convinced many people to support his ‘pay day loan’ business and “capitalize on the sovereign status of reservation land” to avoid state regulations and taxes.

While the tribal court had initially ruled that the tribe could not do business with Raines, the “suit was eventually dropped” and not pursued by the tribe. (1) Wakpamni members claim their private business is independent of the Tribe and has “legal authority to conduct business as a corporation. (1)

While the payday scheme unfolded on the Pine Ridge Reservation in 2013, Hunter Biden was yet to be brought into the business ventures. “In…an email string dated October 5, 2013, in which Archer, Galanis, and Cooney go over changes to be made in Archer’s “bios” as part of some business organizational affairs,… there is a reference to bringing Hunter Biden into the group, and “putting a little honey in his pocket.” .” (11)

“Hunter Biden’s business associates spoke candidly in emails about Hunter Biden’s role in the business, particularly as it related to foreign ventures, apparently viewing the Biden name as a form of “currency,” and bragging that they had a “direct…pipeline” to the Obama-Biden Administration.” (10)

“In another email, Hunter Biden’s associates touted Hunter’s access to the White House and contrasted his willingness to “take on risk” with that of Chris Heinz—then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson and a close friend of Biden and Archer—who was uncomfortable with some of their potential partnerships.” (10)

““In October 2013, Hunter Biden’s associates (including Devon Archer) discussed which one of their corporate vehicles would be appropriate for a new deal they were working on. Archer noted their need to use a “Rosemont Seneca SPV” (also known as a special purpose vehicle) because Rosemont Capital was too close to the Heinz family and because using an SPV could “bring Hunter into the mix.” Archer explained his desire “to leverage Hunter more” in a way that didn’t involve Heinz, who Archer called “much more risk averse.” .” (10)

“Another benefit of the Rosemont Seneca SPV was, per an October 5 email from Hunter Biden and Devon Archer’s business associate Bevan Cooney to Archer, it “would be good to put some honey in Hunter’s pocket.” That same day Archer responded: “Agreed. I also have more autonomy with that company as I own it with Hunter and he’s willing to take on risk… Hunter will work if we need him too [sic] as well.” .” (10)

“Five days later, Biden’s business associate Jason Galanis confirmed to Archer that he had changed the corporate references in the proposal to include a Hunter Biden-controlled firm. Archer replied, clearly pleased. “Perfect. Let’s just keep to that. We get the Biden lift and stay out of Heinz panties.” Archer had noted he would use Rosemont Seneca Partners instead of Rosemont Capital, in which Heinz held a stake. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer’s Rosemont Seneca Partners would play a pivotal role in their future deals.” (10)

In late 2013, Hunter traveled with his father aboard Air Force Two to Beijing, where the vice president was set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.” (25) Hunter, on the other hand, “met with Jonathan Li, of the Beijing-based private equity firm Bohai Capital Partners.” The younger Biden then introduced Li to his father but denies that they discussed business.” (22)

“Hunter and Archer had just concluded a large real estate deal with Bohai.” (25) “Rosemont Seneca Bohai, the advisory firm controlled by Hunter Biden and Archer,” was partnering with “a Chinese asset management firm to form BHR Partners” – of which Li was to be CEO. (22) It was at this time, in December 2013, that “Rosemont Seneca Partners finalized a deal with the Chinese government-backed investment vehicle, Bohai Harvest, to form Bohai Harvest RST, a new firm in which Hunter Biden would maintain a 10% equity stake and whose funds would grow to at least $1.5 billion.” (10)

In “December 2013, as has been widely reported, Biden and Archer secured a $1 billion private equity deal financed by the Chinese government.” (10)

2014

The “Roll up” plan:

In early 2014, “Jason Galanis, Archer, Bevan Cooney, and others were working together to acquire financial services companies that they could “roll up” into a large financial conglomerate with Archer at the helm. They began by investing in Burnham Financial Group (“Burnham”), a well-established financial services company with a prominent name that they sought to leverage in building their own conglomerate.” … minutes from “a meeting of the Board of Trustees of Burnham Investors Trust,”… owner of the Burnham Financial Group, which “Archer and the others ended up acquiring,” and which included the subsidiaries Burnham Asset Management, Inc., (BAM) and Burnham Securities, Inc. .” (11) But to purchase additional …“roll-up” companies, they needed capital.” (11) “As part of the Indian Tribe bond fraud scheme, they acquired control of a few businesses and then used those businesses in the execution of the fraud — which brought them the proceeds from the sale of the Indians’ bonds — $28 million in the first sale.” (11)

“In 2014, Hunter Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy firm.” (22)

Biden and his associates “established bank and financial accounts with Morgan Stanley … for Burisma Holdings Limited … for the money laundering scheme,” D&A claims, further alleging that the accounts showed an average account value of nearly $6.8 million between March 2014 and December 2015.” (13)

“… Just hours after Burisma’s announcement that Biden and Archer had joined the board” of the Ukrainian company, Heinz emailed his step-father and then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s top aides and alerted them… “Apparently Devon and Hunter both joined the board of Burisma and a press release went out today,” Heinz said. “I can’t speak why they decided to, but there was no investment by our firm in their company.” (10)

Heinz made moves to sever his formal business ties with Archer and Biden in May 2014. At about that same time, according to a court brief, Attorney Timothy Anderson “informed Raines that he would be representing the Galanis’s and their companies in the bond transaction, and not his former client WLCC. As a result, Raines needed to find separate counsel to represent WLCC.” (12)

“Heather Dawn Thompson (“Thompson”) was a partner with Greenberg & Traurig,” (3) the same firm that had hired disgraced con-man Jack Abramoff to lobby for tribal governments. She was affiliated with Greenberg’s Denver office, but lived “in South Dakota near or on the Oglala Sioux’s Pine Ridge Reservation,” (12) serving as Greenberg’s “primary client relationship attorney for the bond transaction.” (12) Thompson dated Raines, “WLCC’s CEO, at the time Greenberg represented WLCC in the Wakpamni bond transactions,” and they have since married. (12)
The Greenberg’s partners that assisted Thompson were Michael McGinnis and Jennifer Weddle. “McGinnis is an experienced bond lawyer and member of the National Association of Bond Lawyers.” (12) Because Raine had previously been accused of predatory lending, Anderson feared that would bring bad publicity to the bond transaction. So he “drafted two resolutions of support commending Raines’ business practices which were sent to Raines and Thompson via email, to be signed by the leadership of the Wakpamni District and the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Anderson allegedly stated, “Raycen – this is what I had in mind and will go a long way in calming everyone down and keeping these projects on track,” (12)

Unfortunately, instead, on June 24, 2014, “the OST’s Tribal Council passed a resolution stripping Raines of authority to act with respect to tribal economic development matters, including ‘Tribal Economic Development (TED) Bonds,’ but also ‘any other economic development projects.’ …The resolution specifically noted that Raines had exerted undue influence over OST’s then-president to gain support for economic development projects.” (12)
A subsequent lawsuit by the Chicago Transit authority states that “neither Greenberg nor Dilworth disclosed to the bondholders or the Indenture trustee, U.S. Bank, that OST had passed a resolution stripping Raines of authority to issue TED bonds.” (12) “The lawsuit also alleges that Greenberg mislead RHCT and other investors by indicating the Oglala Sioux Tribe had issued the bonds and were therefore secure.” (12)

“The court documents also cite a deposition given by Raycen Raines” that he had “met with John Galanis in the early days of the scheme in 2014.” (22) “Raines, who was not accused of wrongdoing in the investigation, said in a deposition that he heard “more than once or twice” that Archer was Hunter Biden’s business partner. Raines also said that John Galanis “did in fact boast about Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden’s involvement.” .” (22)

On Tuesday June 24, 2014, “ the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council suspended Tribal President Bryan Brewer in part due to Brewer‘s dealings with Raycen Raines.” (8) “After voting to suspend Brewer, the council approved a resolution stating that Brewer didn’t have authority to allow Raycen Raines to act on the tribe’s behalf in federal matters. The resolution did not spell out the details.” (8) But Raines, who now owned “the Lakota Ways cultural center based in Wall, says he hasn’t done anything wrong and that the suspension of Brewer is retaliation by… the tribe’s economic development officials.” (8)

“Raines, who describes Lakota Ways as the largest private employer on the reservation, says the plan with the bonds and the related forming of a holding company” was to “start five manufacturing businesses and create as many as 500 jobs.” (8) “The quarrel, according to Raines, comes from attempts by him and Brewer to obtain federal money known as Tribal Economic Development bonds…, which are administered by the Internal Revenue Service.” (8) “…but that his work did not constitute official tribal action.” (8) “”We were exploring to see if our tribe will get them,” Raines said, “All we’re trying to do is create something our tribe should have had 50 years ago,” he said.” (8) Councilman Garfield Steele disagreed, stating that “the resolution mentioning Raines was not about retaliation. It was about questioning Raines‘ authority to act on the tribe’s behalf.” (8)

“These minutes are dated August 21, 2014, just about the same time the Indian Tribe made their first bond offering, which was purchased in its entirety by an investment advisory business that Archer and Galanis had acquired for that very purpose.” (11)

“These minutes do not provide a complete picture of the nature of the transaction. But the Trustees expressed concerns — which Archer tried to respond to — regarding the post -acquisition structure and control of BAM if the Trust were to sell. One subject mentioned in a few places in the minutes is the possible involvement — and role — of a gentleman named Jason Sugarman. The Trustees seemed suspicious of the nature of Sugarman’s involvement and seemed to be seeking assurances and answers from Archer on the question of who would really be controlling BAM — Archer or Sugarman.” (11)

“Jason Sugarman is a Los Angeles businessman and investor who holds minority ownership interests in the Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles FC MLS soccer franchise, and the Oklahoma City Dodgers — the AAA Minor League franchise team of the Los Angeles Dodgers.” (11)

“But more importantly for Archer and Galanis, Sugarman was part owner and had control of an insurance company, Valor Group Ltd. (“VGL”), a Bermuda-based insurance conglomerate. He was also Director and an indirect owner of then-SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser Burnham Securities.” (11)

“Basically, in the early days of trying to put together their “roll up”, when Galanis and Archer needed capital to fund their acquisition of various businesses to make the fraud scheme work, they turned to Sugarman for the money to make those acquisitions.” (11)

“Archer and Galanis purchased Hughes Capital Management LLC, in August 2014, which they then used to buy the first $28 million in Indian Tribe bonds. Sugarman provided the funding to purchase a controlling interest in Hughes. A year later, in preparation for purchasing the third set of bonds, Sugarman assisted in financing the purchase of Atlantic Asset Management LLC, which purchased the third set of bonds for $16 million.” (11)

“Archer had convinced the Burnham Trust to sell Burnham Financial Services, which was the parent company of both Burnham Asset Management and Burnham Securities — and Sugarman had funded those acquisitions as well, which is why the SEC called him an “indirect owner”. For whatever reason, the Trustees had been concerned about that outcome. Archer convinced them it would not be the case as is reflected in the minutes of that meeting, yet that is what eventually came to happen.” (11)

“It was Sugarman’s insurance company that was supposed to issue the annuities that were going to be purchased with the proceeds from the bond sale, but were instead diverted to individuals involved in the fraud scheme. A significant amount of the money made its way to Sugarman.” (11)

“Sugarman was close with Galanis. Various people involved in the scheme told SEC investigators that the group referred to them as “The two Jasons”, and viewed them as 50-50 partners in everything that happened with the Indian Tribe bond scheme. They were in regular communication as the deal came together, and even had paperwork prior to the deal being formalized laying out where they would divert the proceeds from the bond sales.” (11)

“Jason Sugarman, in addition to being an LA-based entrepreneur, investor, and businessman, is also the husband of Elizabeth Guber.” (11) “Elizabeth Guber is the daughter of Hollywood …Producer Peter Guber, who along with his former partner, Barbara Streisand paramour Jon Peters, produced such Hollywood hits as The Color Purple, Flashdance, Rain Man, Batman, Witches of Eastwick, Midnight Express, and at least a dozen more box office hits and Hollywood awards winners.” (11)

Remember, Archer was a “bundler of campaign contributions for Democrat party candidates.” (11) Hollywood has been a strong financial backer of both President Obama and Vice President Biden.

Bevan Cooney, a close friend of Jason Galanis, shared a “financial interest in The Viper Room in Hollywood.” (11) Sugarman introduces Galanis to Archer “and they start planning the formation of a financial services conglomerate…” (11)

“…the minutes of the Burnham Trustee meeting refer to $200 million received for investment purposes by Archer from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow, which confirms the claim made by Senators Johnson and Grassley about Hunter Biden getting money from her — a Russian Government official.” (11)

It has been said that if guns are outlawed, only the out-laws will have guns. Well, if, as those on the left demand, capitalism is outlawed, only the out-laws will have capital.

In a 2014 lawsuit filed by the WLCC against Arlene Catches the Enemy for libelous statements, Catches the Enemy, “exposes some of the inner workings of the payday loan site” – including “excessive interest to customers” that “has been labeled predatory by experts.” Raines defends his interest rates by asserting that he does not lend to tribal members or residents of South Dakota. (1)

The company charges “an annual percentage rate of 782.00% and a daily interest rate of just more than .021%, meaning that if an individual borrowed $25.71 they would be required to pay back $325.71 if they miss the first scheduled payment that is due two weeks after a loan is taken out.” The company has also “received an F rating from the Better Business Bureau” due to complaints against it. (1)

According to Lone Hill, members of the WLCC traveled to the 2014 Reservation Economic Summit (RES2014) in Las Vegas. (19) Because they did not actually represent the tribe, they had little capital, no land base and no collateral. Many individual tribal members have no land title to leverage for investment and loans from banks because the federal government holds their land captive in a “trust.”

When the WLCC came across John Galanis pitching his bond scheme, they stopped to listen. (19) “Lone Hill said Galanis was representing Burnham Securities, a firm they believed to be well-established and reputable.” (19)

“… in March of 2014 while at the RES2014 conference, Raycen Raines, CEO of the WLCC invited former WLCC attorney Timothy Anderson to attend a meeting with John Galanis to discuss a proposal for the bond offering.” (19) ““During the meeting, John Galanis explained his proposal to have WLCC issue debt in the form of bonds. Unlike other municipal bonds, the vast majority of the bond proceeds under Galanis‘s plan would be invested in an annuity contract with an offshore insurance company. The revenues from the annuity contract would then be used to pay the principal and interest payments due on the bonds (i.e., the debt service).” .” (19)
“… if the plan had worked it would have generated “free money” for WLCC and that the annuity concept was “novel” and “something new.” (19)
“According to Lone Hill the money generated would have given the Wakpamni District ample capital to invest in a warehouse where they could ship goods they had produced locally, a laundromat, a bakery, a community building for Bingo and community events, a tutoring facility to teach Lakota language and entrepreneurial skills, an incubator for business start-ups, a sewing center and a bowling alley.” (19)

The Biden group continued their “roll up.” A May, 2014, email from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi sought Hunter’s “advice on how you [Hunter] could use your influence” on behalf of Burisma.” (27) In November 4, 2014, email, Jason Galanis discussed a draft pitch for investors explaining investor protections. He also wanted to stress their connection to Joe Biden: “I wanted to focus on the ‘other currency’ we are bringing to the table…direct administration pipeline.” Galanis also mentioned dropping Joe Biden’s connections in their pitch when dealing with union pension funds. Galanis wrote, “maybe we should also remind of HB’s dad’s union relationships to justify the ask??” (10)

The Indian Industry is lucrative business with many prominent people making their living off of it.

For example one of the named partners of Raycen Raines not often mentioned is Dennis Ickes, who advertised himself as a consultant and advisor in the “Indian Reorganization Act Section 17.” His promotional material states that “Dennis Ickes of Native 17 developed the intellectual property that engineered the first acquisition by a tribe using a unique IRA leverage strategy. Decades of experience as a highly ranked federal official, tribal lawyer, and businessman enabled Mr. Ickes to coalesce the tribe, investors, and the target business into a 100% tribally owned multimillion dollar business.” (4) He also states that he has …perfected a financing concept for tribes that appeals to private capital to fund tribal economic development that preserves the natural qualities of the land, water and air while producing revenue, jobs, and business opportunities.” (4) Interestingly, he claims his “Concept is the result of his 40 years” of “service as deputy undersecretary of the Interior, as general and special counsel to tribes, as advisor to businesses doing business with tribes, and upon his volunteer community service to Indian communities,” along with his “experiences as the co-founder of the Office of Indian Rights in the US Department of Justice.” (4) […It is very disturbing to read that a bureaucrat can “found” an office prone to partiality within the Department of Justice. One can begin to see the red flags – the creation of vehicles for avoiding taxes and regulation under the pretense of civil rights. There is definitely an element of partiality, if not partisanship, within the Office of Tribal Justice in DC.]

Also noted in Ickes resume is his lobbying of “the BIA, the IRS, HUD, and other federal agencies, financial institutions, investors, sellers of businesses, managers, operators, key employees, major business and tax law firms, and the like” and his hand in the now bankrupt tribally-owned “Wall Street financial services company.” (4)

Heather Dawn Thompson, the woman who did legal work concerning the tribal bonds and married Raines, has since taken a lead management role in a Tribal Opportunity Zones Venture Group

An announcement states that “Ms. Thompson is a nationally recognized Native American lawyer, leader, and Indian Country economic development expert, and is an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Nation.” It is important to note that she has worked within Abramoff’s “Indian Law Practice of Greenberg & Traurig,” (3)

Thompson was also an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the South Dakota U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Director of Government Affairs for the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation’s oldest and largest intertribal organization. She has also served as a Policy Advisor for Judiciary and Indian Affairs to various US Senators. (3)

2015

“In a March 2015 draft investor pitch, Biden’s associates wrote about the need to “leverage Hunter Biden’s Taft Hartley network” – referring to “the law governing union pension funds,” and Joe Biden’s history of relationship “with union bosses.” It was noted that “Archer and Biden” would bring “unprecedented opportunity for a firm at our scale,” and referenced obtaining additional finances from Chinese officials using family clout. In a section outlining where investments would come from, Biden’s associates described capital flowing from “China>USA” and “Former CCP [Chinese Communist Party]>USA.” (10)

An April 17, 2015 email of “gratitude from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi ” stated, “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.” One email referred to Joe Biden as “the big guy” who will “get ten percent of a business deal worth millions,” and another mentioned him as “being involved in a meeting with Burisma executives, the same Burisma that paid [Hunter] $83,000 a month to sit on its Board.” (27)

“When WLCC received an initial payment of $2,250,000, which was held in trust by U.S. Bank, Lone Hill said the community broke ground on construction of their warehouse.” (19)
“However when the rest of money they were promised failed to deliver, community members became suspicious and began an investigation, Lone Hill said. What they uncovered would send shockwaves all the way to the White House. “On the surface everything was completely legit. It was so sophisticated,” said an attorney for WLCC. “When you’re on the outside looking in, it all looked completely legit.” .” (19)
After the members of the community gathered evidence in what they believed was a scam, Lone Hill said they turned over what they uncovered to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” (19)

2016

May 2016 – After the Oglala Sioux Tribe was defrauded “out of more than $64 million as part of a phony bond scheme engineered by Devon Archer and Jason Galanis, among others,” (11) a federal securities fraud prosecution was begun.

On May 11, 2016 – The Securities and Exchange Commission formally charged a father and son and five associates with “defrauding investors in sham Native American tribal bonds in order to steal millions of dollars in proceeds for their own extravagant expenses and criminal defense costs.” (29) In its statement, the SEC “alleges that Jason Galanis, whose checkered past dates from an accounting fraud case during his days as a major Penthouse shareholder to stock fraud charges last year, conducted the scheme in which the “primary objective is to get us a source of discretionary liquidity,” he wrote in an e-mail to other participants. Galanis and his father John Galanis convinced a Native American tribal corporation affiliated with the Wakpamni District of the Oglala Sioux Nation to issue limited recourse bonds that the father-and-son duo had already structured. Galanis then acquired two investment advisory firms and installed officers to arrange the purchase of $43 million in bonds using clients’ funds.” (29)

“The SEC further alleges that instead of investing bond proceeds as promised in annuities to benefit the tribal corporation and generate sufficient income to repay bondholders, the money wound up in a bank account in Florida belonging to a company controlled by Jason Galanis and his associates. Among their alleged misuses of the misappropriated funds were luxury purchases at such retailers as Valentino, Yves Saint Laurent, Barneys, Prada, and Gucci. Investor money also was diverted to pay attorneys representing Jason and John Galanis in a criminal case brought parallel to the SEC’s stock fraud charges last year.” (29)

“’We allege that Jason Galanis and his associates embarked upon a brazen and complex scheme in cold and calculated fashion to steal millions of dollars from unwitting investors,’ said Andrew M. Calamari, Regional Director of the SEC’s New York office. ‘Galanis persisted in this alleged scheme even after he was arrested by criminal authorities and charged by the SEC in a different case’.” (29)

“In addition to Jason and John Galanis, the SEC’s complaint names Devon Archer of Brooklyn, N.Y., Bevan Cooney of Incline Village, Nev., Hugh Dunkerley of Huntington Beach, Calif. and Paris, France, Gary Hirst of Lake Mary, Fla., and Michelle Morton of Colonia, N.J. They’re charged with violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and related rules. The SEC seeks disgorgement plus interest and penalties as well as permanent injunctions. The SEC also seeks officer-and-director bars against Jason Galanis, Archer, Dunkerley, and Morton.” (29)

“In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York today announced criminal charges against the same seven individuals.” (29) – May 11, 2016 – Seven Defendants Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Defrauding A Native American Tribe And Investors Of Over $60 Million. (15) and “Federal prosecutors in Manhattan filed charges …in the against seven individuals, including Galanis, Cooney and Archer.” (22)

“Jason Galanis and Hugh Dunkerley were arrested in the central district of California. … Gary Hirst was arrested in the middle district of Florida … John Galanis, a/k/a “Yanni,” was arrested in the southern district of California…. Bevan Cooney was arrested in the district of Nevada… Devon Archer was arrested in the eastern district of New York…[and] Michelle Morton was arrested in New Jersey.” (15) “…The alleged fraudsters named in this case didn’t just see an opportunity to steal money when they thought no one was looking, they allegedly hatched a plan to scam a municipal entity from the start. The most egregious fallout from this scheme is that the bondholders now hold worthless securities, and the tribe can’t make the interest payments due.” (15)

In their report, the SEC claims “Galanis and his father, John Galanis,” master-minded and managed almost the entire process (18). It is interesting to note who of co- conspirators the SEC chose to place primary blame on, and the hoops they must have gone through to protect the more prestigious of the criminal group.

In a September 24, 2020, filing, it was stated that “From March 2014 through April 2016, Galanis, along with his co-conspirators Gary Hirst, John Galanis, a/k/a “Yanni,” Hugh Dunkerley, Michelle Morton, Devon Archer, and Bevan Cooney, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate the proceeds of bonds issued by the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (“WLCC”), a Native American tribal entity (the “Tribal Bonds”), and to use funds in the accounts of clients of asset management firms controlled by Galanis and his codefendants to purchase the Tribal Bonds, which the clients were then unable to redeem or sell because the bonds were illiquid and lacked a ready secondary market.” (20)

“Specifically, the proceeds of the Tribal Bonds were deposited into a bank account in the name of Wealth Assurance Private Client Corporation (“WAPCC”), an entity controlled by Dunkerley and Hirst. Dunkerley transferred more than $38 million from the WAPCC account to an account controlled by Galanis, who then misappropriated more than $8.5 million of the proceeds for his personal use, including for expenses associated with his home, jewelry and clothing purchases, travel and entertainment, and restaurant meals.” (20)

After a lengthy explanation of the lack of a secondary market for the Tribal Bonds, the suit notes that “a portion of the misappropriated proceeds was recycled and provided by Galanis to entities affiliated with Archer and Cooney in order to enable Archer and Cooney to purchase subsequent Tribal Bonds issued by the WLCC. As a result of the use of recycled proceeds to purchase additional issuances of Tribal Bonds, the face amount of Tribal Bonds outstanding increased and the amount of interest payable by the WLCC increased, but the actual bond proceeds available for investment on behalf of the WLCC did not increase.” (20)

Also mentioned in their scheme was other management companies, including Morton – Hughes Capital Management, Inc. (“Hughes”) and Atlantic Asset Management, LLC (“Atlantic”) – that were used to purchase the Tribal Bonds, even though the defendants were aware that “material facts about the Tribal Bonds had been withheld from clients in whose accounts they were placed, including the fact that the Tribal Bond purchases fell outside the investment parameters of certain Hughes clients and of the Atlantic investment vehicle in which the Tribal Bonds were placed. In addition, those defendants failed to apprise the Hughes and Atlantic clients of substantial conflicts of interest relating to the defendants – including that Hirst and Dunkerley were on multiple sides of the deal with respect to the issuance and placement of the Tribal Bonds. When Hughes and Atlantic clients learned about the purchase of the Tribal Bonds, several of them demanded that the Tribal Bonds be sold. However, because there was no ready secondary market for the Tribal Bonds, the Tribal Bonds remain in their accounts.” (15)

These May 2016 charges “were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force,” which conveniently left the Vice President’s son totally out of the picture. (15)

Galanis pled guilty to the indictments by the Southern District of New York, while “Archer and Cooney took the case to trial and were convicted by a jury. Archer’s conviction was initially set aside by the trial court judge, but it was reinstated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.” (11)

2017

A May 13, 2017, email found on a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden in 2020 refers to “the big guy.” There is much speculation as to who that “big guy” might be.

In October 2020, another of Hunter Biden’s business partner, Tony Bobulinski, came forward with emails confirming the participation of both Hunter and Joe Biden. Bobulinski stated that the “big guy” referenced in one particular email was Joe Biden, the current Democratic presidential nominee.” (17)

“Joe Biden left the White House four months prior to the date of the email after serving as the vice president for eight years. “What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it,” Bobulinski wrote in a statement to The Epoch Times from the same email address as the one listed in the May 13, 2017, email.” (17)

Bobulinski explained, “I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye [Jianming] and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other ‘Jim’ referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.” (17) “The email published by the Post details “remuneration packages” for several Hunter Biden associates, including “850” for Hunter Biden and “500,000” for “Jim.” (17)

“The message, written by Hunter Biden associate James Gilliar on May 13, 2017, goes on to detail “a provisional agreement that the equity be distributed as follows: .” (17)

20 H
20 RW
20JG
20 TB
10 Jim
10 held by H for the big guy?”

“According to a corporate filing with the Delaware Secretary of State, Sinohawk Holdings LLC was formed on May 15, 2017, two days after the email in question.” (17)

“Bobulinski said he doesn’t have a “political axe to grind” and that the few political donations he made went to Democrats. A search of the Federal Election Commission database corroborates this.” (17) “Several documents, obtained by Fox News, show Bobulinksi discussing a meeting with Joe Biden in May 2017, despite past claims from the former vice president that he did not talk about his son’s business dealings.” (24)

“The messages seem to indicate that a meeting took place, though it’s unclear what the substance of the meeting may have been. They are unrelated to the laptop or hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son.” (24)

““Mrng plse let me knw if we will do early dinner w your Uncle & dad and where, also for document translation do you want it simple Chinese or traditional?” Bobulinski texted Hunter Biden on May 2, 2017….“Not sure on dinner yet and whatever is the most common for a Chinese legal DOC,” Hunter Biden replied. …“Chinese legal docs can be both, i’ll make it traditional,” Bobulinski said. Hunter replied: “Dad not in now until 11- let’s me I and Jim meet at 10 at Beverly Hilton where he’s staying.” .” (24)

“Bobulinski sent a text to Jim Biden on the same day, May 2, 2017, saying: “Great to meet u and spend some time together, please thank Joe for his time, was great to talk thx Tony b.” (24)

“Since his father left office, Hunter has cultivated a relationship with the Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming. Hunter told The New Yorker the pair had partnered on a natural gas venture in Louisiana and that Ye had once gifted him a large diamond.” (25)

“Hunter also dealt with Ye’s deputy, Patrick Ho. In November 2017, federal agents in New York arrested Ho on suspicion of bribing government officials in Chad and Uganda. Ho’s first call, according to The New York Times, was to James Biden, who told the paper Ho had been trying to reach Hunter.” (25) “Ho was convicted on seven counts in December. Ye has disappeared from public view, and his name has surfaced in a corruption case in China.” (25)

“In a separate alleged email Hunter Biden sent to Hong Kong financier Dong Gongwen on Aug. 2, 2017, Biden reveals that he previously had a three-year agreement with CEFC that would pay him $10 million per year “for introductions alone.’ .” (17) “Dong was Ye’s business associate and executed transactions for Ye’s companies, according to a recent Senate report.” (17) “Ye later sweetened the deal, giving Biden 50 percent ownership of a holding company named “Hudson West,” with Ye owning the other half, the email stated.” (17)

““Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist-controlled China,” Bobulinski said.” (17) “Bobulinski said he eventually became aware that the Chinese counterparts in the deal were interested in exerting political influence rather than reaping financial rewards. He said he took steps to prevent Hunter Biden from using the company account as a “piggy bank.” .” (17)

2018

“Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy was China’s largest privately-held oil company before it was caught in Beijing’s crosshairs in 2018. The oil conglomerate made billions of dollars in Russia, eastern Europe, and parts of Africa, while its now-disgraced founder and chairman Ye Jianming fostered ties with high-level Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials.” (17)

“Ye has been missing since early 2018 after he was placed under investigation by the Chinese regime for “suspected economic crimes” and detained. A state-owned enterprise took control of CEFC in March 2019, and the firm declared bankruptcy” early in 2020, “according to Chinese media Caixin.” (17)

Galanis and Cooney “were found guilty for their roles in June 2018, following a lengthy trial in Manhattan federal court.” (13) The jury also “convicted Archer on June 28, 2018 on conspiracy and securities fraud charges, but Judge Ronnie Abrams overturned the conviction on Nov. 15, 2018, saying that there was insufficient evidence to show that Archer was aware of the bond fraud.” (22)

2019

New York did not charge Jason Sugarman, despite his role in bond scheme. However, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against him in 2019. The allegations detail his role.” (11)

In May of 2019, “The Intercept reported that Hunter’s Chinese investment vehicle, Bohai Harvest RST, was invested in a firm that developed facial-recognition technology used in Chinese state-backed surveillance efforts.” (25)

Important to note:

Court documents show that participants in a multi-million securities fraud scheme touted links to “politically connected” Hunter Biden. .” (22)
The documents, which have not been previously reported, are part of a case involving a $60 million fraud against the Wakpamni Lake Community Association, an affiliate of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. .” (22)
Text messages and phone call recordings show participants in the scheme bragging about their access to Biden…” (22)

“Participants in a multi-million dollar scheme to defraud an American Indian tribe touted links to Hunter Biden and his business associate, Devon Archer, according to court documents the Daily Caller News Foundation reviewed.” (22) At the very least, this shows how his associates perceived his role while his father served as vice president.” (22)

Bevan Cooney had stated, “Hunter Biden works for [Archer]. So we’ve got the top level politicos with us. All of my guys, is as top tier as it gets” (22)

“This image is from an exhibit Devon Archer submitted in an appellate court case, June 26, 2019.” (22)

“This image is from an exhibit Devon Archer submitted in an appellate court case, June 26, 2019.” (22)

“Financial documents released in the Archer case show that Burisma Holdings made bimonthly payments of $83,333 to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.” (22) “Hunter Biden acknowledged in an interview that aired Tuesday that he has benefited from his father’s political positions.” (22) “I think that it is impossible for me to be on any of the boards … without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States,” Hunter Biden told an ABC News correspondent.” (22)

When the reporter asked, “If your last name wasn’t Biden do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?” (22) Biden responded, “I don’t know. Probably not. I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.” (22)

According to the Wall Street Journal, Hunter Biden’s name was “invoked as a selling point in bond transactions” (23)

On October 18, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, a lawsuit was also filed by the Chicago Transit Authority Retiree Health Care Trust and the Board of Trustees for the …(RCHT) to recoup their loss to the bond scheme. The defendants of this suit were the firms “Dilworth Paxson, LLP; Timothy Anderson; and Greenberg Traurig, LLP.” (12) According to the brief the “lawsuit arises from the Defendants’ participation in, and assistance with, the issuance of $43 million in worthless bonds (the “Bonds”) to unwitting public pension funds, including RHCT. The Bonds were not part of a legitimate public finance project, but rather a criminal scheme to enrich several individuals connected to the Defendants, including well known fraudster, John Galanis, his son, Jason Galanis (collectively, the “Galanises”), and fly by-night tribal financiers, Steven Haynes and Raycen Raines, the latter allegedly was romantically involved with the Greenberg partner [Heather Dawn Thompson] representing the issuer during the transaction..” (12)

An excerpt:

“1. This lawsuit arises from the Defendants’ participation in, and assistance with, the issuance of $43 million in worthless bonds (the “Bonds”) to unwitting public pension funds, including RHCT. The Bonds were not part of a legitimate public finance project, but rather a criminal scheme to enrich several individuals connected to the Defendants, including well-known fraudster, John Galanis, his son, Jason Galanis (collectively, the “Galanises”), and fly-by-night tribal financiers, Steven Haynes and Raycen Raines, the latter of whom was romantically involved with the Greenberg partner representing the issuer during the transaction.” (9)

“2. The fraud, which was concealed from the bondholders until May of 2016, involved the use of bond proceeds to purchase an annuity contract with a fictious offshore entity, which is unheard of in legitimate municipal finance transactions. Only a fraction of the bond proceeds were paid to the issuer, while the majority of funds were instead wired to the offshore annuity. Not surprisingly, the annuity company turned out to be fake, allowing the Galanises and their friends to steal almost $40 million in retirement funds from a variety of public pension funds, including those serving public school teachers, sanitary workers, and in RHCT’s case, retired CTA employees and their dependents.” (9)

“3. The bonds have been the subject of criminal, SEC and civil litigation in various jurisdictions throughout the country. In its wake, several individuals have pleaded or been found guilty of criminal charges, and multiple investment companies have been forced out of business.” (9)

“4. None of this would have occurred without the Defendants’ assistance. As more fully alleged herein, the Defendants–national law firms with supposedly sophisticated municipal finance practices–both served as bond counsel in the transaction, assisting not only their “clients,” but several other parties in carrying out what reasonably prudent lawyers would have recognized to be an obvious financial crime.” (9)

“5. In addition to preparing transaction documents and supervising the bond issuance. the Defendants authored misleading opinion letters containing statements inconsistent with facts of which they were aware, and which failed to disclose material facts that would have prevented the transaction from closing. Through their opinion letters, the Defendants gave the transaction the appearance of legitimacy necessary for the bonds to issue. Defendants received hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen retirement funds as payment for their assistance with the issuance.” (9)

“6. Through their conduct, and in disregard of the duties they owed foreseeable victims like the bondholders, the Defendants directly and proximately caused RHCT in excess of $6,000,000 in losses, which RHCT seeks to recover in this case.” (9)

“…65. Raines served as WLCC’s primary business representative and contact for the Wakpamni bond transaction. However, the tribal resolution stripping Raines of authority over tribal economic development matters was never disclosed to the bondholders or the Indenture trustee, U.S. Bank, by Greenberg or Dilworth during the transaction.” (9)

Private-eye firm claims Hunter Biden is linked to multiple criminal probes: Documents filed in Hunter Biden’s paternity case show he is the subject of multiple criminal investigations related to “fraud, money laundering and a counterfeiting scheme.” (13)

“Biden, 49, “is the subject of more than one criminal investigation involving fraud, money laundering and a counterfeiting scheme,” the filing alleges. One of those purported investigations relates to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company with which Biden held a lucrative board post while his father, Joe, was vice president,” (13) as well as allegations that “Biden had a hand in a plot including Galanis, Cooney and Archer to rip off Sioux Native Americans to the tune of $60 million through the shady sale of tribal bonds. …“Biden “did drum up business for the scheme.” (13)

2020

The Native Sun News reported in January, 2020, that the fifth count of the Chicago transit case alleged “that on the First Offering as bond council, Greenberg owed RHCT and the other investors a duty of care in preparing the offering documents and opinion letters and had an obligation to decline representation that is known or suspected to be fraudulent or criminal in nature and that it was their obligation to withdraw from council.” (12) “The suit alleges that Greenberg breached its duties to RHCT” by either:

• Making false or misleading statements in the opinion letter about the annuity, source of funds, and use of funds for the Bonds;
• Failing to investigate the annuity on which the opinion was based;
• Making false or misleading statements about the economic development projects backing the Bonds; and
• In general, issuing an opinion letter on the validity and enforceability of a bond transaction that a reasonably prudent bond lawyer knew or should have known was a securities fraud or financial crime. .” (12)

February 2020

“The U.S. Attorney’s office took their claims seriously and began an investigation. However the scam turned out to be so sophisticated even the U.S. Attorney’s office had difficulty figuring it all out” and it took them several years to complete the prosecutions. (19) Likely it also took time to figure out what to do about Biden.

Greenberg Traurig issued a statement concerning the lawsuit, stating, “The fraud perpetuated against WLCC was a tragedy for all. WLCC was a victim of the fraud and its attorneys did not assist the fraud in any way. That is shown by the fact that neither WLCC or its attorneys were charged in the criminal proceedings against the wrong doers who have pleaded guilty.” (19)

Unfortunately, the lack of action by authorities does not translate to innocence. Further, at this point in American history, the lack of action by authorities only causes the public more suspicion.

In August 2020, Chicago Transit and Greenberg Traurig’s LLP resolved the lawsuit. (26) A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson stated, ‘We have always denied the allegations against our firm in this situation, and are pleased to put them behind us and to spare us further cost.” 26) The fund had sued Dilworth Paxson, its former attorney Timothy Anderson and Greenberg Traurig in state court in 2019, claiming that they had helped a “well-known fraudster” and “fly-by-night tribal Flanders” pull off “what reasonably prudent lawyers would have recognized to be an obvious financial crime.’ The case was later removed to federal court.” (26)

In September 2020, Jason Galanis was Sentenced to 189 months in prison for his participation in multiple fraudulent schemes. He was also ordered to make restitution of $80,817,513.43.” (20) Concerning the tribal bond scheme,

Concerning the companies owned by Hunter Biden and his associates, an October 2 intelligence report “details the relationship between multiple Chinese State-Owned Entities (SOE’s) and companies” owned by Hunter Biden, Chris, Devon Archer, James Bulger, and “suspected Chinese intelligence asset Michael Lin. Despite what Hunter Biden’s attorney claimed in 2019, Hunter started traveling to China shortly before ‘the Big Guy’ became Vice President and signed contracts with SOE’s while the Big Guy was Vice President.” (21)

It seems that “… Hunter Biden followed his partner, Devon Archer, into bed with some unabashed Wall Street fraud merchants. No ifs, ands, or buts — Hunter Biden laid down with dogs and now he’s got fleas.” (28)

Undeniable proof is said to be available. ”After the release last week of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop exposing some of the business schemes he’s been involved in, a person convicted in the Indian Tribe bond fraud, Bevan Cooney, has now made available approximately 26,000 emails in his Gmail account, suggesting there are documents there that implicate Hunter Biden in the Indian bond fraud scheme — and probably a lot more.” (28) “Cooney has released the emails because he claims that Hunter Biden improperly escaped accountability and responsibility for his role in the fraud for which seven other people have gone to prison.” (28)

“The “30,000-foot view” of the bond fraud scheme is that a group of white-collar “fraudsters” with a long track record of dubious and illegal financial dealings, pitched a proposal to the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, to issue a series of tax-free tribal bonds to raise money for improvements and public works projects on Tribal land in South Dakota The fraudsters claimed they would take the proceeds from the bond sales and purchase annuities with a reputable insurance company. The revenue from the annuities would pay the interest on the bonds to the investors, and the excess revenue would be used to fund projects on the Tribal land.” (28)

“What happened instead was that, through a series of fraudulent acts and sham transactions, after the Tribe issued three sets of bonds with an aggregate total value of $64 million, none of the proceeds from the sales of the bonds were used to purchase annuities as promised. Only the first interest payment to investors was made — with money obtained from another source — and a sizeable amount of the $64 million was spent by the promoters on themselves, as well as being used in other business operations with which they were involved.” (28)

TIMELINE

The timeline of the Pine Ridge scheme: (28)

In Las Vegas in March 2014, Jason and John Galanis met tribal members who ran a payday loan company. The Galanis sold them on the idea of issuing bonds.
The Galanis contact Sugarman and discuss diverting the funds. Archer knew about this.
The first bonds are sold in August 2014, “with revenue from the sale totaling $28 million.” (28)
The second set of bonds are sold in September 2014, “with revenue from the sale totaling $20 million. The purchase of the second set is made with $20 million taken from the $28 million sitting in a bank account. Archer takes “ownership” of one-half of the second set of bonds, and lists them as assets of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC, a real estate investment company that is funded with money from a Chinese investment company partner. At this point, it seems that Rosemont Seneca Bohai has Archer as the only US partner, not Biden or Heinz.” (28)
The third set of bonds is sold in April 2015, “raising $16 million. The funds to buy those bonds come from one client of the second investment advisory company purchased by Galanis and Archer.” (28)
“At that point, the Tribe has issued $64 million worth of bonds — that it will one day have to buy back — and none of the $64 million has been invested for the benefit of the tribe. The fraud is clear and absolute.” (28)

“One email string from Cooney’s account was released early this morning. The participants in the three-way exchange are Devon Archer, Jason Galonis, and Bevan Cooney.” (28)

“The email string is dated October 5, 2013 — six months before the Indian Bond fraud scheme is put in place. Here are the exchanges in the order they took place: .” (28)

“Archer: Very interesting. Let’s discuss today. One subtlety is that I think we want to do with Rosemont Seneca SPV. It won’t make a difference on the economics other than we bring Hunter into the mix a little but without a commitment. I want to leverage Hunter more and he’s a good guy for us to include.” (28)

“Cooney: Would be good to put some honey in Hunter’s pocket.” (28)

“Archer: Agreed. I also have more autonomy with that company as I own it with Hunter and he’s willing to take on risk whereas with Rosemont Capital, Chris is much more risk averse. Hunter will work if we need him too as well. I’m actually thinking we move all of my bios and everything across the board to Rosemont Seneca Partners and get any lift from that. I would also like to take Chris out of my bio across the board in our materials.” (28)

“Galanis: Done. Got the mission. Operation Ketchup will be watered down. Hunts only from now on.” (28)

“Cooney: No reason to have Heinz in your bio. Cheddar cheaseball move.” (28)

““In the fall of 2013, Archer had crawled into bed with Galanis and Cooney, and they were recrafting biographical information about Archer to minimize the connection between Archer and Chris Heinz. At the same time, Archer is wanting to bring Hunter Biden — son of the Vice President — into their enterprise, as Hunter is willing to assume some risk, and Hunter will “work” if they need him to.” (28)

“Within six months the group is involved in clear securities fraud.” The question now concerns Hunter Biden’s involvement. (28)

Tony Bobulinski, “A former business associate of Hunter Biden,” confirmed he was one of the recipients of the email published by the New York Post “which details proposed payout packages and equity shares in a Biden venture with a now-defunct Chinese energy conglomerate.” (17)

Bobulinski, “whose name and email appear in the recipient list of the email, told The Epoch Times that the deal outlined in the message concerned a partnership between Chinese energy firm CEFC and the Biden family.” (17) He also told Fox News that “the Biden family ‘aggressively leveraged’ its name in foreign business dealings’” (24)

“Bobulinski is a retired lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which he explained “was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family.” He said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar and … released emails and text messages that appear to show Joe Biden’s involvement with his son’s foreign business dealings.” (24)

“Bobulinski said the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance have requested documents on his business affairs with the Biden family “as well as various foreign entities and individuals.” (17) “I have extensive relevant records and communications, and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future,” Bobulinski said.” (17)

Bobulinski released the following statement “due to the dispute over whether the emails are real and the insinuations of foreign involvement.” (17) “Bobulinski also provided his statement to Breitbart News, Fox News, and the Post.” (17)

Full Statement by Tony Bobulinski

“My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post, which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.” (17)

“This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.” (17)

“I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.” (17)

“If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long-standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.” (17)

“After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.” (17)

“What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “Jim” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.” (17)

“Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.” (17)

“I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.” (17)

“The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me—it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.” (17)

“I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant—and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.” (17)

“I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist-controlled China.” (17)

“God Bless America!!!! .” (17)

Red Dragon

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

CAICW.org; X.com/CAICW; Facebook.com/CAICW.org; Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

References

Native Sun News: Oglala man’s business dealings under scrutiny – https://www.indianz.com/News/2014/014790.asp written and reported by Brandon Ecoffey, Native Sun News Managing Editor. All content © Native Sun News. Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Intercontinental Cry: BLACK HILLS TREATY COUNCIL WINS JUDGMENT AGAINST RAINDANCER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT – https://intercontinentalcry.org/black-hills-treaty-council-wins-judgment-against-Raindancer-resource-management/ By Natalie Hand – “All of the information furnished herein, with the exception of my opinions, was sourced from public records. If you wish to have a copy of any of the federal court documents, Tribal documents, or state records that I have obtained, please feel free to contact me at 867-5762 or pteole(at)gwtc.net” (2) – Natalie Hand is an environmental & indigenous rights activist and is the co-founder of Looks for Buffalo Foundation. She is dedicated to the preservation of the Lakota culture and language.
Native American Capital: Heather Dawn Thompson Takes Lead Management Role in Tribal Opportunity Zones Venture Group – https://nativeamericancapital.com/headline/heather-dawn-thompson-takes-lead-management-role-in-tribal-opportunity-zones-venture-group – Oct 28, 2014
Native 17, LLC: GET ON THE PATH TO RESULTS TODAY. Indian Reorganization Act Section 17 advising and consulting, 4257 Panorama Drive Salt Lake CIty, Utah84124 – https://native17.com/ R. Dennis Ickes, President rdIckes@native17.com
Progressive.org: A Tribe‘s Bad Deal With Wall Street – https://progressive.org/magazine/tribe-s-bad-deal-wall-street/ – Arvind Ganesan October 28, 2016 – Arvind Ganesan is the director of the business and human rights division at Human Rights Watch and was the principal investigator into the financial activities of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. – an Ickes deal…
Indianz.com: Hunter Biden’s name used to legitimatize sales – https://www.indianz.com/News/2020/01/27/Hunter-Bidens-name-used-to-legitimize-sa.asp
Rapid City Journal: Consultant says Brewer‘s suspension is retaliation – https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/consultant-says-brewers-suspension-is-retaliation/article_bb2dc79c-ea5e-52ef-8399-70d759012ca0.html – Daniel Simmons-Ritchie and Joe O’Sullivan Journal staff , Jun 26, 2014 Updated Jun 30, 2014
Turtle Talk: Chicago Employee Retirement Fund Sues “Fly-By-Night Tribal Financiers” + Law Firms over “Issuance of $43 million in Worthless Bonds”- https://turtletalk.blog/2019/10/25/chicago-employee-retirement-fund-sues-fly-by-night-tribal-financiers-law-firms-over-issuance-of-43-million-in-worthless-bonds-case-involves-Oglala-sioux-tribe/ – case involves Oglala Sioux Tribal Subdivision — Updated with Federal Court Materials – October 25, 2019 Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Breitbart.com: This is the tribal bond deal
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/20/exclusive-Biden-defectors-emails-reveal-hunters-associates-viewed-direct-pipeline-to-administration-as-currency/ – Exclusive: Biden Defector’s Emails Reveal Hunter’s Associates Viewed Direct ‘Pipeline’ to Administration as ‘Currency’ 20 Oct 2020AP Photo/Matt Rourke – Peter Schweizer is the author of Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite. Seamus Bruner is the author of Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.
Red State: The Sugar-Man Can — The Funder Who Got the Ball Rolling for Devon Archer and Hunter Biden: Part Two – https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/20/the-sugar-man-can-the-funder-who-got-the-ball-rolling-for-Devon–Archer-and-Hunter–Biden-n262881 – [/author/shipwreckedcrew]ShipwreckedcrewOct 20, 2020 12:30 PM ETAP Photo/Visar Kryeziu
Native Sun News: Lawsuit filed in fraudulent bond sale scheme – https://www.nativesunnews.today/articles/lawsuit-filed-in-fraudulent-bond-sale-scheme/ – January 14, 2020 – By Ernestine Chasing Hawk Native Sun News Today Staff
NY Post,com: Private-eye firm claims Hunter Biden is linked to multiple criminal probes – https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/Hunter-bidens-baby-mama-says-hes-linked-to-multiple-criminal-probes/ – By Elizabeth Rosner and Aaron Feis December 23, 2019
Justice.gov: John Galanis Sentenced To 10 Years In Prison For His Participation In A Scheme To Defraud A Native American Tribe And Various Investors – www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/john-Galanis-sentenced-10-years-prison-his-participation-scheme-defraud-native-american) – PRESS RELEASE –
Justice.gov: Seven Defendants Charged in Manhattan Federal Court With Defrauding A Native American Tribe And Investors Of Over $60 Million – https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/seven-defendants-charged-manhattan-federal-court-defrauding-native-american-tribe-and – PRESS RELEASE – Wednesday, May 11, 2016 – Seven Defendants Charged in Manhattan Federal Court With Defrauding A Native American Tribe And Investors Of Over $60 Million
Aljazeera.com: The Tribe that said No – http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/payday-nation/sioux-tribe-payday.html – By Nicholas Nehamas for Al Jazeera America – June 18, 2014
The Epoch Times: ‘Big Guy’ in China Deal Email Was Joe Biden, Former Hunter Biden Partner Says – https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-Biden-associate-says-big-guy-in-china-deal-was-joe-Biden_3548940.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-10-22-2 – BY IVAN PENTCHOUKOV October 22, 2020 Updated: October 22, 2020
Finance.Yahoo.com: SEC Charges Father and Son, Among Others, in Tribal Bonds Fraud – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-charges-father-son-among-155537457.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKmNn6DCMSTM_zDralBAyCgTiQFq1uI1uZ6OW7DNUfYi6vKFp19XExvjvrfLzUywY89TJ5QBNnmI6EM7eEWFudywcDkNZO18ooy-suVCmydRokUYHk3P5nW_EHo42UV4Pg-9EUYrdRiAR9Xm2cdYRn7k4b0xjRe_u8LXq0qEzZsJ – May 12, 2016 11:55 am. Last Updated: January 13, 2020 8:08 am – Chris Lange
Indianz.com: Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation issues statement -https://www.indianz.com/News/2020/02/06/native-sun-news-today-reservation-commun.asp – Native Sun News Today: Reservation community responds – Thursday, February 6, 2020 [/News/2020/2020_02_06.asp] – By Ernestine Anukasan Waste
Justice.gov: Jason Galanis Sentenced In Manhattan Federal Court For Multiple Securities Fraud Schemes- https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/Jason-Galanis-sentenced-manhattan-federal-court-multiple-securities-fraud-schemes – PRESS RELEASE – Thursday, September 24, 2020 – Southern District of New York
Red State: Jaw-Dropping Report Details Chinese State-Owned Company’s Partnership With Biden, Kerry Families – https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2020/10/23/jaw-dropping-report-details-Chinese-state-owned-companys-partnership-with-Biden-Kerry-families-n267739 – By Jennifer Van Laar | Oct 23, 2020
Daily Caller.com: ‘You Don’t Get More Politically Connected’: Participants In Securities Fraud Scam Touted Links To Hunter Biden – https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/20/Hunter-Biden-Devon-Archer-fraud/ – Andrew Kerr and Chuck Ross – Contributor – October 20, 2019
WSJ.com: Hunter Biden’s Name Was Used as Selling Point in Fraudulent Bond Scheme – https://www.wsj.com/articles/Hunter-Bidens-name-was-used-as-selling-point-in-fraudulent-bond-scheme-11571863676 – Joe Biden’s son, now under fire for work abroad, was invoked—without his knowledge, his lawyer says—in bid to drum up business – By and Updated Oct. 24, 2019 7:05 pm ET
Foxnews.com: Tony Bobulinski as guest to debate – https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-plans-to-bring-Hunter–Biden-associate-Tony–Bobulinski-as-guest-to-debate – By John Roberts, Brooke Singman | Fox News Oct 2020
Politico.com: Biden Inc. – Over his decades in office, ‘Middle-Class Joe’s’ family fortunes have closely tracked his political career – https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407 – BEN SCHRECKINGER 05/08/20 09:44 PM EDT – Ben Schreckinger is a reporter for Politico.
Burke Law: Greenberg Reaches Deal With III. Fund in Bond Fraud Suit – https://www.burkelaw.com/pressroom-news-494.html – Aug 13, 2020 – Aaron Stanton – In the News
Tennessee Star: Commentary: The Biden Family Scandal Is Monumental; It’s the October Surprise Joe Biden Just Wants to Go Away – https://tennesseestar.com/2020/10/23/commentary-the-Biden-family-scandal-is-monumental-its-the-october-surprise-joe-Biden-just-wants-to-go-away/ – by Julie Strauss Levi
Red State: Should Hunter Biden be in jail? – https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/10/19/why-is-Hunter-Biden-not-in-jail-another-look-at-the-Oglala-sioux-indian-tribe-securities-fraud-case-n262770 – By Shipwreckedcrew | Oct 19, 2020
SEC.gov: SEC Charges Father, Son, Others in Tribal Bonds Scheme – https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-85.html – PRESS RELEASE
2016-85 – Washington D.C., May 11, 2016 — Press Release

Neither the ‘Red Nation’ nor the ‘Red Deal’ is the Real Deal: Selling a Socialist Dreamland to Indian Country

Oct 102020

Dr. Nick Estes, a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, earned his Ph.D. at the University of New Mexico – where he is now an Assistant Professor in American Studies. In 2014, he co-founded a Native American revolutionary organization called “The Red Nation.” His work centers on refuting and condemning world history and critically judging capitalists and persons who are of fully European heritage. Este holds “discussions” urging young people to join him against “settler colonialism” and “US imperialism” “from Hawaii to Samoa, First Nations, Black America and Palestine.” He talks about decolonizing America, but does not explain exactly what this would entail or how it is achieved, other than to say that when it is completed, he believes he and his colleagues should run the nation. Mind you, what he says is that Native Americans should govern the nation. But this isn’t fully what he means. Tribal members who prefer capitalism and like America the way it currently is need not apply.

The Red Nation combines Marxism with theories of ‘first-comer’ power around the world, except in areas where those thought to have come first are considered ‘European’ or ‘semitic.’ Europeans are never considered indigenous, even in Europe. Their tremendous stress from loss of traditions and culture over the last few years following the massive influx of immigrants running from failed political and economic systems is said to be nothing more than racism. Further, in Israel, Este seems to believes those who have only lived on the land since 1920 and took on the name “Palestinian’ should retain power over the area, as opposed to the original, ‘semitic’ Palestinians who the United Nations recognized as a nation in 1948, and whose history on the land goes back well over 2000 years.

In October of 2019, Este and his colleagues held the “First International Meeting of Native Peoples” in Venezuela. Here, the Red Nation was described as “an American organization dedicated to promoting the liberation of the natives from capitalism and colonialism.” Native leaders from “some 20 countries, including Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Sri Lanka, Canada and the United States” were present. According to their newsletter, this meeting was part of a strategic endeavor to “establish a Bolivarian alliance of indigenous peoples for sovereignty, solidarity and decolonization.”

Also in October of 2019, Este met with the Democratic Socialists of America in South Dakota. There, the DSA, claiming “The Red Nation is a group of radical indigenous people… fighting back against the US imperialist settler colonialist state,” committed to TRN’s policy points, including “decolonization, deoccupation, demilitarization,” ridding the world of fossil fuels, and “full repatriation of indigenous lands.” While giving no explanation for the oil drills, pipelines, or refineries owned by capitalist Native American tribes and individuals, such as those on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, the DNR and the TRN claim these policies are all “essential to ensuring a socially just and environmentally sustainable future.”

The Red Nation has invited varied “allied movements, comrades, and relatives” to join them “for a series of listening sessions and workshops to draft and implement the Red Deal,” which they assert is a “movement-oriented document for climate justice and grassroots reform and revolution.” The policies have been dubbed the “Red Deal for two reasons. First, “because it prioritizes Indigenous liberation,” and second, it promotes a “revolutionary left position.”

The Red Deal has four main principles:

What Creates the Crisis Cannot Solve It
Change Comes from Below and to the Left
Politicians Can’t Do What Only Mass Movements Can
From Theory to Action

What creates crisis cannot solve it: This would be a good point to remember when considering the large number of corrupt tribal governments within Indian Country. But this is not what Este and the Red Nation are referring to. Believing that capitalism creates world crisis, they wants to everyone to divest from large, private industries and give the money to them to handle and distribute to those they judge worthy by claiming they are investing it “into programs that will benefit those most scarred.” Never mind the scarring that will occur when people lose their industrial jobs. Este does not seem to understand that most men, regardless of skin color, prefer to work hard to support their families, and many families value fuel oil for warmth and cooking. A large percentage of the population is not interested in shutting down the businesses Estes has deemed ‘harmful’ – and would need to be forced to do so.

Changes from below and to the Left: Just like the promises of all revolutionaries on trajectory to tyranny, the Red Nation claims they will “work to empower the poor and downtrodden, to help them to assert their natural power and demand back what was taken from them for so long.” That’s a line right out of Lenin’s play book.

The Red Deal is said to be comprehensive – not just for a region, but for all of America and every nation. They intend it to be a blanket policy, one-size-fits-all for the entire world without any input from the poor, downtrodden masses they had promised natural power to. Like it or not, it will encompass “the entirety of Indigenous America,” and will include “our non-Indigenous comrades and relatives who live here.”

The Red Nation asserts that “Politicians can’t do what only mass movements do.” Well, if it is indeed something that only a mass movement can do, then it goes without saying that an individual wouldn’t be able to do it alone. However, politicians are able to do many things that mass movements cannot. Getting a consensual mandate from the majority of citizens through the process of voting is just one of the things mass movements do not do.

The Red Nation seeks a “complete moratorium on oil, gas, and coal extraction” and claims to want “restoration of Indigenous land, water, and air to a healthy state.” This, after the Standing Rock “water protectors” drove and flew into the Dakotas from out-of-state in gas propelled vehicles, overwhelming the local resources, and left literal dump truck loads of garbage in the trampled meadows, waiting for the spring rains to wash it into the very river they claimed to be protecting. Everyone in the local area could see the hypocrisy of the ‘water polluters,’ corporately camped next to the pipeline just outside reservation boundaries – including many of the true members of Standing Rock. This is the genuine face of the “non-reformist reforms” Este and comrades claim are “crucial” to their goal of “abolition, decolonization, and liberation.” And yet, they point their collective fingers at others and vow to fund their reforms by “dispossessing the wealth from corporate polluters and settler governments,” then “redistributing it to the masses.”

Just as there is no mention of what will be done with the large number of people – including many tribal members – who do not want to live under socialism, there is no clear explanation as to how populations will be sustained long-term if there is no industry, capitalism, fuel oil, or coal – and thus, no way to keep your family warm in the winter (other than chopping down the forests for firewood).

Finally, From Theory to Action: The Red Nation believes the Red Deal reflects “…Indigenous liberation, life, and land—an affirmation that colonialism and capitalism must be overturned for this planet to be habitable for human and other-than-human relatives to live dignified lives.” They state “We must take what we have learned from the radical traditions of old and new to mobilize and fight with renewed vigor.” This is all vague in terms of a “call-to-action,” but lofty sounding nonetheless.

The Red Nation attempts to sidestep informed consent by promising “free healthcare; free education; free housing.” They also promise all the perks they assume every indigenous person might yearn for, including “restoration of Indigenous land, water, and air to a healthy state” and “fulfillment of treaty rights, land restoration, sovereignty, self-determination,” and “full citizenship and equal protection to undocumented relatives.”

This brings up several questions:

Will fulfillment of treaties include an end to federal funds for most reservations? The vast majority of treaties stipulate a set amount of funds and a limit to the years of payment. Most treaties stated the promised funds would be disbursed in precise amount for only 25 to 40 years.
If it is decided that the funding will continue, where will the funds come from? Will Este’s newly established government take over funding tribal governments as the United States government had?
Having returned full sovereignty to tribal governments, will Este’s government step totally back, and allow tribes to practice capitalism within their borders if they wish?
Further, when discussing land restoration, will there be a restoration to federal taxpayers of the millions in Indian Claims Commission funds that were paid to most tribal governments between 1955 and the 1970’s? Tribal officials had signed off on their land claims when they accepted the large cash payments. Only the Black Hills remains unpaid for – the money waiting in trust for the tribe to accept it. Does the Red Nation intend for all other tribal governments to repay the funds they received?
While promising to return all land to those who roamed it centuries ago, Este and the Red Nation also intend to open borders so that all those from socialist countries who have hungered years for the freedom of capitalism can come rushing in – and live where? Este states on the one hand that “the idea of separate possession of property by individuals is foreign to the Indian mind,” and that everyone will share the land (at least with others he has chosen as indigenous). On the other hand, he has promised a return of every inch of land to North American tribes.
Will tribal police be abolished along with the county and state police?
Perhaps tribal governments would have no problem with other indigenous groups moving onto their newly re-acquired land. Theoretically, people could move anywhere, including onto the Black Hills where there is plenty of firewood and wildlife available. The Red Deal calls for abolishment of the military, police, prisons, and ICE, so there will be no one around to tell immigrants (or white people for that matter) “No, you cannot move there.” And what if the new indigenous neighbors want to practice Catholicism on the Black Hills? …Or worse, what if they want to practice capitalism – and then get all feisty if anyone intrudes on their staked-out domain or possessions?

It is ridiculous to claim communities can thrive under the oppressive yoke Este and his comrades intend to put on them. There is no society yet that has thrived without industry and at least some amount of capitalism. This is why so many former communist countries have opened to capitalism in the last couple decades. East and West Berlin in the 1960’s and 70’s revealed clear distinction between the two – and it was East Berliners rushing past the broken wall to the west, not the other way around.

But let’s just say Este is right and the transition runs smoothly. His next assumption is that once people have all their common human needs met – crime will cease. Everyone will be content with what they have and convert their energy to love for each other – even if it is just the indigenous people that have all the land, water, and air.

Will everything be equal? Including house size, color, or number of toys a man is allowed to have? Will human envy have disappeared?

People like Este are the true racists, pretending to know – on the basis of skin color – the inner nature and motivations of virtually all humans and asserting that he speaks for everyone he has chosen to be subject to his movement. Este has no recognition of individuality within “the masses,” and no genuine understanding of diverse human nature.

What if… the capitalistic downtrodden start to out-number the socialistic downtrodden? What would the Red Nation do if most of those they patronize suddenly decide they want capitalism to be re-instituted? Inquiring minds want to know.

In September 2020, Este won a “Freedom Scholar” award from the Marguerite Casey Foundation and the Group Health Foundation. While it would be fascinating to see how Este and his comrades enforce their vision of government without assistance from military or law enforcement, those who acknowledge genuine history and understand human nature know it isn’t possible. “The masses” will not passively submit to Este’s demands, and Este will not passively allow them to rebel against his mandates. Este is lying to his followers in the hope of leading a movement. Maybe he dreams he will someday achieve the stature of another Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.

References

Radio Havana Cuba, Venezuela promotes ties of brotherhood with U.S. Indigenous people 30/10/19
Red Nation
- – https://twitter.com/The_Red_Nation
- – https://www.facebook.com/therednation/?hc_ref=ARQKPx5d0cDUGP9kksmv5BUyWM1hJzlGbrI3lh5mS0eM-JcCDmZYDHSinqJab44KpOI&fref=nf&__tn__=kC-R
Revolutionary Socialism is the Primary Political Ideology of The Red Nation – https://therednation.org/revolutionary-socialism-is-the-primary-political-ideology-of-the-red-nation-2/
Indigenous Feminism – http://therednation.org/indigenous-feminism-does-not-discriminate/
Palestine Will Be Free, Rejecting Anti-Palestinian, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Muslim Opportunism – https://therednation.org/the-liberation-of-palestine-represents-an-alternative-path-for-native-nations/
Red Nation Position Papers “Communism is the New Horizon, Queer Indigenous Feminism is the Way.”
- – https://twitter.com/The_Red_Nation/status/1301999835747319819
- – https://towardfreedom.org/global-news-and-analysis-global-news-and-analysis/position-paper-revolutionary-socialism-is-the-primary-political-ideology-of-the-red-nation/
- – https://therednation.org/10-point-program/
- – https://therednation.org/caucuses/beyond-borders-caucus/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

CAICW.org; X.com/CAICW; Facebook.com/CAICW.org; Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

October 10, 2020 1 Response »

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act

Oct 212019

By Elizabeth S. Morris

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Helms School of Government in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

‘Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law.’

Preface

My husband and I began our lives together in a symbiotic alcoholic-enabler relationship in the late 70’s. With our family on the edge of self-destruction in 1987, my husband, an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, born and raised on the Leech Lake reservation, had a transformational experience which changed his worldview and led him to take our family in a new direction.

Having watched many of his relatives suffer within the reservation system, he began to see reservation violence and crime as an outcome of current federal Indian policy more than it was about past policy. This led us to forming an advocacy in the late 90’s for families hurt by federal Indian policy. We did our best to share hope and life, as inadequate as we were, by assisting extended family in our home, neighbors in our community, and strangers across the nation. We never did it for money; there was never any money. Everything we did came from passion for the lives of our children, nieces and nephews, and extended communities.

Unfortunately, reservation crime, corruption, drug abuse and violence have continued to increase over the years. My husband has since passed away and I am a widow, continuing the work we had begun in 1996.

This thesis compiles some of the documented history, philosophy, and consequences of federal Indian policy. It also includes a preliminary quantitative causal comparative survey with 1351 participants – 551 of whom identify tribal heritage – and explores the relationship between differences.

We serve a powerful God with whom all things are possible. Our job is to serve in the capacity He has given us, even if we do not understand why, and then enjoy watching what He does next.

Abstract

This paper will examine the philosophical underpinnings of current federal Indian policy and its physical, emotional, and economic consequences on individuals and communities.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission found in 1990 that “[T]he Government of the United States has failed to provide civil rights protection for Native Americans living on reservations” (W. B. Allen 1990, 2). As Regan (2014) observes, individuals have been denied full title to their property – and thus use of the property as leverage to improve their economic condition (Regan 2014). Tribal executive and judicial branches have been accused of illegal search and seizures, denial of right to counsel or jury, ex parte hearings and violations of due process and equal protection (W. B. Allen 1990, 3). Violence, criminal activity, child abuse and trafficking are rampant on many reservations (DOJ 2018). Largely because of crime and corruption, many have left the reservation system. The last two U.S. censuses’ report 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country (US Census Bureau 2010).

Research suggests current federal Indian policy and the reservation system are built on philosophies destructive to the physical, emotional and economic health of individual tribal members. This paper contends that allowing property rights for individual tribal members, enforcing rule of law within reservation systems, supporting law enforcement, and upholding full constitutional rights and protections of all citizens would secure the lives, liberties and properties of affected individuals and families.

Introduction

For almost 200 years the U.S. federal government has claimed wardship over members of federally recognized Indian tribes. Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights:

Some say the nineteenth century U.S. Supreme Court cases
known as the ‘Marshall Trilogy’ contradict tribal sovereignty. Others say they uphold it.
Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship.
Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of
federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for
gradual assimilation.
Some say the Constitution
never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes.
Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive
plenary power to decide every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by
unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
Some argue that the
Constitution never had authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the
Constitution when seeking judicial redress.
Some tribal officials
argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European
cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international
law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted
tribal sovereignty.

Inherent, retained tribal sovereignty was reality for tribal governments prior to the formation of the United States and in the immediate years following its birth, but is not reflected in case law from the 1800s and much of the 1900s. By the time of Andrew Jackson, the United States had taken a position of control. Further, over the last two centuries, the vast majority of tribal leaders accepted large payments for land, accepted federal trust benefits, and submitted to federal government’s de facto power over them.

Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others. Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries. While claiming exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Often cited as justification for the ICWA is a 1998 pilot study by Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. Locust’s study is said to have shown that “every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005).

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” Only twenty adoptees with tribal heritage – total – were interviewed. All were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables. According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects
(Cleaveland 2015).

Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015). While supporters of ICWA cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, many children have been hurt by application of the law.

Questions that need more extensive study include whether children who were adopted into non-Indian families as children show greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers. Are the ties between children who have tribal heritage and their birth families and culture stronger than that of their peers, no matter the age at adoption? Other considerations include whether all tribal members support federal policies that mandate their cases be heard only in tribal courts and whether a percentage of persons of tribal heritage believe federal Indian policy infringes on their life, liberty and property.

The central concern of this paper is how current federal Indian policy has affected the lives, liberty and property of those who have tribal heritage – most specifically the Indian Child Welfare Act. Through research of the historical foundations of federal Indian policy and a nation-wide comparative survey of family dynamics, this paper will attempt to answer these and other questions.

READ FULL TEXT – https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

Citation

Morris, Elizabeth S. The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Master Thesis, Helms School of Government, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Digital Commons, 2019, 337.

###

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

CAICW.org; X.com/CAICW; Facebook.com/CAICW.org; Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

References

Aziz G. Sayigh, Boris V. Babson, A.S. Erickson, Charles S. Dameron, Adam I.W. Schwartzman, Nicholas P. Desatnick. “The Storied History of Dartmouth.” The Dartmouth Review, 10 2006.

25 U.S Code. “15 § 1302.” 1968.

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Abourezk, James G. THE OCCUPATION OF WOUNDED KNEE, 1973 – American Indian Movement. House of Representatives, Wounded Knee: U.S. Government, 1972.

ACF. Tribal Child Counts. Washington DC: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance, 2007.

Adoption of Baby Boy L. No. 53,592 (Kansas Supreme Court, April 3, 1982).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Ahrens, Kym R., Michelle M. Garrison, and Mark E. Courtney. “Health Outcomes in Young Adults From Foster Care and Economically Diverse Backgrounds.” American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014: 10.

AIPRC. American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report, Vol. I. report to provide foundation for understanding of federal Indian policy, law, and history, American Indian Policy Review Commission,, Congress, Washington DC: GPO; Eric.Ed.gov, 1977, 593.

Allen, William B. Commissioner. The Indian Civil Rights Act: United States Commission on Civil Rights Statement. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, U.S. Congress, Washington DC: USCCR, 1990, 16.

Allen, William B. “Email Correspondence.” June 8, 2018.

—. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Allen, William. Review of Federal Indian Policy. Havre d’ Grace, MD: Unpublished, 2010, 25.

Allison Randall, Chief of Staff. “Baaken violence.” DOJ/Office on Violence Against Women. washington DC: DOJ, 9 13, 2013.

Ambrose, of the St John Indians. “Speech at a Conference Held at Watertown, in the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay July 12, 1776.” Edited by Peter Force. American Archives. Ser.5 v.1 ([1776] 1837–53): 839.

Arkes, Hadley. “The Natural Law Challenge.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc) 36, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 961-975.

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence so Children can Thrive. Final Full Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Deptartment of Justice, Washington DC: Dept. of Justice, 2014, 257.

Avalon Project. “Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans.” Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp (accessed June 22, 2016).

Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. 2nd. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2007.

Bastiat, Fredrick. The Law. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1998.

Bellamy, Jennifer L., Geetha Gopalan, and Dorian E. Traube. “A National Study of the Impact of Outpatient Mental Health Services for Children in Long Term Foster Care.” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (University of Chicago) 15, no. 4 (2010): 467-79.

Bender, Albert. “South Dakota Commits Shocking Genocide Against Native Americans by Abducting Their Children.” ICWA INFO. Edited by Native American Rights Foundation. Native American Rights Foundation. February 20, 2015. http://icwa.narf.org/news/1747 (accessed June 22, 2016).

Benedict, Jeff. Without Reservation. New York: Harper, 2000.

Bernholz, Charles D., Laura K. Weakly, Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, and Karin Dalziel. “As long as grass shall grow and water run: The treaties formed by the Confederate States of America and the tribes in Indian Territory, 1861.” Treaties Portal. Love Memorial Library. n.d. http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/.

BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2019. https://www.bia.gov/bia (accessed 4 16, 2019).

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings.” Federal Register, June 14, 2016: 369.

—. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 9 2, 2016. http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ (accessed Sept 3, 2016).

—. “ICWA Guidelines teleconference.” NWX-DEPT OF INTERIOR-NBC (US). Washington DC: Department of Interior, 2015. 1-114.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act.” US Deptartment of the Interior: Indian Affairs. June 8, 2016. http://www.indianaffairs.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/IndianChildWelfareAct/index.htm (accessed June 8, 2016).

BIA. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Notice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, DC: Federal Government, 2003, 68180 -68184 (5 pages).

Bickel, Alexander M. “Citizenship in the American Constitution.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1973.

Bird, Allyson. Broken Home: The Save Veronica story. News Article, Charleston: Charleston City Paper, 2012.

Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary Free. 2. The Law Dictionary, 2018.

Blackstone, William. Blackstone’s Commentaries. Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803.

Bolick, Clint. “Native American Children: Separate But Equal?” Hoover Institution. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.hoover.org/research/native-american-children-separate-equal (accessed July 27, 2016).

Bordewich, Fergus M. Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1996.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union. 6. J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1856.

Bowdoin, James. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online – National Archives. Edited by Philander D. Chase. University Press of Virginia. July 30, 1776. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378 (accessed 9 24, 2018).

Brackeen v Zinke. 4:17-cv-00868-O (US District Court, Northern District Of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 10 4, 2018).

Braund, Kathryn. “Summer 1814: The Treaty of Ft. Jackson ends the Creek War.” National Park Service. 8 15, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/articles/treaty-of-fort-jackson.htm (accessed 3 11, 2019).

Brief for Amicus Curiae of Thomas Lee Morris, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Supporting Respondent. 03-107 (United States v. Billy Jo Lara, On Writ of Certiorari, December 15, 2003).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation in Support of the Respondent. 16-1498 (Supreme Court of the United States, Oct 30, 2018).

Brown, Thomas. “Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric.” Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2006: 100-129.

CAICW. “Administrator.” Letters from Families. Ronan: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 9, 2004.

—. “Administrator.” Growing Crime, Changing Dynamics. Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 27, 2014.

—. “Testimony from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.” CAICW.org. June 24, 2014. http://caicw.org/2014/07/05/testimony-child-protection-and-the-justice-system-on-the-spirit-lake-indian-reservation/#.V2rkfCjR_NM (accessed May 19, 2016).

CAICW. The New ICWA Rules. Public Policy, Fargo: CAICW, 2016.

Cano, Regina Garcia. 2 Malnourished Girls Found on South Dakota Reservation. News, Seattle: Seattle Times, 2016.

CDC. “The Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/index.html (accessed 3 2018).

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014.

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2011.

Cherokee Nation. Tribal Citizenship. 2019. https://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Cherokee v. Georgia. 30 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 12 31, 1831).

Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce. “The Surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Montana Territory.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). October 5, 1877. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4856/the-surrender-of-chief-joseph-of-the-nez-perce-montana-territory-october-5-1877-chief-josephs-own-story/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Chief Seattle. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches. 1 12, 1854.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interest of the Child.” Child Welfare Information Gateway. HHS/ ACYF/ACF Children’s Bureau. 2016. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf (accessed 3 11, 2017).

Churchill, Ward, interview by Joshua Frank. Accusations and Smear: An Interview with Professor Ward Churchill, (Part 1 of 5) (9 19, 2005).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. “Colonialism: A Realistic Approach.” Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 55, no. 3 (4 1945): 167-181.

—. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

Cohen, Felix S. “Original Indian Title.” Edited by Lucy Kramer Cohen. Minn. L. Rev. (Yale U. Press) 32 (1947): 28.

Congress. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America.” Journal of the Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, May 1775: 120.

Cross, Suzanne L, Angelique G Day, and Lisa G Byers. “American Indian Grand Families: A Qualitative Study Conducted with Grandmothers and Grandfathers Who Provide Sole Care for Their Grandchildren.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 25, no. 4 (12 2010): 371–383.

CTWS. “Declaration of Sovereignty.” Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tribe of Oregon. 2016. https://warmsprings-nsn.gov/treaty-documents/declaration-of-sovereignty/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Curry, Brett W. “Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism, by Dalia Tsuk Mitchell.” Law and Politics Book Review, Sept 2007: 764-767.

Dawes Commission. Congressional Commission, Washington DC: Congress, 1895.

De Venter, M., K. Demyttenaere, and R. Bruffaerts. “The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and mental health in adulthood. A systematic literature review].” Tijdschr Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2013): 259-68.

DHHS/IHS. Trends in Indian Health. Statistics, Washington DC: Indian Health Service, 1997.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

DOI. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1958.

DOI/BIA. “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 /. 2 25, 2015. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-029447.pdf (accessed March 15, 2015).

DOI-BIA. Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Statistics, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, Washigton DC: Department of Interior, 2003.

DOJ. “Environment and Natural Resources Division.” The United States Department of Justice. 5 24, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/timeline-event/congress-passes-first-indian-trade-and-intercourse-act (accessed 2 10, 2018).

—. “Indian Country Justice Statistics.” Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 4 30, 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=200000 (accessed 8 19, 2018).

—. “Lead up to the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946.” United States Deptartment of Justice. 5 12, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/lead-indian-claims-commission-act-1946 (accessed 6 1, 2019).

—. “Transcript from the First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force.” American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Bismarck: Department of Justice, 2013. 46.

Dudley, Richard G. Jr. MD. “Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police.” Edited by Harvard Kennedy School. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin ( U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice), 2015: 1-22.

Duro v. Reina. 495 U.S. 676 (U.S., 1990).

Eaglewoman, Angelique, and G. William Rice. “American Indian Children and U.S. Indian Policy.” Tribal Law Journal 16 (2016): 1-29.

Enlow, Michelle Bosquet, Emily Blood, and Byron Egeland. “Sociodemographic risk, developmental competence, and PTSD symptoms in young children exposed to interpersonal trauma in early life.” Journal of Traumatic Stress (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), 2013: 686-694.

Executive Office of the President. Native Youth Report. Policy Brief, Washington DC: The White House, 2014.

FBI. “Indian Country Crime.” FBI.gov. 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/indian-country-crime (accessed July 27, 2016).

Feldon, Gai. Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Pub Co, 2014.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine (National Institutes of Health) 14, no. 4 (5 1998): 245-58.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

—. “Existing Indian Family Doctrine.” Letter to supporters. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Indian Child Welfare Law Center, 2 21, 2004.

Fineday, Anita. The ICWA Expert Witness and the Role of the Attorney for the Parent. Powerpoint, Casey Family Programs, Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2012.

Flatten, Mark. Death on a Reservation. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute, 2015.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “Anishinaabe Law and the Round House.” Albany Government Law Review, 2017: 24.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

FOCSE. Tribal & State to Establish & Enforce Child Support. Publication, Washington DC: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement , 2005.

Fort, Kate. Initial Observations on the ICWA Regulations. Blog, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. 2018 ICWA by the Numbers. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2019.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2015. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2016. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Turtle Talk, 2017.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2017. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2018.

Franson, Janet, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Homicide Investigator (Ret), Founder, Lost and Missing in Indian Country (9 7, 2016).

GAO. Review of American Indian Policy Review Commission. Accounting and Financial Reporting, General Government Division, Congress, Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 1977, 14.

General Congress. “Declaration of Independence.” University of Oklahoma College of Law. July 4, 1776. http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/decind.shtml.

George, Robert P. “Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2269.

Gerard, Forrest J. Assistant Secretary of Interior. Letter, Department of Interior, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 32.

Goldwater Institute. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PARTS OF INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. July 7, 2015. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/equal-protection/goldwater-institute-files-class-action-lawsuit-aga/ (accessed June 20, 2016).

Gould, L Scott. “The Congressional Response to Duro v. Reina: Compromising Sovereignty and the Constitution.” Edited by UC Davis Law School. U.C. Davis Law Review 28, no. 1 (1994): 53, 63 69-75.

GWIF. Foster Care Statistics 2016. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families; Children’s Bureau. 2018. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Haas, Theodore H. “Ten Years of Tribal Government Under I.R.A.” DOI.gov. United States Indian Service. 1947. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/library/internet/subject/upload/Haas-TenYears.pdf (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Hagedorn, Nancy L. “”A Friend to go between Them”: The Interpreter as Cultural Broker during Anglo-Iroquois Councils, 1740-70.” Ethnohistory (Duke University Press) 35, no. 1 (1988): 60-80.

Hagen v. Utah. (US Supreme Court, 1994).

Hallie Bongar White, Jane Larrington. “INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY.” Justice.gov. April 21, 2014. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/legacy/2014/04/21/intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf (accessed July 28, 2016).

Harper, Fowler Vincent. “Natural Law in American Constitutional Theory.” Michigan Law Review 26, no. 62 (1927): 62-82.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hazard, S., ed. Pennsylvania Archives (1st Series). Vol. 3. Philadelphia, PA: Joseph Severns, 1852.

Herman, Ellen. Adoption Statistics. Department of History, University of Oregon. 2 24, 2012. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Hintz, James R. “Wilson v. Marchington: The Erosion of TribalCourt Civil Jurisdiction in the Aftermath of Strate v.A-1 Contractors.” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1999: 145.

Holder, Eric. “Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks During the White House Tribal Nations Conference.” Justice News. Washington DC, 12 3, 2014.

Horwitz, Sara. “The hard lives – and high suicide rate – of Native American children on reservations.” National Security. March 9, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives–and-high-suicide-rate–of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html (accessed July 27, 2016).

Hyland, Duane. Running Head: Considering Indian Country. Topic Proposal, Rapid City: NFSH.org, 2014.

ICC. Indian Claims Commission Final Report. Final Commission Report, United States, Washington DC: GPO, 1978.

IHS. Indian Health Service. 2019. https://www.ihs.gov/aboutihs/ (accessed 3 28, 2019).

In re Alexandria Y. G018179 (Fourth Dist., Div. Three, 5 31, 1996).

In re Bridget R. B195282 (Cal. App. 4th, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 January 19, 1996).

In re Santos Y. B144822 (Cal. App, 4th, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 2001).

In re Z.R. and L.R., adoptive parents v . 27-JV-FA-17-117 (MN Court of Appeals, 11 2017).

Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Demographics. Statistical Facts, Oklahoma City: Indian Country Child Trauma Center, 2005.

Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia, PA: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938.

Jackson, Andrew. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal” .” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990 (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]) Record Group 46 (Dec. 1830).

Jackson, Jack C. “Director of Government Affairs, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).” National Conference of American Indians. February 12, 1999. http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/cvrightcensus.htm (accessed 2007).

James Bell Associates, Inc. “Analysis of Funding Resources and Strategies Among American Indian Tribes.” Administration of Children and Families. March 31, 2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fund_res.pdf (accessed June 22, 2016).

Janney, Samuel M. The Life of William Penn. 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852.

Jefferson, Thomas. “To Major John Cartwrigt Monticello, June 5, 1824.” American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. Edited by University of Groningen. 1824. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php (accessed June 30, 2016).

Jerry Gardner, Executive Director Tribal. “Tribal Law & Policy Institute.” Santa Monica: ACF, 8 2, 2013.

Johnson v. M’Intosh. 21 U.S. 543; 1823 U.S. 293; 5 L. Ed. 681; 8 Wheat. 543 (U.S., 2 1823).

Jones, B.J. Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 2006. http://www2.mnbar.org/sections/children/history.pdf (accessed April 29, 2007).

Jore, Rick, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Former Montana State Representative (11 15, 2016).

Kant, Garth. “‘INDIAN’ GIRL TORN FROM FAMILY INCHES CLOSER TO HOMECOMING.” World News Daily. June 10, 2016.

‘Indian’ girl torn from family inches closer to homecoming

(accessed June 21, 2016).

Kaplan, Sarah. “Native American couple sues to let their child be adopted by a white family.” Washington Post. June 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/native-american-couple-sues-to-let-their-child-be-adopted-by-a-white-family/ (accessed June 21, 2016).

Karnowski, Steve. Feds Say Native Mob Gang Dented but Work Remains. Minneapolis: ABC News, 2013.

Katz, Colleen C, Mark E Courtney, and Elizabeth Novotny. “Pre-foster Care Maltreatment Class as a Predictor of Maltreatment in Foster Care.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 34, no. 1 (2 2017): 35-49.

Kelley, Marylouise (ACF). “Service needs in rural North Dakota and Montana.” Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Director. Washington DC: ACF, 9 23, 2013.

Kelly, John. “38 Years After ICWA, Feds to Collect Data on Native American Foster Youth.” The Chronicle of Social Change, April 8, 2016.

Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF). “Changes at ACF: Our own takes Casey position at ACF/BIA.” Washington DC: ACF, 8 5, 2013.

Kingfisher, Billie J. Jr. Dogma: Felix S. Cohen, The Indian Law Survey and the Spanish Model. Dissertation, Masters of Arts in History, Oklahoma State University, Graduate College, 2016.

Kinney, Adam F. “The Tribe, the Empire, and the Nation: Enforceability of Pre-Revolutionary Treaties with Native American Tribes.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 39, no. 3 (2007-2008): 897.

Krakoff, Sarah. “They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum.” Stanford Law Review 69 (Feb 2017): 491-548.

Kunesh, Patrice H. A Call for an assessment of the Welfare of Indian Children in South Dakota. Article, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); University of South Dakota, Harvard University, Vermillion: South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 247, 2007.

LaBeau v. Dakota. 2:92-CV-203 (US Federal District Court: West. Dist. Mich., March 17, 1993).

Lawrence, William J. “In Defense of Indian Rights.” Beyond the Color Line; New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America (Hoover Institution Press), 2002: 391-404.

Legal Inf Inst. Wex Legal Dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell Law School, 2019.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

—. “Split Feathers Study.” American Indian Adoptees. n.d. https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/p/split-feathers-study-by-carol-locust.html (accessed 2 5, 2018).

—. “Split Feathers: Adult American Indians Who Were Placed In Non-Indian Families As Children.” Native Canadian. n.d. http://nativecanadian.ca/Native_Reflections/split_feather_syndrome.htm (accessed 2 5, 2018).

Locust, Carol. Training Director. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center , University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Lynch, Judy D. “Indian Sovereignty and Judicial Interpretations of the Indian Civil Rights Act.” Washington University Law Review 1979, no. 3,16 (1979): 897.

MacDonald, Peter. “White House Address on the Navajo Code Talkers.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Nov. 27, 2017.

Malone, Tim. The Role of Indian Tribes in our Constitutional System – Two Persistent Problems. Conference, Olympia: Unpublished, 1988.

Margold, Nathan R. “Wheeler-Howard Act–Interpretation” Question 9.” Op. Sol. I.D. Ind. Aff 1917-1974 1 (1934): 484, 490-491.

Marston, Blythe W. “Alaska Native Sovereignty: The Limits of the Tribe-Indian Country Test.” Cornell International Law Journal 17, no. 2 (1984): 33.

Martin, Kenneth. “Thomas Sullivan.” Indian Affairs. Washington DC: Indian Affairs, 11 22, 2013.

Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF). “Region 8 damaging tribal relations.” Spirit Lake. Washington DC: ACF, 11 1, 2013.

McMullen, Marrianne. “Decision on Proposed Removal.” Memorandum. Washington DC: ACF, 5 6, 2016.

McNeil, Kent. “Sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples in North America.” Articles and Book Chapters (Osgoode Hall Law School of York University) 22, no. 2 (2016): 25.

McWilliams, Paul. “English Common Law: Embodiment of the Natural Law.” The Western Australian Jurist 1 (2010): 128-131.

Means, Russell. “Statement to the Senate Special Committee on Indian Affairs.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Jan. 30, 1989.

Meggitt, Jane. Government Money for Native Americans. Online, Bisfluent, Leaf Group Ltd, 2017.

Meyers, Peter C. “Frederick Douglass’s America: Race, Justice, and the Promise of the Founding.” First Principle Series, Jan 11, 2011, 35 ed.: 18.

Michael R. Tilus, PsyD, MP (HHS Public Health). “Letter of Grave Concern: Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services Grievances.” To Ms. Sue Settle, Chief, Dpt of Human Services, BIA. Devils Lake, North Dakota, March 3, 2012.

Miles v. Family Court for Jud’l Dist of Chinle. (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Arizona January 2008).

Mission Indian Agency. “The Wheeler-Howard Bill – Questions and Answers.” Bulletin. Riverside, CA, April 16, 1934.

Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield . 87-980 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 3, 1989).

Mitchell, Donald Craig. Wampum. New York: The Overlook Press, 2016.

MN Dept Human Serv. “Tribal/State Agreement.” St. Paul, Minnesota: State of Minnesota, Feb 22, 2007. 37.

Montana v. United States. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981).

Moore, Johnston. “The Misapplication of The Indian Child Welfare Act.” The Chronicle of Social Change. April 1, 2015. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/the-misapplication-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act/10872 (accessed June 21, 2016).

Morandi, Larry. “Tribal Trust Lands: From Litigation to Consultation.” States and Tribes: Building New Traditions, August 2004.

Morris v. Tanner. 160 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2005) (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, April 2006).

Morris, Elizabeth. Child Abuse within Indian Country. Literature Review, Helm’s School of Gov’t, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2016.

Morris, Elizabeth. Spirit Lake Town Hall, February 27. Primary, witness, Fort Totten: CAICW, 2013.

Morris, Elizabeth. The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections. Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2017.

Morris, Roland John. Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Seattle: Concerning Tribal Jurisdiction, 1998.

Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 6 17, 1974).

MSU. “The French and Indian War.” MSU College of Social Science. Edited by Randall Schaetzl. Dept of Geography, Environment and Spatial Science. 2018. http://www.geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/frenchindian_war.html.

NARA. “Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes (The Dawes Commission), 1893-1914.” National Archoves. June 26, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes (accessed 4 26, 2019).

—. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal”.” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990;. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]. Dec. 6, 1830. (accessed 2018).

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

NAU. “Indigenous Voices of the Colorado Plateau: The Merriam Report of 1928.” Northern Arizona University Library. Northern Arizona University. 2005. http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/indigenous_voices/merriam_report.html (accessed 6 14, 2019).

NCAI. Trust Land. 2017. http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/trust-land (accessed 11 17, 2017).

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012, 2012.

Nicolai, Shanley Swanson, and Merete Saus. “Acknowledging the Past while Looking to the Future: Conceptualizing Indigenous Child Trauma.” Child Welfare Journal 92, no. 5 (2012): 110.

NICWA. Testimony of Sarah L. Kastelic. Testimony, Washington DC: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 2015, 1-17.

NICWA, SAMHSA. “Native Children: Trauma and Its Effects.” Trauma-Informed Care Fact Sheet. Portland: National Indian Child Welfare Association, April 2014.

NICWA/AAIA. A Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. White paper, Washington DC: Nat’l Indian Child Welfare Assoc. & Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 2013, 1-20.

NPS. “Pushmataha.” National Park Service. Sept. 14, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/people/pushmataha.htm.

O’Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons, and Co.,, 1855.

Occom, Samson. “Short, Plain, and Honest Account of my Self.” Edited by Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Bernd Peyer, The Elders Wrote (Dartmouth College Archives), (1768) 1982: 12-18.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States. (United States Supreme Court, 1824).

Otis, D.S. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. Edited by Francis Paul Prucha. University of Oklahoma Press , 1973.

Pommersheim, Frank. “Written testimony in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.” (104th Cong. 1st Sess.) 1996: 432.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes.” Montana Law Review 59, no. 1, Article 4 (Winter 1998): 51-80.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes: A Reply to Professor Jensen.” Montana Law Review, 1995/1999: 19.

Prucha, Frances Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Publius. “Federalist Papers.” Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman School of Law. 1787. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp.

Pushmataha. “Response to Chief Tecumseh on War Against the Americans.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Mississippi, 1811.

Raab. “Andrew Jackson.” Raab Collection. 10 15, 2019. https://www.raabcollection.com/andrew-jackson-autograph/andrew-jackson-signed-sold-president-andrew-jackson-original-instructions (accessed 3 10, 2019).

Reagan, Ronald. “Statement on Indian Policy, 1983.” The American Presidency Project. Edited by John Woolley, & Gerhard Peters. Univ. of Calif, Santa Barbara. 1 24, 1983. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41665 (accessed 6 30, 2017).

Regan, Shawn. “5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty.” Forbes. 3 14, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#739501c6cc62 (accessed 12 16, 2016).

Reid v. Covert. 701 (US Supreme Court, 1956).

Reply Brief for the United States. 03-107 (U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC 2003).

Rice v. Cayetano. 528 U.S. 495 (U.S., 2000).

Robinson Jr, John. “The Binding Guidance Principle: Using the Indian Trust Doctrine to Trump the APA.” American Indian Law Journal 4:1 (2015): 26.

Roe Bubar, Marc Winokur, Winona Bartlemay. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Investigative Report, West Hollywood: Tribal Law and Policy Institute, 2007.

Rollings, Willard Hughes. “Citizenship and Suffrage: The Native American Struggle For Civil Rights in the American West, 1830-1965.” Nevada Law Journal 5, no. 126 (Fall 2004): 126-140.

Rolnick, Addie. “The Promise of Mancari: Indian Political Rights as Racial Remedy.” NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) 86 (2011): 102-183.

Roozen, Sylvia, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Gerjo Kok, David Townend, Jan Nijhuis, and Leopold Curfs. “Worldwide Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review Including Meta-Analysis.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 40, no. 1 (1 2016): 18–32.

Roser, Max. Child Mortality. Statistics, Our World in Data, 2019.

Ruoff, A LaVonne Brown, ed. “Samson Occom (Mohegan) (1723-1792).” n.d.

Russell Means: About. 2014. http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/about/ (accessed October 5, 2014).

Sampson, Dimitra H. Child and Sexual Abuse in Indian Country. Lecture, Sioux Falls: Dept. of Justice, 2007.

Scheel, Ann Birmingham. Arizona Indian Country Report. Annual Report, Phoenix: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011.

Schumacher-Matos, Edward. SD: Indian Foster Care 1: NPR Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry. Ombudsman Report, Ombudsman, National Public Radio, New York: National Public Radio, 2013, 80.

Scofield, Ruth Packwood. Behind the Buckskin Curtain. New York: Carlton Press, Inc., 1992.

Seattle, Chief. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). January 12, 1854. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4706/speech-cautioning-americans-to-deal-justly-with-his-people-january-12-1854/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Skillen v. Menz. 1998 MT 43 (Supreme Court of the State of Montana, March 3, 1998).

Spaith, James. The Native American: At What Level Sovereignty? Draft, Exhibit 1, The White House, U.S. Government, Washington DC: Leonard Garment, Assistant to the President, 1974, 77.

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation. 423 (U.S. Supreme Court, May 15, 1899).

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Stuart, Paul. Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 13th Mandate Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

—. “Continual Rape of 13-yr-old Ignored.” To Superiors at the Administration of Children and Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, June 10, 2014.

—. “Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake.” To DC Superiors with the Administration of Children & Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, May 6, 2014.

—. “Prevented from Testifying.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 7 1, 2014.

—. “Response.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 2 11, 2014.

—. “Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations.” To ACF Superiors in DC. Denver: ACF, April 4, 2014.

—. “Summary of Correspondence.” Denver: ACF, 12 19, 2013.

Talton v. Mayes. 163 U.S. 376, 384 (U.S., 1896).

Texas Dept of Family and Protective Services. Legal Basis for Child Protective Services. Houston, n.d.

The Institute for Government Research. “The Problem of Indian Administration.” Edited by Lewis Meriam. Studies in Administration (The John Hopkins Press), February 1928.

The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online, National Archives. 13 June, 2018. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378. (accessed July 30, 2018).

Turanovic, Jillian J, and Travis C Pratt. “Consequences of Violent Victimization for Native American Youth in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46, no. 6 (6 2017): 1333 – 1350.

Udall, Representative Morris K. “The American Indians and Civil Rights.” Selected Speeches. Washington DC: Arizona University, 10 4, 1965.

United States. “Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, Appendix.” First People. September 20, 1872. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/AgreementWithTheSissetonAndWahpetonBandsOfSiouxIndians1872.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States Commission on Civil Rights. “Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing, Phoenix, AZ.” Washington DC: GPO, September 29, 1988.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

—. “General Allotment Act of 1887.” 24 Stat 388. Washinhgton DC, December 6, 1886.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act OF 1978.” Vols. Public Law 95-608, 25 USC Chapter 2. Washington DC, 1978.

—. “Indian Civil Rights Act.” Vols. Public Law 90–284, 82 Stat. 73. Washington DC, 1968.

—. “P.L. 68-175: Indian Citizenship Act.” 43 Stat. 253, Ch. 233. Washington DC: GPO, June 2, 1924.

—. “The Dawes Act of 1887.” The Avalon Project – Yale Law School. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dawes.asp (accessed 4 6, 2019).

—. “Transcript of Treaty of Fort Laramie.” OurDocuments.gov. April 29, 1868. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=42&page=transcript (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Cherokee 7 Stat., 311.” Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II. Compiled by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, 5 6, 1828. 288-292.

—. “Treaty with the Chippewa.” 2 22, 1855.

—. “Treaty with the Omaha.” Treaties. March 16, 1854. http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Treaties/10_Stat_1043_Omaha.htm (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Sioux – Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands.” First People. February 19, 1867. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/TreatyWithTheSiouxSissetonAndWahpetonBands1867.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States v. Billy Jo Lara. 541 U.S. (U.S. Supreme, 2003).

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

United States v. Rogers. 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (U.S. Supreme, March 9, 1846).

United States v. Wheeler,. 76-1629 (US Supreme Court, March 27, 1978).

Univ of Illinois. “Full text of “Monthly catalog of United States Government publications”.” LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSTIY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN. July 1947. http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlycatalogof531947unit2/monthlycatalogof531947unit2_djvu.txt (accessed 11 16, 2016).

Univ. Alaska. Indian Country Statute (1948). 2018. http://tribalmgmt.uaf.edu/tm112/Unit-2/Indian-Country-Statute-1948.

University of Oklahoma. Childhood Trauma Series in Indian Country. Presentation, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center, 2013.

US Census Bureau. Nonwhite Population by Race. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Legislative Reference Service, 1960.

US Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, US. Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: US. Dept of Commerce, 2010.

US Census Bureau. Tribal Complete Count Committee Handbook. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: United States Census 2000, 2001, 4-99.

US Census Bureau. US Census. Statistics, US Census Bureau, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Dept of Commerce, 2000.

US Congress. “Congressional Record ICWA.” 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. 124 (1978): 38101-112.

US Congress, House. Concurrent Resolutions, Indian Affairs. House of Respresentatives, Washington DC: GPO, 1953.

—. “Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Resources, US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs.” Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Washington DC: GPO: 113 Cong. 2nd Sess, June 24, 2014.

US Congress. Conference. S. 2981: An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1977, and for other purposes. House Report: Rpt No. 94-1695, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 94th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1976, 4.

US Congress. House. “H.R. 12533 – Indian Child Welfare Act.” Congress.gov. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1978.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. House Report: H. Rept 104-542, Committee on Ways and Means, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3828: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1996. Congressional Report, Natural Resource Committee: Indian Affairs, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104 Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Senate Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 104TH Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Amendments to the Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 104-574. Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess, June 26, 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-845. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 2nd Sess., May 11, 1988.

—. “Hearings before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate.” Survey of the Conditions of the Indians of the United States. Washington DC: GPO: 70th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1929.

—. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Program. Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess., April 7.8, 1974.

US Congress. Senate. Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment S. 569. Senate Bill, Indian Affairs Committee, Senate, Washington DC: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., 1997.

—. “Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, US Senate and the Committe on Resources, US House of Representatives.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 105-224. Washington DC: GPO: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1997.

—. “Oversight Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-574. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov 10, 1987.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1214: Indian Child Welfare Act. Congressional Report, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 1977.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1962: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment. Congressional Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. S. 721 – An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1974, and for other purposes. Senate Report: S.Rept 93-53, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 1st Sess., 1973.

US Congress: House. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Aflairs and Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.” Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. S.1214, Serial No. 96-42. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong; 2nd Sess., Feb-Mar 9, 1978. 308.

Vattel, Monsieur Emer (Emmerich) de. The Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 6th American. Translated by Esq. Joseph Chitty. West Brookfield, MA: Merriam and Cooke, [1758,1773] 1844.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Victoria, Franciscus De. The First Relectio Of The Reverend Father, Brother Franciscus De Victoria, On The Indians Lately Discovered. 1696. Edited by Johann Georg Simon. Translated by John Pawley Bate. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Ingolstadt, Cologne and Frankfort, 1580.

Vieru, Simona. “Aristotle’s Influence on the Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Western Australian Jurist (Murdoch University) 1 (2010): 115-122.

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. “The Treaty of Logg’s Town, 1752.” 1906: 154–174.

Wald, Patricia M. Assistant Attorney General. Letter, Department of Justice, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 35, 40.

Washington, George. “The Avalon Project: Washington’s Farewell Address.” Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School. 1796. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (accessed September 17, 2015).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

White House. “Documents related to the Indian Claims Commission.” Documents 1973-77, Bradley H. Patterson Files, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Washington DC, 1973-77, 18.

Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth–How Long a Time is That.” California Law Review 63 (5 1975): 601-661.

Wilson, James. “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals.” Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute. 1790-91. http://founding.com/founders-library/american-political-figures/james-wilson/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Woodward, Stephanie. “Suicide is epidemic for American Indian youth: What more can be done?” 100 Reporters. Oct 10, 2012. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340090-suicide-is-epidemic-for-american-indian-youth-what-more-can-be-done (accessed July 27, 2016).

Worcester v. Georgia. (US Supreme Court, 1832).

October 21, 2019 No Responses »

Samson Occom – Mohegan tribal member

Oct 152019

by Elizabeth Morris*

Tribal members chose to become part of the larger colonial communities for various reasons: including but not limited to protection, trade, education, or even to be part of the Christian church.

In 1740, when Samson Occom (Occum), a member of the Mohegan tribe of Connecticut was 19 years old, he asked his mother if he could go to Eleazar Wheelock’s Bible College to learn to read. He wrote later in 1768:

”I was Born and Brought up in the traditional ways…My Parents Lived a wandering life, as did all the Indians at Mohegan. They Chiefly Depended upon Hunting, Fishing, & Fowling for their Living and had no Connection with the English, excepting to Traffic with them in their small Trifles; They Strictly maintained and followed their traditional Ways, Customs & Religion, though there was Some Preaching among them. Once a Fortnight, in ye Summer Season, a Minister from New London used to come up, and everyone attended. Not that they cared about the Christian Religion, but they had Blankets given to them every Fall of the Year and for these things they would come and there was a Sort of School kept, when I was quite young, but I believe there never was one that ever Learnt to read anything,

”— when I was about 10 Years of age there was a man who went about among the Indian Wigwams, and wherever he Could find the Indian Children, would make them read; but the Children Used to take Care to keep out of his way; —and he used to Catch me Some times and make me Say over my Letters; and I believe I learnt Some of them. But this was Soon over too; and all this Time there was not one amongst us, that made a Profession of Christianity — Neither did we Cultivate our Land, nor kept any Sort of Creatures except Dogs, which we used in Hunting; and we Dwelt in wigwams. These are a Sort of Tents, Covered with Matts, made of Flags.

https://DyinginIndianCountry.com
Samson Occum

”And to this Time we were unacquainted with the English Tongue in general though there were a few, who understood a little of it. When I was 16 years of age, we heard a Strange Rumor among the English, that there were Extraordinary Ministers Preaching from place to Place and a Strange Concern among the White People. This was in the Spring of the Year. But we Saw nothing of these things, till Some Time in the Summer, when Some Ministers began to visit us and Preach the Word of God; and the Common People all Came frequently and exhorted us to the things of God…amongst whom I was one that was Impressed with the things we had heard…After I was awakened & converted, I went to all the meetings, I could come at…And when I was 17 years of age, I had, as I trust, a Discovery of the way of Salvation through Jesus Christ, and was enabl’d to put my trust in him alone for Life & Salvation. From this Time the Distress and Burden of my mind was removed, and I found Serenity and Pleasure of Soul, in Serving God. By this time I just began to Read in the New Testament without Spelling, — and I had a Stronger Desire Still to Learn to read the Word of God, and at the Same Time had an uncommon Pity and Compassion to my Poor Brethren – I used to wish I was capable of Instructing my poor Kindred. I used to think, “if I Could once Learn to Read I would Instruct the poor Children in Reading” —and used frequently to talk with our Indians Concerning Religion. This continued till I was in my 19th year: by this Time I Could Read a little in the Bible. At this Time my Poor Mother was going to Lebanon, and having had Some Knowledge of Eleazar Wheelock and hearing he had a Number of English youth under his Tuition, I wanted to go to him and be with him a week or so, and Desired my Mother to Ask Mr. Wheelock whether he would take me a little while to Instruct me in Reading. Mother did so; and when She Came Back, She Said Mr. Wheelock wanted to See me as Soon as possible. So I went up, thinking I Should be back again in a few Days; when I got up there, he received me With kindness and Compassion and in Stead of Staying a Forthnight or 3 Weeks, I Spent 4 Years with him (Occom (1768) 1982). ”

In all, about 70 tribal-member students attended Wheelock’s Bible college (The Storied History of Dartmouth 2006).

Occom’s “A Short Narrative of My Life” is one of the earliest memoirs written by a tribal member. Occom began writing the narrative, which he originally called a “Short, Plain, and Honest Account of
my Self,” in the spring of 1768, soon after he returned from England. It is said that he originally wrote it to “refute false reports that he was a Mohawk, that Wheelock received large sums for his support, and that he had been converted just before the English tour in order to become a special exhibit (Blodgett 27)” (Ruoff n.d.).

This is the story of one man and his community and does not apply to all. Too often it is assumed that the report of one or a few in a people group applies to the entire group. Humans, even when raised in a tribal community, are individuals. Occom went on to become well-read and well-traveled. He was an educated, adept, eighteenth century man; not forced to become a Christian, not beaten in school, and not – as many viewed tribal members – an incapable caricature in need of paternalistic care. Despite full awareness that he was being used as a prop later in life – Occum chose to focus not on the negative of men who he knew were exploiting him, but on the positive of Jesus Christ, who he knew was assisting for him.

Morris, Elizabeth Sharon, “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act” (2019). Masters Theses. 591. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

###

*ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

CAICW.org; X.com/CAICW; Facebook.com/CAICW.org; Linkedin.com/in/elizabethsharonmorris/

October 15, 2019 No Responses »

White Earth and Leech Lake Officials Convicted of Ballot Box Stuffing, Voter Fraud, 1990-1994

May 252019

CHIPPYGATE:
Tribal Government corruption on the Leach Lake and White earth Reservations of Northern Minnesota

EXCERPTS from the Ojibwe News/Native American Press

June 7, 1996

Defense overwhelmed by vote fraud evidence in week 4 of Chippygate
by Greg Blair

The enrollees came from all over the country, many of them full-blood Indians, while some had blonde hair and blue eyes. However, not one of them hesitated when asked by prosecutors if they were eligible to vote in the White Earth reservation’s elections. “Yes,” was the answer jurors heard from nearly one hundred witnesses who testified this week that they were denied the exercise of this right by the fraudulent practices of Darrell “Chip” Wadena’s gang. Some of the witnesses reported that they had never lived on the reservation or voted in tribal elections. One of the witnesses was a doctor, another was a former Twin Cities radio personality, one was a minister and yet others were successful businessmen and women. Some were raising families, others were retired elders and some were also struggling in poverty.

Many said they had left White Earth as young children or older adults. Others said they had voted on the reservation, but not by absentee ballot. Yet others said they had voted once, but prosecutors showed them two sets of signed ballots for verification. Still others insisted that they had never voted in the reservation’s 1994 general election, but that they had voted in other past White Earth elections.

By day’s end, the federal courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota was resembled a White Earth reunion more than a federal corruption trial. The get-together was even larger than during the reservation’s founder’s day Pow-Wow held in mid-June each year.
A common sentiment was expressed by one witness, who said after testifying, “That’s the reason my parents left the reservation, there is too much corruption and I guess it’s still going on.”…

Inform concerning ability to abuse absentee ballots

Leech Lake members, residents played key role in White Earth vote conspiracy
By Jeff Armstrong

White Earth Reservation officials used funds from a public assistance program with a $1.1 million annual budget to compensate Leech Lake and White Earth members who helped them obtain and certify fraudulent ballots in 1990 and 1994, according to testimony in the federal conspiracy trial of White Earth’s top officials.

Indicted White Earth election board chair Carley Jasken also directed the assistance program, but despite the federal charges, Jasken will be responsible for overseeing next Tuesday’s balloting.

Eleanor Craven testified that she and fellow Leech Lake member Leo Gotchie, then a district RBC candidate, were campaigning for absentee votes on May 25, 1994, when they stopped at Peter Peqette’s south Minneapolis home. Craven said Gotchie suggested the stop in hopes of obtaining gas money for their return trip by using her notary seal to validate White Earth ballots.

Shortly after their arrival at Pequette’s, Craven testified, Jerry Rawley showed up at the residence with an attache case full of “hundreds” of signed absentee ballots in sealed envelopes. Although the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s election ordinance requires absentee voters to sign the “affidavit envelope” in the presence of a notary public – who must then verify that the voter actually cast the enclosed ballot – Craven said she and Pequette proceeded to notarize the invalid ballots.

…Craven said Rawley then collected the votes and handed Gotchie an apparent payment. “He gave something to Mr. Gotchie and he said, “here, take care of your notary,”

…Among the “votes” delivered on May 25, 1994 were those of Cheryl Boswell and her brother Neil. Ms. Boswell, like more than three dozen witnesses in a single day, testified that she never voted in the election and that the ballot envelope in her name was a forgery. Boswell also caused a subdued stir in the courtroom when she told the court that she knew her brother’s vote was false because Neil Boswell had died six months prior to the election.

…An employee of Harper’s at Leech Lake maintenance, Terry LaDuke, received two payments of $400 each from the White Earth general fund in 1994. LaDuke testified that it was a common practice at both Leech Lake and White Earth to gather ballots to be notarized, with or without the voter’s presence.

Money is at the core of court queries
By Pat Doyle

The question drew a response that startled some in the courtroom: How much money do you make in a year?
When Darwin McArthur, executive director of the White Earth Band of Chippewa, replied that he made $59,000, a tribal member in the spectator section gasped.

By standards of the White Earth Indian Reservation, McArthur’s salary is extraordinary – but not close to the income of his bosses.
…Jurors…listened to testimony of how council members tapped tribal accounts to buy themselves vehicles or to pay their taxes.

“If they tell you to issue a check, that’s what you do?” a prosecutor asked McArthur.

“Yes.” he replied.

In 1993 tribal funds provided $240,122 for Chairman Darrell (Chip) Wadena, $209,507 for council member Rick Clark and $187,237 for Secretary-Treasurer Jerry Rawley.

Prosecutors say those figures include tens of thousands of dollars that the officials embezzled from their tribe by creating gambling and fishing commissions that provided them with checks for work they didn’t do. Additionally, Wadena and Rawley are accused of accepting bribes or gratuities if $428, 682 and $21,500 respectively from Clark to assure that his drywall firm would land a contract to help build the tribe’s Shooting Star Casino in Mahnomen.

…In their questions to witnesses, defense attorneys have suggested that tribal officials deserved the money because they built a casino that employs about 1000 people, most of them Indians, on a remote reservation in northwest Minnesota. Moreover, they say the officials were operating in the belief that treaties and federal statutes over the years gave them the authority to do what they did. And defense lawyers have tried to convince the jury that over-zealous federal investigators singled out Wadena, Rawley and Clark for conduct common among Indian officials.

Whatever its outcome, the trial exposes a tribal government operates without checks and balances, in which council members typically avoid scrutiny by their constituents or non-Indians. Council members made decisions about their pay at meetings they routinely held without notifying White Earth members. McArthur said they did so to avoid opposition.

Bill Lawrence was a Red Lake Band Ojibwe member who grew up in Bemidji. A military vet, attorney and journalist, Lawrence was a watchdog of Minnesota’s tribal governments for more than two decades.

Lawrence founded the Ojibwe News in 1988 in response to tribal government corruption. His work helped federal prosecutors go after tribal leaders and other politicians. He had crusaded to open the books of Minnesota’s 11 Indian casinos and his investigative reporting helped send several tribal leaders to prison in the 1990s. Lawrence passed away with cancer in 2010 at the age of 70.

May 25, 2019 No Responses »

FULL VIDEO shows what happened before Drum Group approached Students

Jan 202019

FULL Video shows verbal abuse of high school students before viral clip with Native Americans. Be HONEST and DISCERN entire unedited incident.

Some people appear to actually WANT a race war and claim it will make life better – but for who? HATE never makes ANYTHING better – for ANY side. Hating and hurting others will rot your heart, soul and spirit – destroying YOU in the end.

Time stamps [compiled by luna lindsey] for all who want to observe main occurrences:

Note: this video is filmed by one of the members of the Hebrew Israelite preacher group.

First 15 minutes of video shows a group of self-claimed Black Hebrew Israelites, preaching that people of color are the chosen ones of Yahuwah (hebrew name for “God the creator”). Several indigenous people approach. Both sides question & argue with one another. Hebrew Israelites slander the native Americans for “worshipping Creation and everything in it, except for the creator himself”. They discuss places of origin, yell over each other, and try to defend each of their own perspectives and spiritual beliefs.

15:14 to 21:55 A group of Native Americans & allies form a circle holding hands and dancing, away from BHIs. Meanwhile, BHI group continue to preach and debate with several curious, upset, and offended individuals, staying on the outskirts of the crowd.

22:11 In the distance a small rally and speech occurs. 23:00 and on, more BHI preaching.

28:52 drum players walk by with drums to set up a small ceremony out of the way.

29:25 BHI reams non-believing PoC as being blind to “the truth that you are black and descendants of Israel” etc.. Racist remarks at whites ensue.

33:33 drumming; video cuts back to more preaching.

36:26 heated name calling then more long BHI preaching.

49:07 name calling at MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporters.

59:10 “Look at them demons” -BHI referring to MAGA crowd. Covington school crowd grows. 49:50 BHI cussing out white observers.

1:07:40 More cursing at strangers.

1:09:45 one MAGA kid runs down from the stairs and removes his shirt, yells, riling up a weird brief “haka” dance with other Cov. Catholic students.

1:11:30 MAGA group antagonizes Hebrew Israelites.

DRUMMERS APPROACH –

1:12:10 Nathan Philips (AKA Uncle Nate, indigenous elder playing drum & song) appears. Joined by small indigenous group with drums to break up the loud commotion between both sides.

1:13:20 Hebrew Israelite: “y’all better not touch him!” (Referring to Nathan Philips.)

1:13:25 White school guys jump, dance and chant. Whether in excitement, rebellion, or blatant mockery, I can’t tell.

1:14:00 Hebrew Israelite says “all these spirits gettin’ DEMONIC,” referring to the indigenous people & white MAGA supporters forming a larger scene.

1:15:21 to 1:17:16 BHI antagonizes Cov. kids blaming, “This is a bunch of future school shooters!” The students try to defend themselves.

1:17:17 White chaperone yells “hey guys, back it up!” trying to tame the heated confrontation, guiding students to step back. *Note: this whole time, Nathan Philips plays drums. We can’t see what’s happening on that side but you can hear the drum. This is around the same time the viral videos are being filmed inside the center of the crowd which isn’t visible in this clip.

1:17:53 white students chanting briefly

1:18:00 to 1:26:40 various yelling, preaching, racist remarks from both sides. Crowd surrounds, more arguing.

1:26:40 white students cheer and applaud because their school buses finally arrive so they can leave.

1:27:04 BHI walks along. The leader stops and says “what the hell is going on here?” And makes fun of white bystanders who are joined in a prayer circle.

1:31:00 White Christian woman approaches, questioning why BHI are being so disrespectful. Then they argue about beliefs. BHI demands whites “give us our land back”. The remaining footage is more preaching and arguing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/video-appears-to-show-native-american-using-racially-charged-insults-in-viral-confrontation-with-catholic-students

VIDEO CLIP – almost two hours – Warning, profanity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQyBHTTqb38&feature=youtu.be&t=4342

January 20, 2019 No Responses »

Silence About Conditions at Pine Ridge Reservation

Jun 082017

by Thomas F. Sullivan

For generations, the residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with unemployment and poverty rates that have never been seen in the majority community even during the Great Depression.

According to an MSNBC Report on Pine Ridge on May 29, 2014, “Roughly four out of five residents are unemployed and well over half live in deep poverty…… Life expectancy is just 48 years old for men and 52 for women….. About 70 percent of the students will drop out of school before they graduate.”

That last statistic is especially troubling and is inconsistent with the claim frequently stated by tribal leaders that “Our children are sacred”.

According to that same MSNBC Report, “In a startling new draft report, issued in April 2014 by the Bureau of Indian Education which oversees 183 schools on 64 reservations in 23 states, focuses attention on BIE’s inability to deliver a quality education to its students. BIE schools are chronically failing. BIE operates ‘one of the lowest-performing set of schools in the country.’ During the 2012 – 2013 school year, only one out of four BIE-funded schools met state-defined proficiency standards and one out of three were under restructuring due to chronic academic failure…. BIE students performed lower on national assessment tests than students in all but one other major urban school district.”

Given these conditions which have persisted for generations as well as the almost total absence of any economic activity on the reservation, it is not surprising that there is a high level of dysfunction as well. This dysfunction is exemplified by the following health and social welfare measures:

* The infant mortality rate at Pine Ridge is one of the highest in the nation at 3 times the national average;
* The incidence of diabetes is 8 times the national average;
* Eight out of every ten people at Pine Ridge are alcoholics. Given this fact it is highly likely that most newborns on this reservation are born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), a severe developmental delay. Care of children with FASD requires an extended time commitment, great patience, and resilience, none of which is in abundant supply in most reservation homes:
* Drug use and abuse, both prescription and illegal, is rampant;
* The teenage suicide rate is 150 percent of the national average. In the first 8 months of 2015. There were 19 completions by youth between the ages of 9 and 24 and more than 100 attempts by children from the same age group. Within the last week, a 12-year-old girl hanged herself on a tree behind the Sue Anne Big Crow Youth Center. Shortly before a 14-year-old boy recently completed, he was being counseled by one of his teachers. She told him that Lakota tradition teaches that a spirit set free by suicide is doomed to wander the earth in lonely darkness. “You don’t want that, do you?” His response was chilling, “Anything is better than here”.
* The level of domestic violence is at epidemic levels. In CY 2014 the Tribal Department of Public Safety prosecuted 470 cases of domestic violence. During the same period one of the Tribe’s domestic shelters reported they had responded to more than 1,300 cases of domestic violence:
* In CY 2016 there were 17 homicides on Pine Ridge, a rate 4 times the current homicide rate in the city of Chicago:
* For the last several years, the Pine Ridge reservation child protection staff has been investigating, relying on rigorous standards, every case of reported child sexual abuse and confirming, on average, 2 ½ cases per week for every week during each of those years. Considering that most estimates are that 10 percent or less of such abuse is ever reported, the seriousness of this level of child sexual abuse cannot be overstated.
* Research data are clear, children who are sexually abused are 2½ times more likely to attempt and/or complete suicide than children who have not been sexually abused.

On May 1, 2015, in the New York Times Ron Cornelius, the Great Plains Director of the Indian Health Service is quoted as saying, that “the recent suicides were an incredibly sad situation that IHS was committed to working with the tribe to address this heartbreaking problem.” It is not clear to me from the public record available to me just what the IHS has done to fulfill this commitment. At that time I was the ACF Regional Administrator in Denver and heard from friends on and around Pine Ridge, “There are a lot of ‘suits’ traveling to Pine Ridge. They are not meeting with anyone from the Reservation. They spend all of their time in a conference room talking with each other. They seem to make it a point to avoid any tribal members.”

However, former Pine Ridge Tribal Judge Saunie Wilson, in a power point presentation to a west coast conference on youth suicides in early 2017, described the 20 professionals sent to Pine Ridge by IHS to “solve” the reservation suicide epidemic in the following terms, “They had, No background checks, No licenses to work in South Dakota and No knowledge of reservation culture, mores or society.” Unfortunately, this is the same inept approach IHS used when there was a comparable burst of youth suicides on Montana’s Fort Peck Reservation several years earlier. I was invited by the Tribal Chair to sit in on the IHS meetings with Tribal staff as an impartial observer for the Tribe. As a result, I could observe what IHS was doing in response to the youth suicide burst on that Reservation. They were clearly not effective then. How could they believe they would be effective several years later?

On April 5, 2017, at a meeting of the Pine Ridge Tribal Law and Order Committee, the following statement was made by Richard Little Whiteman, a Council member and Chair of this Committee, “I haven’t seen this level of violence since the 1970s”. The Committee also heard reports that the number of law enforcement officers, once numbering more than 100 sworn officers, now was little more than 20, had the impossible task of policing a geographic area comparable in size to the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined 7 days a week, 24 hours every day.

What is especially puzzling is the deafening silence from both the media, those who by their titles and their government positions have direct responsibility to correct such problems and those who claim they are advocates working on behalf of the welfare of women and children.

For example, if either the city of Cambridge, MA or Berkeley, CA, each with a total population of approximately 100,000, had the same level of youth suicide completions as Pine Ridge, the following would be occurring:

1. There would be youth suicide completions just about daily in each of these communities.
2. There would not be enough curb space to park all of the media trucks providing a direct link to the community for their viewers. After all the media had ignored multiple detailed, factual reports about the dysfunction in these communities and predictions about what would follow from that dysfunction. Recognizing their prior error in not covering all of the dysfunction, media outlets were competing to provide the most offensive coverage. They characterized their coverage as “presenting the facts.”
3. Members of Congress would be convening hearings in these communities in an attempt to elicit some hints as to the cause of such dysfunction even though they had never mentioned these communities until the funerals began to be held when the dysfunction in these communities could no longer be ignored. Based on past experience the best that the local congressional delegation will be able to do is to appoint a study committee charged with reporting back on the cause of all the suicides within three years. No action would have to be taken to assist these communities until the study report was produced.
4. Advocates would be elbowing their way to get in front of any operating TV camera to push their unique solutions to such dysfunction even though they had not only known about the extreme dysfunction in these communities but they had also been silent about it until the funerals began.
5. State, county, and local officials would point at each other, claiming they had little or no responsibility to correct these problems. It was the responsibility of that “other guy” (whoever that unidentified person was) until federal funds were made available. Then the competition would be cut-throat. Each would cite their “expertise” on matters of this kind even though each had just established an extensive written record claiming they knew nothing about such matters in their efforts to avoid any responsibility (political punishment for refusing to deal with the dysfunction in their communities until the funerals began) for what was happening in these communities.
6. Federal officials whose organizations had been widely praised for formally adopting mission statements claiming they were responsible for the well-being of every citizen in their service area would initially deny any responsibility for such dysfunction, pointing at state, county or local officials as the parties responsible for addressing and correcting such behavior. When and if Congress appropriates funds to address and correct these problems, these same federal officials will distribute those funds without first establishing performance measures to determine the effectiveness of how these funds are spent. If the past is any guide, it will be several years before performance measures will be put in place.

If this is the response to the massive dysfunction and resulting epidemic of youthful suicides in communities like Cambridge or Berkeley, can anything better be expected at Pine Ridge?

Pine Ridge is a small, Isolated, rural community with little political power. They have been ignored and will continue to be ignored.

The sexual abuse of American Indian children should have resulted in a high-level commitment to stop the abuse once it had been uncovered years ago.

During the last two Administrations, I brought the twin epidemics of child sexual abuse and child/youthful suicides in Indian Country to the attention of the political leadership of the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Health and Human Services with multiple, detailed, factual, written presentations. These presentations detailed the pervasive extent of the abuse, the long-term impact on the abused individuals, their families and the community at large and the substantial public cost of such abuse. They had no effect. It was as if they had never been read.

Until one is prepared to focus on and widely and continuously publicize the hypocrisy of those who know the facts and who deny or ignore them, thereby allying themselves with those who abuse children, nothing will be done to correct this barbaric situation. Until those who have chosen silence in the face of widespread child sexual abuse are publicly identified and shamed in all major media outlets for their alliance with sexual predators, attempting to stop the barbarism is a fool’s errand.

Thomas F. Sullivan is a former Regional Administrator for the Administration of Children and Families under the federal HHS. He was forced out of his job in May, 2016, after defying his DC superiors by repeatedly reporting on child abuse on several reservations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Elizabeth Morris, Chair of CAICW:

For more information concerning our federal government’s apathy toward the well-being of tribal members, watch this 20-minute video:

June 8, 2017 No Responses »

Send a copy to a member of Senate or House Indian Affairs committee FREE – or Purchase a copy for other elected official at discount!

Apr 222017

Purchase the book “Dying in Indian Country” for your elected official for the discount price of $14.99 and we will pay the shipping to send it to his/her office.

Buy a copy of the book through our website for any state or federal elected official – be it your U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, State legislator, Governor, Attorney General, President, etc. Let us know the name of your official, the personal message you want us to include, and we will send it!

IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN IS ON THE SENATE OR HOUSE COMMITTEE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS – We will send the book to him/her TOTALLY FREE – NO charge. Just email us your necessary information and the personal message you would like it sent with, and we will do the rest.

OR – purchase a copy for YOURSELF at regular price – and we will send a copy to an elected official of your choice at NO CHARGE.

(Amazon can’t do this – the purchase must be made through this website or our Facebook page.)

We use addresses that are on public record, so you do not need to provide one for us. If there is a particular office of theirs that you want it sent to, however, (ie: their DC office or their local office, etc.), just let us know. As long as the address is a public address open to receiving their mail, we can send it.

Your State must match theirs as a constituent. Please follow up with your elected official in two weeks to make certain they received it – and ask them their thoughts concerning it! 🙂

LOOK TO THE SIDEBAR ON THE RIGHT FOR THE TITLE
“Purchase a book at Discount for your Elected Official”

April 22, 2017 No Responses »

The Ramifications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections (Video)

Apr 202017

Lenore Banning owned over a million feet of timber on her trust land in Washington State, but lived in poverty all her life. She was not allowed to sell any of her timber.

Toddler Lauryn Whiteshield was murdered a little over a month after her arrival to her grandfather’s home on the Spirit Lake Reservation in the spring of 2013. She and her three-year-old twin sister were taken from a safe, loving home in Bismarck and placed with their grandfather and his girlfriend, a woman known by Spirit Lake to have been abusive to children in the past. The woman beat the girls several times. On June 12, 2013, they were thrown down an embankment. Sometime later that night, Laurynn died next to her sleeping sister.

Factually, current federal Indian policy infringes on the lives, freedom, and property of many persons of Native American heritage.
– – Federal policies mandate tribal government jurisdiction over individuals of lineage in several situations, including
#1) Children across America who have never been near a reservation nor involved in tribal customs
#2) Families who have at one time lived on the reservation, but for their own reasons, have purposefully moved elsewhere and do not want tribal government jurisdiction
#3) Women of any heritage, victimized by reservation related violence, who are only allowed to seek justice in tribal court (even if the perp is a nephew to the judge) and are denied the option of county court
#4) And as the Department of Interior holds title to the property of millions of individual tribal members – Adult U.S. citizens who are not allowed to sell or use their property as collateral without permission.

Please share this video* with your friends.

PLEASE also share this video* with YOUR Congressmen. MANY of them take a stand on all kinds of things, demanding justice and civil rights. DEMAND that they take a strong stand for the rights of persons of heritage…CITIZENS subject to abuse by laws that Congress itself has created and MUST remove.

Most especially – share your thoughts on this video* with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs – Senator John Hoeven. (701) 250-4618, or (202) 224-2551
or through his contact form at: https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/contact/email-the-senator

Find your State’s U.S. Senator and Congressmen here:
https://www.senate.gov/
https://www.house.gov/
– *This video was adapted from “The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections”, A Presentation Prepared for Liberty University, Research Week, Center for Research and Scholarship April 10-13, 2017

Thank you – and PLEASE Share….

Learn More:

https://DyingInIndianCountry.com

https://www.facebook.com/CAICW.org/

This video was adapted from “The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections,” A Presentation Prepared for Liberty University, Research Week, Center for Research and Scholarship, April 10-13, 2017

April 20, 2017 No Responses »

Child Abuse and Death Within Indian Country

Nov 012016

The original question for this paper was “How has the Indian Child Welfare Act affected the death rate of children living in Indian Country?” However, data concerning deaths of children placed under the Indian Child Welfare Act is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Tribal governments are not required to collect or share the outcomes of children affected by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and after extensive research, it is doubtful a comprehensive database with this information currently exists. According to the National Indian Child Welfare Association, “…incidents of child maltreatment that occur under a tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction and where tribal services are provided are not necessarily reported to the state and included in national data systems” (NICWA 2015). Janet Franson, retired homicide investigator and founder of ‘Lost and Missing in Indian Country,’ wrote in reference to children missing within the last decade, “…there were all kinds of missing N/A people in Indian Country [that] were not getting the attention they deserved. Not from law enforcement and not from any national entity for missing persons. My belief is that at least 50% of those missing are homicide victims” (Franson, 2106).

In an April, 2016, interview with The Chronicle of Social Change, Administration on Children, Youth and Families Commissioner Rafael López confirmed the absence of ICWA data, stating, “Not being able to articulate very clearly what’s happening to all children, let alone American Indian and Alaskan Native children, is unacceptable.’ (Kelly 2016). In 2015, the ACF initiated database collection for all children of tribal heritage who present before a court for foster care, but it didn’t go far enough. “HHS had determined that it did not have jurisdiction to collect information on Native American youth through the enforcement authority regarding ICWA and, therefore, was not able to make the requested changes or additions to the AFCARS data elements regarding ICWA” (Kelly 2016)

However, since then, “…legal counsel re-examined the issue and determined it is within ACF’s existing authority to collect state-level ICWA-related data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children in child welfare systems…” (Kelly 2016) All 50 States have now received guidelines pertaining to the data they are to keep. Obviously, it will take time for the ACF to collect and evaluate the data. Complicating matters, several tribal entities are now claiming “data sovereignty,” with the right to govern how data concerning their membership is collected and used, leaving an open question of manipulation and accuracy. That all said, reporting on what is known in the immediate remains necessary, as the effect of ICWA on children today remains critical. With this reality in mind, we will sidestep the original research question and instead ask, “Have children who fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian Child Welfare Act been consciously placed by courts and social services into dangerous living situations?” To do this, we will identify some correlations that suggest causation, using data from the very sources that support and promote the ICWA.

“Have children who fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian Child Welfare Act been consciously placed by courts and social services into dangerous living situations?”

In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act, “declar[ing] that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes. . .” Since that time, there have been numerous anecdotal and occasionally documented reports of children removed from admittedly safe homes outside of Indian Country, only to be placed in questionable homes within Indian Country where they have been abused or sometimes murdered. Many of the children affected by the ICWA are multi-heritage and have never lived in Indian Country prior to being placed under the jurisdiction of the ICWA. Many come from families who left Indian Country over a generation ago due to a high level of crime and corruption on their home reservation. The national dilemma has become whether the “best interest” of children, along with their right to safety, privacy and choice, is of less priority than tribal sovereignty and the future of the tribe.

Every state has statutes addressing child protection, foster care and adoption, under which children of every heritage could receive the same standard of protection. However, children deemed eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe are exempt from these state mandated protections. Through the prevalence of accounts from individuals and families affected by ICWA, there appears to be a troubling percentage who have been drastically harmed following intervention and placement through the ICWA. It is probable an unacceptable percentage of children have been hurt by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

White papers concerning the benefits of ICWA are readily available from tribal governments, organizations, and the federal agencies that support tribal governments. Finding documented information concerning children who have been negatively affected by the ICWA is much more difficult. This is because tribal governments are the primary aggregators of statistics concerning their memberships and they are not required to report all of their data to federal agencies.

Rather than ask the question of how the Indian Child Welfare Act has affected the ‘best interest’ of children – which is too subjective for measurement – we seek an answer to as to whether children have been deliberately placed as a result of ICWA intervention into homes known for violence, sexual abuse or criminal activity. The answer could be used to establish equal protection for all United States citizens, no matter their heritage or age.

Search terms will include:

• Indian Child Welfare Act
• Native American Indian Reservation
• Indian Child
• Murder
• Death
• Sexual abuse (as is sometimes associated with death)
• Child abuse
• Indian child foster care
• Indian child adoption
• Obituary

Procedures to ensure a comprehensive balance will include literature published by tribal entities and organizations, state and federal agencies, foster and adoptive care organizations, non-profit advocacies, health organizations, and letters from affected individuals and families. It is important to include non-tribal entities in the study in order to ensure a comprehensive balance, as many of the children affected by ICWA have never lived in Indian Country and come from multi-heritage families.

Search engines, databases, and scholarly journal publications to be used:

• Indian Health Service
• State child protection agencies
• U.S. Census
• National Indian Child Welfare Association reports
• Administration for Children and Families reports
• Local obituaries
• Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare

Introduction

Toddler Lauryn Whiteshield was murdered a little over a month after her arrival to her grandfather’s home in the spring of 2013. She and her three-year-old twin sister were taken from a safe, loving home in Bismarck and placed with their grandfather and his girlfriend, a woman known to have been abusive to children in the past. This happened during a period when both the BIA and US Attorney’s office had taken over law enforcement and social services on the Spirit Lake Reservation due to a rash of uninvestigated child homicides and were supposedly monitoring placements to prevent further murders. This case did get media attention in North Dakota, and as a result, the perpetrator was quickly arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned all within five months. However, none of the officials who were responsible for placing her in the home were held accountable. Jeanine Russell, the non-native foster mom the girls were taken from, read a victim’s impact statement for the sentencing of the murderer of Lauryn. She asked the judge to hold the perpetrator accountable, but also hold the broken system accountable. The federal government, she said, allowed it to happen, and “ICWA can be an evil law when twisted to fit the tribes wants or needs” (CAICW 2014).

From the Goldwater Institute concerning Lauryn, “The forced transfer from a safe, loving foster family to a home that posed great and obvious danger to the girls did not happen in a third-world country but in the United States. It did not happen 40 or 60 years ago but in 2013. And it did not happen because the court ignored the law but because it followed it. Had any of the child custody laws of the 50 states been applied, in all likelihood Laurynn would be alive today. That is because state laws require consideration of the “best interests of the child” in determining termination of parental rights, foster placements, and adoptions. That bedrock rule protects all American children—except children of Native American ancestry, like Laurynn. Although she had never lived on a reservation, because of Laurynn’s ancestry, she was made subject to the Indian tribe’s jurisdiction, which determined it was better to “reunify” her with a grandfather with whom she had never lived instead of the non-Indian foster family who had raised her from infancy and wanted to adopt her.” (Bolick 2015).

Who are the children

Patrice Kunesh, in a report published in the South Dakota Law Review, noted there was “a steady and substantial increase in the American Indian population in the past century, from a low of 250,000 in 1900 to 524,000 in 1960, to 1.96 million in 1990, and over 4 million in the year 2000. (Kunesh 2007, 7) The largest tribal government in the year 2000 was the Cherokee Nation with 729,533 members, and the Cree Nation was the smallest, with 7,734 members. The States with the heaviest AI/AN populations are Alaska, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, North & South Dakota, and Montana” (Indian Country Child Trauma Center 2005).

A reading of varied Indian Country sources of statistics can be confusing and at times contradictory. According to the Northwest Frontier Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network, the 2000 Census indicated “American Indians make up one to two percent of the United States population, with greater than 500 American Indian tribes and 250 Alaska Native villages.” (NW Frontier ATTC 2003). The Indian Country Child Trauma Center, also citing the 2000 census, related that “38% of the AI/AN population is under the age of 18; 9% of the population is under the age of 5,” “4.1 million U.S. residents identified as American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) alone or in combination with one or more races,” and “2.5 million who reported as American Indian or Alaska Native alone represented 0.9% of the population” (Indian Country Child Trauma Center 2005). These last statistics reflect the high percentage of multi-racial families – and therefore the high percentage of non-tribal extended family.

The Center for Native American Youth correctly reported 566 federally-recognized tribes located in 35 states in 2014, but appears to have erroneously claimed the 2000 census put 47 percent of AI/ANs on reservations or other US Census-defined tribal areas” (Center for Native American Youth 2011). Most sources agree statistics show over 75% of Native Americans live outside of Indian Country, with many families having left the reservation system a generation or more ago. In fact, the CNAY has quoted the 2011 estimate by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Minority Health (OMH) that only “22% of AI/ANs lived on reservations or other US Census-defined tribal areas” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). CNAY also mishandled numbers when referring to AI/AN’s below the age of 18, stating, “The ‘media’ [sic] age of this group is 29.7 years” (Center for Native American Youth 2011).

However, CNAY did clarify a point other sources omit: “According to the 2010 Census, there are approximately 5.2 million self-identified American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) living in the US, of whom 2 million qualify for federal services” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). This statement indicates that while many tribal entities use the larger, ‘self-identified’ census number when wanting Indian Country to appear as large as possible, the enrolled, federally recognized AI/AN population is not 5.2 million, but only “an estimated 2 million” – those being the ones eligible for federal services. The balance may self-identify as Native American, but are not enrolled in a federally recognized reservation. This could be for any number of reasons, including that they have heritage, but do not meet the qualifications for enrollment; that they have heritage, but consciously choose not to enroll; or they have no actual heritage, but have been told they do, believe they do, or wish they did.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs confirms the smaller numbers with a set of consistent but older statistic: “According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the estimated population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, as of July 1, 2007, was 4.5 million, or 1.5 per cent of the total U.S. population. In the BIA’s 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, the latest available, the total number of enrolled members of the (then) 561 federally recognized tribes was shown to be less than half the Census number, or 1,978,099. (BIA 2016)

Still, most tribal entities currently quote the larger number (now 5.2 million) when discussing the size of the tribal population nationwide, and use comparable numbers when discussing the number of children under the authority of the ICWA: “Currently, 5.2 million American Indians and Alaskan Natives reside within the United States a number constituting 2% of the American population (US Census Bureau, 2011). (Hyland 2014, 4) The CNAY, although having confirmed there are only about 2 million enrolled tribal members in all the nation, goes on to claim “There are currently over 2.1 million American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) under the age of 24 living in the United States” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). The ICWA only pertains to children eligible for enrollment.

Poverty as source of child trauma

There are over 2 million children and young adults in the United States who have been identified by others as having AI/AN heritage, but most have never experienced reservation life. Tribal organizations appear confused as to whether that is good or bad in relation to poverty. When explaining the catalyst for social problems on the reservation, poverty is almost always cited. According to the NCAI Policy Research Center, “The poverty rate among AI/ANs in 2010 was 28% (OMH), and 32.4% of the population under-18 lives in poverty” (Center for Native American Youth 2014), and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates for AI/ANs in 2011 were at 14.6% “…Some tribal communities report persistent rates of unemployment above 80%” (Center for Native American Youth 2014).

The organization ‘National Relief Charities’ explains that major health issues among the population are due to poverty, reporting “Life expectancy for American Indians has improved yet still trails that of other Americans by a few years. American Indians have a diabetes epidemic — the highest in the U.S. The tuberculosis rate for American Indians is 7 times higher. Cancer-related disparities for American Indians are higher than for any minority group in the U.S., mainly due to poverty and lack of access.”9 (NRC 2009). Even the office of the United States President has weighed in on the effects of poverty in Indian Country, stating, “…Native children and youth grapple with a number of extraordinary challenges that stem from severe poverty. Schools that serve them are often not equipped to address these complex needs—mental health, nutrition, wellness, substance abuse, family life issues, exposure to bullying and violence, housing shortages, and other critical needs. (Executive Office of the President 2014, 20)

The Department of Justice agreed, reporting, “Today, a vast majority of American Indian and Alaska Native children live in communities with alarmingly high rates of poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and victimization,” an advisory committee created by former Attorney General Eric Holder to study violence against AI/AN children said in its November 2014 final report” and “’Domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse are widespread,’ the co-chairs of the committee said in the report’s cover letter. ‘Continual exposure to violence has a devastating impact on child development and can have a lasting impact on basic cognitive, emotional, and neurological functions. We cannot stand by and watch these children—who are the future of American Indian and Alaska Native communities—destroyed by relentless violence and trauma’” (Flatten 2015).

That same year, another organization reported, “One-quarter of Indian children live in poverty…” (Horwitz 2014) This is much less than the Center for Native American Youth had reported. Further, one could see that percentage as a glass ¾ full – in that the majority of children of heritage do not live in poverty, and could reflect the reality that most children who are counted in that 2.1 million do not live in Indian Country – where the federal government has confirmed extreme poverty is affecting a possible 640,000 reservation children.

But inexplicably, despite the serious, grim reports by the office of President Obama, DOJ, and others concerning the appalling effects of poverty on these children, when tribal leaders and their supporters are defending ICWA and the quality of life in Indian Country, poverty becomes a non-issue. David Simmons, the government affairs director for the National Indian Child Welfare Association, said “it is unfair to use white, middle-class standards to judge Indian parents. Poverty and crime are rampant in many areas on and off Indian land, but that does not mean individual families in those areas would not make good parents” (Flatten 2015).

Documented levels of violence

He is absolutely correct. Poverty does not equate bad parenting, nor does it cause all the social ails it is accused of. Money is not the sole measure of productivity or success, nor is it essential to happiness. Many low-income families thrive, leading loving, productive and content lives. The more likely source of despair within Indian Country is not poverty, but crime, alcoholism, and the sexual abuse and violence faced by many children in Indian Country.

Reports dating back years cite the high rate of violence against children in Indian Country. According to a 1999 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, “AI/AN children make up 2.5% of all confirmed maltreatment cases nationally (highest incidence ratio of any racial group on available data nationwide- DHHS, 1999). NICWA admitted the high number of deaths, stating, “Neglect endangers AI/AN children 4 times more often than physical abuse and results in numerous child fatalities (NICWA, 1999), and the Department of Justice said, “There is one substantiated report of child victim of abuse or neglect for every 30 AI/AN children age 14 or younger” (Department of Justice, 1999).

The Center for Disease Control stated in 2004, “AI/AN women report more domestic violence than men or women from any other race” and “One study found AI/AN women were twice as likely to be abused (physically or sexually) by a partner than the average woman” (CDC 2004) (University of Oklahoma 2013, 16). This statistic for women has relevance for children, when at the ‘First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force on American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence,’ it was admitted that studies show “…batterers are more than four times more likely than other men to sexually abuse their children or step-children” (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 3). According to Lonna Hunter, Project Coordinator for the Council on Crime and Justice, “Co-occurrence is looking at the issue of maltreatment, but it’s also connecting this to the rate of child sexual abuse. The rate of child sexual abuse by a batterer is four to six times higher than a non-batterer. So, those dynamics of child sexual abuse occur largely when there is domestic violence present in those families.

When we look at the high rate of child sexual abuse in Indian Country and violence against Native women, it suggests that the rates could be even higher when considering the correlation to under reporting” and “This is echoed in the testimony by Elsie Boudreau, a Yup’ik survivor and child advocate from Alaska. Boudreau says that in 2010, 40 percent of children seen at Child Advocacy Centers for child sexual abuse were Alaska Native, even though we only represent 15 percent of the entire population in the state of Alaska. That is just strictly unacceptable” (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 27-28)

Ms. Hunter also said, “I traveled to Rosebud with the Tribal Law and Policy Institute to look at the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment to do a site visit there and what I understood from interviewing child welfare workers, domestic violence advocates, survivors, and law enforcement, was that every child had witnessed violence or it was believed that every child had witnessed violence on the Rosebud Reservation” and “There were 25,000 calls to law enforcement in one year and there were 25,000 folks who live in Rosebud, and at least two children a day were victims of crime. That is astronomical. That is off of the charts compared to the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence in the mainstream” (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 26).

Darla Thiele, Director of a diversionary project within the Spirit Lake Juvenile Court System, stated, “We have many youth on our reservation who have stories to tell. We have young ladies who on weekends are at home taking turns with their siblings holding the door shut while the party is going on in the living room. And they take turns holding the door shut to make nobody comes in to bother any of the siblings. (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 55)

Thomas Sullivan, former Regional Administrator of the Administration of Children and Families in Denver, stated in his 12th Mandated Report concerning the Spirit Lake Reservation to the ACF office in DC, February 2013, “In these 8 months I have filed detailed reports concerning all of the following:

• The almost 40 children returned to on-reservation placements in abusive homes, many headed by known sex offenders, at the direction of the Tribal Chair. These children remain in the full time care and custody of sexual predators available to be raped on a daily basis. Since I filed my first report noting this situation, nothing has been done by any of you to remove these children to safe placements.
• The 45 children who were placed, at the direction of Tribal Social Services (TSS), BIA social workers, BIA supervised TSS social workers and the BIA funded Tribal Court, in homes where parents were addicted to drugs and/or where they had been credibly accused of abuse or neglect. Since I filed my first report noting these placements, nothing has been done to remove these children to safe placements. I trust the Tribal Court, with the recent resignation of a judge who failed a drug test, will begin to be responsive to the children whose placements they oversee.
• The 25 cases of children most of whom were removed from physically and sexually abusive homes based on confirmed reports of abuse as well as some who still remain in those homes. Neither the BIA nor the FBI have taken any action to investigate or charge the adults in these homes for their criminally abusive acts. Many, of the adults in these homes are related to, or are close associates of, the Tribal Chair or other Council members.

“Since I filed my first report detailing these failures to investigate, charge, indict, prosecute those adults, my sources and I have observed nothing to suggest this has changed. Those adults remain protected by the law enforcement which by its inaction is encouraging the predators to keep on hunting for and raping children at Spirit Lake. (Sullivan 2013)

Despite Mr. Sullivan having been fired by his DC superiors in May, 2016, for continuing to report the abuse, there doesn’t appear to be any disagreement among reporters that abuse is rampant. “Indian children suffer the second-highest rate of abuse or neglect of any ethnic group, behind African Americans, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” and “Indians also have the second-highest rate of homicide deaths and infant mortality, behind African Americans” (Flatten 2015).

In 2014, the CNAY reported, “Violence, including intentional injuries, homicide and suicide, account for 75% of deaths for AI/AN youth age 12 to 20” (SAMHSA). (Center for Native American Youth 2014). “Types of crimes that Native Americans are likely to be victimized by include: murder, assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and gang violence” (Tighe, 2014).(Hyland 2014, 4). “Adolescent AI/ANs have death rates 2 to 5 times the rate of whites in the same age group (SAMHSA), resulting from higher levels of suicide and a variety of risky behaviors” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). “Recent research shows that while the US child mortality rate for children ages 1 to 14 has decreased by 9% since 2000, it has increased by 15% among AI/AN children (National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association)” and “Alcoholism mortality rates are 514% higher than the general population” (Center for Native American Youth 2014).

NICWA appears somewhat confused in its rendering of the deaths of the children. While on the one hand reporting in 2014 that “Available data collected by state child welfare systems shows that AI/AN child fatalities occur at the same rate as the national average, with 2.2 AI/AN child fatalities reported per 100,000 AI/AN children in the population (Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2013)” (NICWA 2015). NICWA also stated that same year that “unique to AI/AN families are incredibly high rates of deaths by accidental injury. These types of deaths, which include car and pedestrian accidents, firearm accidents, drowning, fires, and suicide/homicide, account for 75% of all deaths of AI/AN children (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2003, p.1). Combined, the rate of death due to injury for AI/AN children is twice the national rate at 48.4 versus 24.0 per 100,000 (CDC, 2003, p. 2). Compared to Caucasian and African American/Black children, AI/AN children have the highest injury-death rates for motor vehicle crashes and pedestrian events as well as suicides (CDC, 2003, p. 3)” (NICWA 2015). While they were using two different sources – which were ten years apart – for their data, they reported on all of it in the same year: 2015.

Having said all that, NICWA then discredits its own statement that most fatalities are due to accident rather than abuse or neglect, by saying “These figures must be considered alongside the data describing child fatalities and incidence of child maltreatment in AI/AN families. This data is in line with data showing that AI/AN families are more likely to have child welfare involvement due to neglect and suggests a unique risk factor specific to AI/AN child fatalities. Given the multitude of potential responders, differences in how entities may determine child fatalities, and limited framework in Indian Country for investigating child fatalities, questions arise as to whether some of these accidents may be related to child neglect as opposed to tragic accidents. It is with these realities in mind that solutions to identify, respond to, and prevent child abuse and neglect fatalities in AI/AN families and communities must be crafted. (NICWA 2015, 5)

Further, NICWA then asserts the statistics are likely underreported, saying, “According to this data, 11 AI/AN children died in 2012 due to child abuse and neglect (DHHS, 2013). This data reflects only those child fatalities that have been reported to state authorities. However, because incidents of child maltreatment that occur under a tribe’s exclusive jurisdiction and where tribal services are provided are not necessarily reported to the state and included in national data systems, this number is likely a slight underestimate (Earl, 2001, p. 8)” (NICWA 2015).

Lastly, some of NICWA’s testimony appears simply confused: “National statistics show that of the U.S. children who die due to maltreatment, 69.9% suffered from neglect and 44.3% suffered from physical abuse, either exclusively or in combination with another maltreatment type (DHHS, 2013). Thus, a much higher proportion of children who die due to child abuse and neglect have been subjected to physical abuse than children involved in the child welfare system generally (44.3% versus 18.3%). This data suggests that AI/AN children involved in the child welfare system who face higher rates of neglect than physical abuse may be at slightly less risk of death than their counterparts. (NICWA 2015)

Other reporters can be just as confusing. Lonna Hunter, Project Coordinator for the Council on Crime and Justice, stated in hearing testimony, “The co-occurrence between domestic violence and child maltreatment…occurs between 50 and 70 percent. So 50 percent to 70 percent of children who are in homes where they’re witnessing domestic violence, that is the rate of child maltreatment that they are experiencing” and “…we do not know those very specific statistics for Indian Country. The rate of violence against Indian and Alaska Native women by an intimate partner is upwards to 30 to 40 percent. And so, considering the rate of violence against American Indian/Alaska Native women, the high co-occurrence rate suggests that it’s critical that we study or at least look at the research on this issue in Indian Country” (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 25).

Nevertheless Ms. Hunter again confirms the lack of reliable data as well as the issue of underreporting: “Data from the Wind River Reservation estimates that at least 66 percent of families have history of domestic violence and at least 20 percent have been sexually abused and those are low numbers. We have to remember that under reporting is largely in the population of Alaska Natives/American Indian families because there is just basically no research.” Ms. Hunter stated more, “The issue of co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment has been studied in mainstream since the late probably ’80s into the early ’90s; however, in Indian Country, we are only beginning to realize the magnitude of this issue. I would have liked to present the statistics on the studies of the co-occurrence in Indian Country for children witnessing domestic violence; however, there is little to no research on this issue.”

Studies indicate that witnessing violence may be as harmful as suffering physical abuse oneself.
Despite these undisputed statistics, tribal leaders and their apologists argue Indian Country is the best and only place of healing and health for children of heritage, even arguing children who leave Indian Country are afflicted with a syndrome called “split-feather,” which could place them “at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust 1998).

How do physically and sexually abused children respond when told their life of trauma is not only best for them, but that there are no alternatives?

Documented levels of suicide

“Subjects with a history of any type of maltreatment were 3 x more likely to become depressed or suicidal than those with normal treatment history” (University of Oklahoma 2013, 15). “According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 16 percent of students at Bureau of Indian Affairs schools in 2001 reported having attempted suicide in the preceding 12 months” (Center for Native American Youth 2011). “Young Native Americans taking their own lives — more than three times the national average, and up to 10 times the average on some reservations” (Horwitz 2014). The chorus concerning the epidemic of suicides goes continues: “Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death – 2.5 times the national rate – for AI/AN youth in the 15 to 24 age group (SAMHSA). In the US, between 1 in 9 and 1 in 5 AI/AN youth report attempting suicide each year (Suicide Prevention Resource Center)” (Center for Native American Youth 2014). “Indians have the highest child suicide rate in the nation, according to the CDC. The suicide rate for Indians 15-34 years old is 2.5 times higher than the national average. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for that age group” (Flatten 2015)

The office of the President reiterated the same information: “Suicide is the second leading cause of death—2.5 times the national rate—for Native youth in the 15 to 24 year old age group” (Executive Office of the President 2014, 5), while NICWA, that same year, shared a different rate, “Native teens experience the highest rates of suicide of any population in the U.S.—at least 3.5 times higher than the national average.11 (NICWA, SAMHSA 2014)

Some areas have declared states of emergency. “Suicide among Native American youth is 9 to 19 times as frequent as among other youths, and rising. From Arizona to Alaska, tribes are declaring states of emergency and setting up crisis-intervention teams” (Woodward 2012). Two examples this year; “The Yurok Tribe has declared a state of emergency after seven young tribal members took their own lives over an 18-month span” (Greenson 2016). “Since September, 101 people in the Attawapiskat First Nation, a remote aboriginal community with about 2,000 residents, have attempted suicide” (Austen 2016).

“It feels like wartime,” said Diane Garreau, a child-welfare official on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, in South Dakota. “I’ll see one of our youngsters one day, then find out a couple of days later she’s gone. Our children are self-destructing.” So dire is the alarm that of 23 grants the U.S. federal government awarded nationally to prevent youth suicides in September, 10 went to Native American tribes or organizations, with most of them receiving nearly $500,000 per year for three years” … “Our kids hurt so much, they have to shut down the pain,” said Garreau, who is Lakota. “Many have decided they won’t live that long anyway, which in their minds excuses self-destructive behavior, like drinking—or suicide” (Woodward 2012).

“…After a cluster of suicides in 2001, the White Mountain Apache Tribe wanted to develop a prevention program. It mandated reporting of all suicides and attempts on their Arizona reservation, discovering that between 2001 and 2006, their youth ended their lives at 13 times the national rate.” …” Because suicide is so common in some Native communities, it’s become an acceptable solution for times when burdens build up, said Alex Crosby, medical epidemiologist with the CDC’s injury-prevention center:” “…In some communities, suicide has become so ordinary that boys in particular may dare each other to try it, said Ira Vandever, a Ramah Navajo chef in western New Mexico. (Woodward 2012)

Further, “Children from violent homes learn it’s ok to hurt the ones you care about: whoever has the most power gets to win and that abuse and violence are acceptable techniques for use in conflict resolution. The effects of being raised in these settings may be visible right away or may lay dormant and resurface later in life manifesting itself as depression, eating disorders, inability to develop close-trusting relationships, addictive behaviors and controlling and/or violent behavior. Many children, adolescents and young adults who were witness to or subjected to abuse in their homes attempted suicide. (Hallie Bongar White 2014)

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, it has been said, “In Indian Country children are considered sacred beings—gifts from the Creator and carriers of the tribe’s future” (NICWA 2015, 2)

Documented levels of denial

While abuse and neglect are the most likely cause of the engulfing despair, most reporters of the abuse blame ‘historical trauma’ and the federal and state government for what is happening to the children. NICWA maintains there are at least four “distinct forms of trauma” that have been identified in Indian Country, “which can be experienced in a single event, as a prolonged experience, through interpersonal violence, from a historical event, or via a personal event that occurs over time through several generations” (NICWA, SAMHSA 2014).

• Cultural Trauma
• Historical Trauma
• Intergenerational Trauma
• Current Trauma

According to the CNAY, “As a result of historical trauma, chronically underfunded federal programs, and broken promises on the part of the US government, American Indians and Alaska Natives experience many health, educational and economic disparities compared to the general population. (Center for Native American Youth 2011) (2014).

“We need vital resources that allow us to be at the forefront, special demonstration funding that addresses the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment,” said Ms. Hunter. Requests for money are repeated in most if not all hearing testimony, along with the references to historical trauma. (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 35). Lonna Hunter stated in testimony to the Justice Department, “The issues of domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and child maltreatment must be addressed through understanding of the complexity of historical and intergenerational trauma” and “This is about a political relationship to the United States government. And when we see these astronomical numbers, we understand the full extent of the historical trauma and realize the full frontal crisis we find ourselves in Indian Country with our women and children. It is imperative to understand the context of historical colonization, battering, dominance, and oppression in our villages, communities, and tribal nations in Indian Country. It is imperative because it removes the lens of “victim blaming (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 30)

The media parrots this line of reason as well, “Native youngsters are particularly affected by community-wide grief stemming from the loss of land, language and more, researchers reported in 2011. As many as 20 percent of adolescents said they thought daily about certain sorrows—even more frequently than adults in some cases… (Woodward 2012)

However, according to the Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center at the University of Oklahoma, “Factors that Affect Children’s Responses to Violence” include a child’s immediacy to the violence; age of child at time of exposure; availability of adults to emotionally protect the child; the child’s disposition; and the severity and continual nature of the violence” (University of Oklahoma 2013, 17). Historical trauma isn’t included in the list.

The reality, of course, is that all people groups throughout history have experienced severe trauma. Some have passed that trauma on to the next generation, others have not. Nevertheless, the premise of inevitability that all persons of Native American heritage suffer from historical, cultural and intergenerational trauma has been disproved by the much higher percentage of persons of Native American heritage who are not experiencing violence, addiction, health, educational or economic issues. Many of those who appear not to have not been experiencing trauma – (but not all) – live outside of Indian Country and have never been connected to the reservation system.

Documented levels of Alcoholism

The more likely reasons for the high incidence of violence, child sexual abuse, and child maltreatment within Indian Country revolves around the high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse found on many reservations, which has been well documented in numerous studies over the years. A 1999 survey conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (NCASA), found “76% of social welfare professionals cited substance abuse as one of the top three causes for the rise of child abuse and neglect since 1986” (Roe Bubar 2007, 13 (9)). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found “…meth-addicted parents (fathers more frequently than mothers) are more likely to abuse their children when using the drug, while neglecting them as the high wears off (Hogan, Myers & Elswick, 2006; [HHS], 2003). As noted by NCASA (1999), “the powerful lure of this addiction competes with parents’ bonds to their children, and can diminish their ability to meet the demands of child welfare officials and to regain their children despite an abiding love for them” (Roe Bubar 2007, 17).

In 2003 it was noted, “Mortality rate associated with alcoholism is nearly four times that of other races. Alcohol contributes to four of the top 10 leading causes of death for American Indians and Alaska Natives, including accidents, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, suicides, and homicides. The majority of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents, are alcohol related” (NW Frontier ATTC 2003).

In 2004, “tribal service providers and law enforcement agencies began reporting that parents were selling their furniture, personal belongings, family heirlooms and regalia, cars, homes, and in some instances prostituting their children in order to obtain cash to continue their addiction to methamphetamines (meth). Criminal Justice Act grantees also were reporting dramatic increases in interpersonal violence, crime, and death, in which meth was a contributing factor (D. Payne, personal communication, April 10, 2006). However, Indian country lacks both a macro and micro study of child abuse and meth use. Furthermore, a systematic examination into the impact of the meth crisis on emergency services, social services, law enforcement, and schools has not taken place on a tribal basis, much less on a pan-tribal level. (Roe Bubar 2007, 7) Note: this list of methods to raise money for drugs included prostituting one’s own children, and again mentions the lack of solid data.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimated in 2005 that “methamphetamine use had grown to 1.7 percent in the Native population” (McSwain, 2006). “According to Trends in Indian Health, produced by the Indian Health Service in 2000-2001, American Indian and Alaska Native populations have seen a 164% increase in the number of drug-related deaths from 3.9% in 1979-1981 to 10.3% 1998. The North Dakota Drug Threat Assessment of 2002 concluded that meth use and distribution was a problem in all reservations within the state, including Turtle Mountain, Standing Rock Nation, Fort Berthold, Spirit Lake Nation, and Lake Traverse (U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center [NDIC], 2002). “It is believed that most of these reservations have been targeted by Mexican drug traffickers who bring the drugs in wholesale from California or Mexico and then use Native distributors for both on and off reservation trafficking (NDIC, 2002)” (Roe Bubar 2007).

“According to newspaper accounts…U.S. and tribal law enforcement agencies have witnessed a large increase in violent crimes stemming from meth use. Furthermore, there have been reports of tribal elders and family members being involved with meth distribution. … According to media reports coming out of the Wind River reservation in Wyoming, the tribal community had been targeted by Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to create a market for meth that dwarfs the demand for alcohol and marijuana. As a result, …social services agencies have seen a large increase in child neglect cases. The addition of meth-exposed children to an already strained network of social services in tribal communities almost guarantees additional complications in educational, social, and medical services on the reservation. Requests through the Indian Health Service (IHS) for drug rehabilitation services for meth addicts increased from 137 in 1997 to 4,946 in 2004. … (Doney, 2006; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [USCCR], 2003). (Roe Bubar 2007, 15-17)

“Professionals working in these tribal communities report increases in the incidence of child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and sexual assault as a result of meth. They also expressed an awareness of increases in child abuse allegations and out-of-home placements that involved a meth-related investigation. Furthermore, these professionals believe that meth involvement increases the difficulty of family reunification. In addition, there are serious concerns regarding the impact of methamphetamines on children, including attempted or completed suicides, meth-impacted births, and exposure to chemicals within the home environment. Many of the perceptions provided by tribal professionals in this survey are supported by recent data gathered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Justice Services from 96 Indian country law enforcement agencies that suggests meth is the greatest threat in their communities. These law enforcement agencies also identified increases in domestic violence, assaults, burglaries, and child abuse and neglect cases with the increased use of meth” (Roe Bubar 2007, 10).

The children are also mimicking their parents. In an early study, “Wallace and Bachman (1991) found that almost half of Native American youth under the age of 17 drank alcohol or smoked marijuana, with a higher substance abuse rate for boys than for girls” (Roe Bubar 2007). “16% of AI/AN youth ages 12 and older report substance dependence or abuse” (NICWA, SAMHSA 2014).

“Native youth also face substance abuse problems and some have co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. In 2013, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of substance dependence or abuse was higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives than any other population group. That same year, an estimated 38.7 percent of Native adolescents aged 12 to 17 years had a lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use. Compared with the national average for adolescents aged 12 to 17, Native adolescents had the highest rates of lifetime tobacco product use, marijuana use, nonmedical use of pain relievers, and nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutics. From 2003-2011, American Indian/Alaska Native were more likely to need alcohol or illicit drug use treatment than persons of other groups by age, gender, poverty level, and rural/urban residence. In 2012, almost 69 percent of Native youth ages 15 to 24 who were admitted to a substance abuse treatment facility reported alcohol as a substance of abuse compared to 45 percent for non-AI/AN admissions. Among other issues, underage drinking increases the risk of suicide and homicide, physical and sexual assault, using and misusing other drugs, and is a risk factor for heavy drinking later in life. (Executive Office of the President 2014, 25-26)

Further, “Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders among AI/AN population indicate some of the highest rates” (University of Oklahoma 2013, 14). It has been suggested that the biggest ‘elephant in the room’ in reference to Indian Country is the reality that a high percentage of those remaining on the reservation suffer from alcohol related birth defects, which has resulted in progressive generations of fetal alcohol adults raising fetal alcohol children.

Documented levels of mental and physiological health issues

Others have pointed to the long-term effects of repeated exposure to violence. “… No matter what you do, if that child can’t be at that basic level feeling safe, feeling secure, being fed, that kind of a thing, how are they going to be at a higher level? (Honolulu, Hawaii) (NIEA 2006, 22-23)

“Trauma at a young age often leads to higher rates of behavioral health disorders in adolescence. [While] research shows there is little comprehensive data on rates of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder for AI/AN youth… a study of Native American sixth graders from one reservation found that 75% had clinically significant levels of PTSD” and “Researchers have reported a 14% prevalence rate of Major Depressive Disorder among AI/AN adolescents” (NICWA, SAMHSA 2014). “Indian children experience post-traumatic stress disorder at the same rate as veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and triple the rate of the general population” (Flatten 2015).

“I would venture to say over 80 percent of our children are traumatized at an early age; and so, therefore, their ability to learn and comprehend is affected very severely. How do we link that? How do we link the early childhood trauma? Where is the research and where do we find the research dollars to make that link; and, in that, what are the methods that can help our children transcend that and move into a place where they can get beyond that and they’re able to learn? (Green Bay, WI) (NIEA 2006, 23)

Additional funds to prove the connection between the trauma children experience on many reservations and their subsequent inability to learn are not necessary. A multitude of studies have already proven the links. It is time now to act. “This whole No Child Left Behind or other education endeavors deals with academics and learning; but, as long as we don’t address the other issue of hurt children and hurt children cannot learn — we all know that, don’t we? Hurt children cannot comprehend. We know that. And, most importantly, children in unhealthy homes, it affects their attendance and it does contribute to their dropout. Early childhood trauma is also the precursor to long-term alcohol and substance abuse. The research is connecting all that up. (Green Bay, WI) (NIEA 2006, 23)

Indian children respond to the impact of violence exactly as children from every heritage do. According to the HIS center at the University of Oklahoma, “The brains of traumatized children develop as if the entire world is chaotic, unpredictable, violent, frightening, and devoid of nurturance…Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D” (University of Oklahoma 2013, 23).
As a society, we need to stop being afraid and do what needs to be done to factually help affected children and stop the cycle.

“The combination of repeated childhood trauma and the absence of parental nurture, support and protection can result in the development of multiple psychiatric and neuropsychiatric disorders. … four categories of symptoms:

(1) trauma-related neurological symptoms,
(2) trauma-related psychological symptoms,
(3) developmental difficulties brought on by poor parenting, and
(4) other associated difficulties.

“Each of these categories or clusters of symptoms cause children considerable emotional distress and impair their ability to function, and the distress and dysfunction are even more severe when they are combined. Although these four sets of difficulties are hard to “cure,” appropriate mental health treatment can act as a buffer against them and their effects, especially when such treatment is initiated during childhood (Cicchetti and Toth, 1995; Toth and Cicchetti, 1993). In the absence of treatment, however, trauma-related difficulties and their effects tend to persist into adolescence and adulthood and become difficult to reverse (Perry et al., 1995; Schore, 2001). (Richard G. Dudley 2015, 4-5)

“Studies have shown that, when children are repeatedly exposed to trauma, the amygdala — the area of the brain known to activate the physiological stress response — overdevelops. This overdevelopment increases the fear and anxiety these children experience and causes them to be hyperresponsive to frightening situations in both their physiology and their observable behavior (Pollak, 2008; Shin, Rauch and Pitman, 2006). At the same time, the development of the hippocampus — the area of the brain known to turn off the stress response — is inhibited, decreasing its capacity to control the response (Bremner et al., 2003) … Trauma-related neurological and psychological difficulties interact so as to exacerbate each other” (Richard G. Dudley 2015, 5-6).

“…it is estimated that 35 percent of children exposed to domestic violence will develop trauma-related difficulties (Moretti et al., 2006). …Similarly, it is estimated that between 42 percent and 90 percent of child victims of sexual abuse will develop trauma-related difficulties (De Bellis, Spratt and Hooper, 2011). …statistics related to both these issues are thought to be underestimates (Leventhal, 1998; Wilt and Olson, 1996). It is therefore likely that the actual prevalence of PTSD stemming from both childhood sexual abuse and exposure to domestic violence is greater than stated above. More difficult to estimate is the number of children repeatedly exposed to or even directly threatened by various forms of neighborhood violence” (Richard G. Dudley 2015, 9).

Some believe these issues result “in our kids not knowing who they are and emulating other races by trying to be people that they are not. And they’re doing this because they lack a basic knowledge of who they are and where they come from. And we, as Dacotah people, we are spiritual people. We have a belief in Wakan Tanka, and we know that prayer is a daily part of life” (Hallie Bongar White 2014, 56).

Application of the Indian Child Welfare Act

All of these statistics have been known, thoroughly documented and reported by supporters of the Indian Child Welfare Act for many years. Yet, while admitting there aren’t enough safe, healthy foster homes on all reservations, many of these same reporters vehemently oppose the use of foster homes outside of Indian Country. “About 2 percent of US children are American Indian/Alaska Native, but AI/ANs represent 8.4 percent of the children in foster care. (NICWA, & Kids Are Waiting, 2007)” (Center for Native American Youth 2011). “The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) reports that AI/AN children are overrepresented in foster care – at more than 2.1 times the general population – and 2 to 4 times the expected level are awaiting adoption” (Center for Native American Youth 2014).

Further, “[n]on-binding guidelines published by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs in February, 2015, stated that courts should not consider the best interests of the child in determining foster care or adoptive placements. Placement in an Indian home is presumed to be in the child’s best interests” (Flatten 2015). In June 2016, the federal government took it a step further and published the guidelines in the federal register as now mandated rules for all courts. Every child in the nation who presents to a court in need of care now must be vetted for tribal heritage, and if heritage is found, the relevant tribal government must be notified and given the option to intervene and take over jurisdiction of the child. These new rules have been written to prevent children and families from ducking the ICWA and avoiding tribal jurisdiction. “The law forbids judges from blocking placement in an Indian home based on poverty, substance abuse, or “nonconforming social behavior” in a particularly Indian community or family, according to the BIA guidelines. That can force children with even a slight Indian heritage into environments where poverty, crime, abuse, and suicides are rampant” (Flatten 2015).

One organization even called it a “positive’ event when children are unable to find a permanent, loving home, with stable adults they can call ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad.’ From the ICCTC: “AI/AN children currently appear less likely to be adopted compared to White children. This positive finding, reported by CWLA (1999), may be due to the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)” (Indian Country Child Trauma Center 2005).

“The ICWA was enacted to stem the outflow of Indian children from their tribal communities and to statutorily recognize tribal authority over child placement decisions. The Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child’s best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected.” The ICWA Commission’s hearings, which were held on the reservations throughout the State and in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, were ‘the most in-depth assessment of ICWA compliance ever undertaken in South Dakota.’ Testimony from all of the Indian communities reported a high rate of removal of Indian children from their families on the reservations. The primary reasons for the removal of Indian children were two-fold: a high rate of alcohol and drug abuse and …abuse and neglect. In either situation, the predominant reason for the removal was children being at risk of abuse and neglect and could not be maintained safely in their homes. Removing a child from his or her home requires placement in foster care or a temporary custody arrangement with a member of the family. However, as the study revealed, when placement with extended family is not an option, neither the State nor the tribes have a sufficient number of qualified foster homes available to place Indian children in what often becomes a long-term custody arrangement”(Kunesh 2007, 28).

Many tribal entities also claim only tribal governments and tribal organizations can help children who have any amount of tribal heritage. Says a representative of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, “To prevent child abuse and neglect in Indian Country and the senseless deaths that it sometimes produces, the Commission must turn to those who have the most knowledge of the needs of these children: national Indian child welfare experts, tribes, and AI/AN practitioners. These experts can best help the Commission understand challenges to AI/AN children’s safety and work with the Commission to formulate solutions that support healthy, safe children and families. (NICWA 2015, 2)

The argument is further buffered in most if not all hearings and testimony by the mention of treaties and land, although no treaty gives any tribal government the right of jurisdiction over the children of non-Indian families who are not connected to the reservation system, let alone parents and tribal members who have deliberately taken their families and left Indian Country.

“AI/AN nations have always had systems of government that addressed internal conflict and provided for the needs of their families. Historically, these systems were informal, unwritten, and based upon a holistic philosophy which sought to encourage a balanced way of life. These governing systems are acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution, hundreds of treaties, and some of the earliest Supreme Court cases. Over the course of time, a fundamental contract between AI/AN nations and the federal government has been created. AI/AN nations ceded millions of acres of land and enabled the U.S. to expand its territory, and in return, AI/AN nations were given a guarantee that their continued existence and inherent right to self-government will be protected. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of our history, this relationship was not honored by the federal government, which actively worked to extinguish tribal self-governance and in some cases tribal people” (NICWA 2015, 2)

“Sandy White Hawk, a woman of Sioux heritage who was adopted by a non-tribal family in the 1950s, voiced a commonly accepted belief when she said, “We know that the children who grow up outside of their culture suffer greatly… Non-native homes cannot give an adopted Indian child their culture” (Kaplan 2015).

The term ‘Split-feather syndrome’ came into parlance in the late 90’s with a pilot study under the direction of Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. According to Locust, “The pilot study conducted by this investigator indicated that every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust 1998).

Locust is said to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects in these children’s lives.” The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “split feather syndrome” during Locust’s 1998 study (DHS 2005).

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” Only twenty Native American adoptees – total – were interviewed. Further, according to Cleaveland, “Locust asserts that out of culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects. (Cleaveland 2015) Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015).

Conclusion

The data is clear and agreed upon by reporters across the board. Emotional and physical dangers for children are much greater within Indian Country than they are without.

Some of the reports given by tribal entities and organizations have phrased the data to make it appear that these dangers are implicated on the basis of heritage. But many more children of Indian heritage live outside of Indian Country than live within, and many of these children and their families, while they may report elements of their heritage to the U.S. census, are not eligible for federal Indian benefits, do not participate or have any connection with Indian Country, and are not countable in the statistics gathered by Indian Health Services or other reporters of tribal health and welfare statistics. They do not use Indian Health Services or programs offered by tribal governments, are not available to be counted, and cannot be included in many of the studies concerning youth of Indian heritage.

The dangers being reported pertain much more to children within Indian Country, under the auspices of tribal governments, the federal Administration of Children and Families, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other federal ‘help’ agencies, than they do to children in the mainstream who are unconnected to Indian Country.

The documentation of children being physically abused, sexually abused, and even dying at an extremely high rate within Indian Country is solid and has been so for at least two decades. Despite many hearings, reports and billions of dollars, the situation appears to have only been getting worse. The theoretical implication of this data, which has been reported as true by tribal government entities and their supporters, is that children who are taken from homes known and proven to be safe, stable, and emotionally and physically healthy outside of Indian Country, and placed into a home within Indian Country, are more likely to be placed into situations less safe, stable, and emotionally and physically healthy than the home they have been taken from.

Further, these theoretical implications should be obvious to tribal and federal governments as well as organizations servicing Indian Country, as they are the ones reporting the data.
Therefore, children who fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian Child Welfare Act – meaning children who a tribal government has deemed to be members and who have been brought before a judge for a custody hearing, regardless if they and their families have been connected to Indian Country – are being consciously placed into dangerous living situations by tribal, state, and/or federal government officials who know – or should have known – the environment is dangerous to them both physically and emotionally.

Unfortunately, ICWA statistics – including how many children are affected by the ICWA every year, what percentage of those affected were taken from long term homes where they felt safe and loved – then placed into tribal foster homes, what percentage had never lived within Indian Country or been acquainted with the culture, and what the long-term emotional and physical health outcomes for the children have been – were not mentioned in any of the reports or studies examined in this review and don’t appear to exist.

Nevertheless, a concerned community does not wait for additional studies to act on an obvious, fully and immediately known danger. We don’t wait for a study to rush a child out of a burning building. When a child is bleeding to death, we know to immediately put pressure on the wound and get the child to a hospital. Unwillingness to deal effectively with the immediate needs of children suffering extreme physical or sexual abuse from their extended family or neighborhood casts doubt on tribal and federal government assertions that the best interest of the children is of paramount importance.

The real racism – is the attitude that the documented and immediate needs of certain children of a particular heritage can wait a few more years so as to not interfere with the desires and demands of political leadership. While claiming to be “raising the standard” for children of heritage by allowing them to stay in a documented dangerous environment, or to return to a dangerous family setting prematurely, or to take them from an environment known to be safe and deliberately place them in danger – standards have in fact been lowered to the point of cruel negligence. Many children of tribal heritage are, in fact, not being given protection equal to what other children are legally mandated to receive. Our federal government has reduced our children to the status of a mere “resource’ and chosen to please political leaders rather than save children’s lives.

“…there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children and that the United States has a direct interest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe…”
—Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

References

Angelique EagleWoman, G. William Rice. “American Indian Children and U.S. Indian Policy.” Indian Law Journal 16 (2016): 1-29.
Austen, Ian. “Suicide Attempts Plague Attawapiskat First Nation in Canada.” New York Times. 4 11, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/world/americas/suicides-plague-attawapiskat-aboriginal-community-canada.html?_r=0 (accessed 9 5, 2016).
BIA. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 9 2, 2016. http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ (accessed Sept 3, 2016).
Bolick, Clint. “Native American Children: Separate But Equal?” Hoover Institution. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.hoover.org/research/native-american-children-separate-equal (accessed July 27, 2016).
CAICW. Spirit Lake Obituaries. List, Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. List, Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, 2014.
—. “Testimony from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: CHILD PROTECTION AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION:.” CAICW.org. June 24, 2014. http://caicw.org/2014/07/05/testimony-child-protection-and-the-justice-system-on-the-spirit-lake-indian-reservation/#.V2rkfCjR_NM (accessed May 19, 2016).
Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2011.
Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014.
Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.
DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.
DOJ. “Transcript from the First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attoreny General’s Task Force.” American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Bismarck: Department of Justice. Bismarck: Dept of Justice, 2013. 46.
Executive Office of the President. Native Youth Report. Policy Brief, Washington DC: The White House, 2014.
FBI. “Indian Country Crime.” FBI.gov. 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/indian-country-crime (accessed July 27, 2016).
Flatten, Mark. Death on a Reservation. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute, 2015.
Franson, Janet, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Homicied Investigator (Ret), Founder, Lost and Missing in Indian Country (9 7, 2106).
Greenson, Thadeus. “Yurok Tribe Declares Emergency After Rash of Suicides.” North Coast Journal of People, Politics and Art, 1 2016.
Hallie Bongar White, Jane Larrington. “INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY.” Justice.gov. April 21, 2014. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/legacy/2014/04/21/intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf (accessed July 28, 2016).
Horwitz, Sara. “The hard lives – and high suicide rate – of Native American children on reservations.” National Security. March 9, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives–and-high-suicide-rate–of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html (accessed July 27, 2016).
Hyland, Duane. Running Head: Considering Indian Country. Topic Proposal, Rapid City: NFSH.org, 2014.
Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Trauma in Indian Country: A Guide for Professionals. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahom Health Sciences Center, 2006.
—. What is Trauma: A Guide for Parents. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 2007.
Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Demographics. Statistical Facts, Oklahoma City: Indian Country Child Trauma Center, 2005.
Kaplan, Sarah. “Native American couple sues to let their child be adopted by a white family.” Washington Post. June 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/native-american-couple-sues-to-let-their-child-be-adopted-by-a-white-family/ (accessed June 21, 2016).
Kelly, John. “38 Years After ICWA, Feds to Collect Data on Native American Foster Youth.” The Chronicle of Social Change, April 8, 2016.
Kunesh, Patrice H. A Call for an assessment of the Welfare of Indian Children in South Dakota. Article, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); University of South Dakota, Harvard University, Vermillion: South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 247, 2007.
Locust, Carol. Training Director. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center , University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.
NICWA. Testimony of Sarah L. Kastelic. Testimony, Washington DC: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 2015, 1-17.
NICWA, SAMHSA. “Native Children: Trauma and Its Effects.” Trauma-Informed Care Fact Sheet. Portland: National Indian Child Welfare Association, April 2014.
NIEA. No Child Left Behind in Indian Country. Preliminary Report, Washington DC: National Indian Education Association, 2006.
NRC. “Reservation Facts.” National Relief Charities. 2009. http://www.nrcprograms.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_reservation (accessed July 27, 2016).
NW Frontier ATTC. “Co-Occuring Disorders Pt 2: Native Americans.” Addiction Messenger: Ideas for Treatment Improvement, May 2003: 1-3.
Oversight Hearing. “Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.” Subcomittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Committee on Natural Resources. Washington DC: House of Representatives, 2014.
OWD. Child Mortality. Edited by Max Roser. University of Oxford. 2015. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality/ (accessed July 27, 2016).
Pommersheim, Frank. “Written testimony in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.” (104th Cong. 1st Sess.) 1996: 432.
Richard G. Dudley, Jr., M.D. “Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police.” New Perspectives in Policing, July 2015: 1-22.
Robert Joe, Sr. “Speaking for the Swinomish Tribal Community of Washington to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs concerning Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments.” Edited by 2nd Sess. Cong. Rec. 104th Cong. 1996: 399.
Roe Bubar, Marc Winokur, Winona Bartlemay. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Investigative Report, West Hollywood: Tribal Law and Policy Institute, 2007.
Sampson, Dimitra H. Child and Sexual Abuse in Indian Country. Lecture, Sioux Falls: Dept. of Justice, 2007.
Scheel, Ann Birmingham. Arizona Indian Country Report. Annual Report, Phoenix: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011.
Sullivan, Thomas. 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Washington DC: U.S. Dept of Commerce, 2010.
University of Oklahoma. Childhood Trauma Series in Indian Country. Presentation, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center, 2013.
Woodward, Stephanie. “Suicide is epidemic for American Indian youth: What more can be done?” 100 Reporters. Oct 10, 2012. HTTP://INVESTIGATIONS.NBCNEWS.COM/_NEWS/2012/10/10/14340090-SUICIDE-IS-EPIDEMIC-FOR-AMERICAN-INDIAN-YOUTH-WHAT-MORE-CAN-BE-DONE (accessed July 27, 2016).

November 1, 2016 No Responses »

Process Philosophy and Federal Indian Policy

Sep 162015

AIM - American Indian Movement, Wounded Knee

Glenn Martin in his text, “Prevailing Worldviews, wrote, “What we have in Marxism is the most intense effort to date to be absolutely consistent with the presuppositions of process philosophy…” (Martin, 2006).

Process Philosophy is the belief that reality involves constant development and change while stability is an illusion – as opposed to Aristotle’s belief that reality involves permanent, timeless substances.

The Federal Indian Policy of the United States of America derives from a process philosophy embodied in Marxism. While many might not see Marxism within the policy, our federal government has concentrated their solutions on materialism, historicism, and socialism (Martin, 2006, p. 148).

A primary example of Marxist philosophy in Indian Country is the handling of property within the boundaries of American Indian reservations. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote in their Communist Manifesto in 1848, “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848). This is exactly what has been done to tribal members within the United States, including our 31st vice-president, Charles Curtis, who was a member of the Kaw tribe. This aberration of constitutional rights continues to this day with little notice or concern from fellow American citizens.

According to American Indian Movement member Jimmy Durham, the United States government has known all along it was supporting a communist political system within Indian Country. Durham wrote a 1974 white paper,

“…Our societies were and are “communistic” societies. The U.S. government has always understood that very well. It has not branded us all these years as communists because we tried to form labor unions or because we hung out with the IWW or the Communist Party but because the U.S. government correctly identified our political system. It did not make that a public issue because that would have been dangerous, and because it has been far more efficient to say that we are savages and primitives…
“Marx used our societies as examples of what he meant by communism on two different occasions in his writings. He said that we are “Primitive Communists.” …We do need to join forces with world Marxism-Leninism, because that is the liberation movement for the world. But we will not come into that world community as a “primitive” younger brother. Our struggle has always been not only to maintain our own lands and culture, but to fight the political system of capitalism itself. (Durham, 1974)”

Worse, callous groups have risen up within Indian Country voicing intent to force change upon other tribal members whether they wanted it or not. Durham stated in his white paper that force might be necessary to get the majority of tribal members to cooperate with what AIM knows to be best. He said,

“There are about a dozen American Indians in the U.S. today who say they are Marxist-Leninists. There are quite a few more who are in Marxist study groups. But the very large majority are, to differing degrees, verbally, “anti-communist” whilst their actions are communistic. But we need to be able to use the tools of Marxism-Leninism if we are to see effectively and fight our enemy. I do not believe that we have time to “let nature take its course,” or to have that kind of liberal “faith in the people” which means escaping one’s own responsibility for leadership and action.
Disorganization, lack of perspective and clarity, and everyone “doing their own thing” are American phenomena which are destructive to our struggle. Lack of strategic unity plays right into the hands of the enemy. A Marxist-Leninist analysis of the detailed realities of our situation, I believe, is the only way to combat such phenomena. (Durham, 1974)”

Yet, despite not only promising violence to force change but at times having carried it out, AIM met sympathy and embrace from the non-tribal public. Despite mistreatment of other tribal members and even murder, court cases against the American Indian Movement for their violence were dismissed. There was almost a nationwide acceptance of their brutality as being somehow necessary for change.

Change has been occurring as a result of their violence and demands. A primary example is the Indian Child Welfare Act. Six years after AIM’s attack on the people of Wounded Knee, Congress gave tribal governments jurisdiction over all children of heritage, whether or not their families lived on the reservation or wanted to be part of Indian Country.

According to the last two U.S. censuses, 75% of tribal members do not live within Indian Country. Many have left due to the crime and corruption and do not want tribal leaders involved with their children. But the philosophy that all people of heritage belong to the tribe and children will suffer emotionally if not connected to Indian Country has been embedded in the minds of United States citizens, who have forgotten about constitutional rights with respect to this segment of neighbors.

References:

Durham, J. (1974). AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE: TRADITIONALISM AND SPIRITUALISM IN A REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from History Matters: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6904/

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from University of Massachussetts: http://courses.umass.edu/pols294p/documents.html/communist-manifesto.pdf

Martin, G. R. (2006). Prevailing Worldviews. Marion: Triangle Publishing.

September 16, 2015 No Responses »

He died five hours after calling us –

Oct 242014

He died in a car wreck on Sept. 22, 2014. Just five hours earlier, he was talking to us on the phone, telling us he had tape recorded his meetings with BIA social services and tribal court because he finally wanted his story to be public.

Lavern “Bundy” Littlewind was a BIA policeman and Spirit Lake tribal member. He wanted people who don’t live on the reservation to understand why child abuse is endemic on so many reservations. Many Tribal social services don’t protect kids. They protect tribal sovereignty.

Jastin “Ian” Blue Coat

The latest: Toddler Jastin Blue Coat was murdered October 18, 2014, in Eagle Butte, SD. Because of his heritage, he wasn’t allowed protection.

After a series of child murders at Spirit Lake, our federal government – in the form of the BIA, FBI and U.S. Attorney Tim Purdon – was called in two years ago to oversee, improve care, and protect the kids. Federally funded programs such as Casey Family Services and ACF were also supposed to be improving care. But that money has been poured down the drain.

There is no serious intention to protect children if the only real solutions are perceived to threaten tribal sovereignty. Protect tribal sovereignty at all costs – even at the expense of children.

Power and money have corrupted nations from time immemorial.

In all our years of going to DC about this, Representative Kevin Cramer has been the only Congressman to take real action. This year, he pushed for an oversight hearing and called the BIA on the carpet. His office asked Bundy to testify at the June hearing as well, but Bundy was nervous, thinking tribal government might use his kids against him if he spoke up. That’s understandable – many have seen that happen.

The U.S. Government has set up a system that allows crime and corruption to occur without repercussion in Indian Country. We are very grateful to Rep. Cramer. It takes real courage to address something other Congressman have been afraid to touch. We need him to remain in office, pursuing protection for kids at Spirit Lake as well as across the country.

October 24, 2014 No Responses »

AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT, LIES, & THEIR FEDERAL SUPPORTERS

Oct 122014

October 12, 2014

Introduction:

The American Indian Movement (AIM) and its federal supporters used deceptive, unethical and at times violent methods to achieve their end goal. While purporting to be a non-violent entity focused on the well-being and betterment of the people they said to represent, ‘tribal sovereignty’ was the primary and prized goal – at the expense of individuals, children and families

The federal government acquiesced following Wounded Knee in attempt to placate and stem violence from this very small percentage of tribal members. ICWA was proposed soon after Wounded Knee and signed into law within five years.

Former Senator Abourezk with AIM leaders – Russel Means, Dennis Banks, and Clyde Bellecourt

AIM, purported to have been established to help poverty-stricken Native American families, has had a deep and unrecognized destructive and oppressive impact on families of all heritages across America.

In July of 1968, Native Americans from Minneapolis, Minnesota gathered to organize and form AIM as a way to “fight mistreatment by police and to improve prospects for jobs, education, and housing. (Durham, 1974)”

Initially, they did this. For the first few months, they were successful in cutting down on police harassment by monitoring police radio and arriving to an event before the police did. This resulted in a dramatic decrease in incarcerations for tribal members, and AIM members were widely accepted by the grateful community.

Honorable intentions to begin with – the leadership quickly decided this wasn’t enough. While they continued to maintain the initial stated objectives in public, behind closed doors, the motivation and goals had changed. Presenting the original stated goals made the best sound bite and comforted the ‘white’ public, anxious to alleviate societal guilt. However, AIM’s actions in the next few years went far beyond a legitimate push for justice, jobs and housing.

In the fall of 1972, AIM sponsored the “Trail of Broken Treaties.” About 900 people traveled from the west coast to Washington, DC, stopping at reservations along the way. After arriving in DC, they took over the BIA building and presented federal government with a 20-point proposal for sovereignty (Abourezk, 1972). Publicity from the “Trail of Broken Treaties” event rewarded the group with public sympathy and financing from the far left. Questions remain as to how they were so easily able to take over a federal building with little or no repercussion.

In 1973, AIM members violently took over the small town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota and conducted a siege that lasted from February 27 to May 8, 1973. While media played down criminal actions perpetrated on the very citizens AIM claimed to represent, people of Wounded Knee were intentionally robbed, beaten, and sometimes killed during the 71-day ordeal.

An amenable media smoothed things over for the “victimized” Native American organization. In one example, the media trumpeted that AIM had saved the town from an unscrupulous, predatory white grocer. In Robin Hood fashion, they relieved said grocer from his home and ill-gotten possessions and spread the plunder – including the store inventory – amongst themselves. The truth was this grocer had been known in the community for being extremely generous and AIM leaders imprisoned him and his wife – who was a tribal member – in their own basement. (Trimbach, 2007)

The stated goals of housing and jobs, while possibly initial goals of some members and branches of AIM, were not the end goals of its leadership. The stated goals of job and home were never reached and the leadership never seemed to give genuine effort to obtain them.

Instead, their factual push was for “tribal sovereignty” – the ability for certain tribal leaders to control other persons of Native American heritage as well as tribal-owned resources and assets. In a memorandum written to a colleague, AIM Executive Director Dennis Banks stated the ultimate AIM goal was to “free Indian people throughout the Americas from white man’s oppression and racism so as to create free Indian states that reflect self-determination of free peoples” (AIM, 1968).

AIM member Jimmie Durham went further, stating in a 1974 memorandum to AIM leaders,

“The Founding Fathers of the United States equated capitalism with civilization. They had to, given their mentality; to them civilization meant their society, which was a capitalist society. Therefore, from the earliest times the wars against Indians were not only to take over land but also to squash the threatening example of Indian communism. (Durham, 1974)”

Unfortunately, by the very nature of the group there was a power struggle from the start. Wide disagreement existed in the native community concerning AIM and its agenda. AIM’s young radicals from the cities, who had no power but wanted it (called “progressives” by the media), had to fight what the media called “traditionals” (leaders who already had power on the reservations and didn’t want to lose it). Further, while most of the nation was oblivious to the crime and murder committed by AIM at Wounded Knee, the people who lived through it were not.

Federal government leaders had begun to treat AIM leaders as legitimate authorities speaking for community members, but many Native American families saw AIM as thugs. By 1980, AIM declined as a leading organization. Many people saw no change in their day-to-day struggles and never benefited from AIM’s militant efforts. AIM leaders, much like the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world, had gotten their gold and were not showing much interest in the ongoing problems of their communities.

Tribal sovereignty, which was not on the radar of most people in the 1970’s, was now widely assumed reality – despite the legal term for Indian Reservations factually being “Domestic Dependents.” Today, AIM leaders, while still honored by federal government and international organizations, are never heard to speak up for better jobs, education, and housing, let alone speak up when a child is raped or murdered on the reservation.

What AIM pushed for all along was power and control. A draft memo written by a Nixon White House aide in 1974, following the Wounded Knee occupation, points this out, stating,

“…some individuals propose ‘the ultimate sovereignty: i.e., the external sovereignty of an independent nation, outside the jurisdiction of the United States, entirely. This option, while probably being ruled out as somewhat extreme by many persons, could have substantial support. It has, in fact, been suggested by some Indian groups, as evidenced by the recent action of members of the American Indian Movement to attempt establishment of diplomatic relations on behalf of tribal governments, with the United Nations foreign nations, and the United States, itself.” (Spaith, 1974)

AIM didn’t manage to achieve power and control over the reservations for themselves, but they started the heavy ball of tribal sovereignty rolling for elected leaders on the reservations and over the years, sovereignty has picked up speed, crushing tribal and non-tribal U.S. citizens alike in its path.

Due to the tribal sovereignty movement, several organizations were established to push back and protect the legal rights of individuals. Among them are Shawano County Concerned Property Taxpayers Association (SCCPTA), Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE), Dakotans for Equal Rights (DER) and Aloha for All.

In this paper, we will examine how the AIM movement used media to spread militant propaganda to the point it was able to achieve dramatic support across the United States for tribal government control over powerless citizens. So successful was their effort that by 1978, a law was even passed to give tribal government’s authority and control over other people’s children. We will examine what their purposes might have actually been as well as how they went about it.

Analysis:

Some argue that ends justify the means. If one were talking about saving the life of a busload of children, that argument could potentially have merit. However, what was saved was tribal sovereignty at the expense of children. Granted, with rape and murder of children within the reservation system far outdistancing that of their neighbors off reservation, it is obvious some in authority genuinely believe this was a justified trade (Ombudsman, 2013).

The mistreatment of average tribal members who stood in AIM’s way is reminiscent of Marxists who had marched through Greece in the mid 1900’s. This is telling, as Marxism appears to have been an influence on at least some of the AIM members. AIM member Jimmy Durham wrote in his white paper concerning culture, revolution and the movement,

“…young white Marxists who have never been in real situations of struggle in a working-class movement, who in fact have seldom worked with anyone except fellow-students, and who come to us as though we were ignorant “lumpen proletariat” in need of being “taught”, not only Marxism, but the realities of our own struggle. . . (Durham, 1974)“

He goes on to say,

“…we have always defined our struggle not only as a struggle for land but also as a struggle to retain our cultural values. Those values are “communistic” values. Our societies were and are “communistic” societies. The U.S. government has always understood that very well. It has not branded us all these years as communists because we tried to form labor unions or because we hung out with the IWW or the Communist Party but because the U.S. government correctly identified our political system. It did not make that a public issue because that would have been dangerous, and because it has been far more efficient to say that we are savages and primitives.

“Marx used our societies as examples of what he meant by communism on two different occasions in his writings. He said that we are “Primitive Communists.” The word “primitive” means “first,” but people who have skimmed through Marx often decide, because of the connotations of the word “primitive” which come from political manipulation, that Marx meant that we were backward or “childlike” communists. Marx was, nonetheless, very Eurocentric, and he assumed that European history was the main body of humanity’s history.

“We do not need Marx’s words to teach us how to live our lives in our own society. We do not need to go through an industrial revolution so that we can come out as communists on the other side.

“We do need Marxism-Leninism as a method and system for knowing the human world as it is today and for knowing how most effectively to fight our oppressor. We do need to join forces with world Marxism-Leninism, because that is the liberation movement for the world. But we will not come into that world community as a “primitive” younger brother.

“Our struggle has always been not only to maintain our own lands and culture, but to fight the political system of capitalism itself. (Durham, 1974)”

There, in the words of founding AIM members, is the true purpose and goal of the AIM movement. Clearly, the American Indian Movement deceived its audience by concealing its true purpose and position, oversimplifying complex situations, and pretending certainty when valid and important questions remained unaddressed.

Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf,

“…in the ‘big lie’ there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying..”

Such is the case with the American Indian Movement and Tribal Sovereignty. Deception, propaganda and demagoguery appear to have been persuasion techniques skillfully used by AIM leadership.

Special Agent John Trimbach (SAC-Minneapolis), author of the book, “American Indian Mafia” tells the true story of what happened at Wounded Knee that spring in 1972 as they “tore a path of destruction through the Pine Ridge Reservation on their way to personal gain, fame, and fortune…” (Trimbach, 2007).

Among the deceptions, AIM leaders:

Robbed citizens of Wounded Knee, the very people they claimed to be helping
Extorted funds from federal government, varied organizations, and unsuspecting supporters – keeping much of the money for themselves.
Persuaded public officials into excusing their criminal behavior by through invention of claiming “indigenous immunity” – thereby encouraging violence against other tribal members.
Conspired to murder opponents, including their own members.

According to Special Agent Trimbach,

“The 1970s legacy of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota is haunted by the forgotten suffering of innocent victims and a falsified history found in almost every library in America. Sadly, what should have been a needed voice for Native America became a criminal enterprise on the reservation, where property was destroyed and lives were lost. A record founded in falsehoods and distortions completed the betrayal and denied the reality of lost opportunities, shattered lives, and a Movement hijacked by its leadership. Today, the perpetrators are known as “brave warriors” and “selfless activists,” while many of their crimes against Indians are minimized, or not mentioned at all. (Trimbach, 2007)”

This social movement went beyond persuasion into coercion. According to Senator James Abourezk,

“We got into the Indians’ perimeter and there’s all these Indian Vietnam vets who were there with AK-47’s Kalashnikovs, I don’t know where they got them all, but they had them. And we were driving slowly right, and they were following us, just like that. And the tension, I’m telling you was thick enough to slice,” (Abourezk Shares Means & McGovern Memories, 2012).

While violent tactics draw attention in the form of influence and are not persuasion (Larson, 2013), veiled by duplicity, AIM leaders were skillful in the presentation of their goals and activities. Despite the radical nature of their movement, they were able to present to the world an image of ethos and credible sincerity and persuade Congress to pass legislation favorable to tribal sovereignty.

Using the peripheral route of elaboration, AIM leaders aimed for the heart of non-tribal Americans, playing on what is popularly known as “white guilt.” Many dressed in traditional attire for photo-ops, or the very least wrapped themselves in a blanket, giving the impression to citizens on the east coast that many tribal members still dress in traditional manner on a daily basis.

Leaving out mention of the AK47’s as well as a video of Russell Means telling tribal leaders well beforehand that AIM intends to take over the village of Wounded Knee and wants their support (Wounded Knee – Occupation ’73, 1972), Senator Abourezk in a forward to his Library collection on Wounded Knee characterized the event as an unplanned and reasonable protest, stating that about 200 AIM members “…enroute to Porcupine, South Dakota, stopped at the village of Wounded Knee” and just happened to take over “the trading post, museum, gas station and several churches.” AIM considered Wounded Knee to be of “historically significance and deemed the village an appropriate location from which to voice the concerns of AIM and the Oglala of the Pine Ridge Reservation (Abourezk, 1972).”

This recounting of events brings more questions than answers. Setting aside the fact they were not asked to take over the village by either the people of Wounded Knee or most of the Pine Ridge residents, what were 200 people traveling together to Porcupine South Dakota for?

Senator Abourezk waxed poetic about their altruistic purposes, saying AIM leaders supported:

“…reformation of tribal government as well as bringing attention to Native American grievances. Means, as an AIM spokesperson, requested congressional investigations into conditions on all reservations and the corruption of the BIA. Means specifically wanted a hearing to take place concerning treaties and treaty rights, along with an investigation of the BIA and the Department of the Interior at all agency and reservation levels. (Abourezk, 1972)”

AIM leaders spoke of past atrocities and the robbing of land. “Broken treaties” became a brand phrase – although it has remained unclear whether all treaties were broken, or just a few, or whether it was an entire treaty or particular points. This was rarely, if ever, specified. Another point that has gone unmentioned in relation to the breaking of treaties was that no treaty ever promised federal money into perpetuity. Most, if not all, state that federal monies were to last only 20 years.

Further, while it is true that some lands were stolen, it is also true that non-members homesteaded some lands long before the land around it was deemed reservation land by the federal government, and tribal members who were intelligent, capable, and pleased with the sale legally sold some land to non-members. It is an extreme and demeaning insult to portray every tribal member who ever sold land as uneducated and incapable. In 1929, our U.S. Vice President, Charles Curtis was a Kaw Nation Native American Indian. Clearly, he was not the only tribal member in the United States able to understand and negotiate a contract.

However, these facts would involve the recipients of AIM’s persuasion and rhetoric to use careful and thoughtful consideration of the issue merits – the “central route” of information processing – and that it not the route AIM leaders chose to use for their publicity campaign.

They chose well. The American people listened to what was said, reacted with emotion, and did what they thought they could to alleviate the suffering of tribal members. Yet, years later, despite the efforts of AIM, federal government funds, and legislation increasing tribal control over persons of heritage, nothing has gotten better. In fact, some say things have gotten much worse. According to FBI Special Agent John Trimbach, the Pine Ridge Reservation continues to suffer from “many social malignancies such as unemployment near 90%, life expectancy of approximately 56 years, rampant alcoholism, and widespread child sex abuse (Trimbach, 2007).”

Richard Two Elk, a former resident of Wounded Knee, agrees. He has stated,

“After the occupation ended, the objectives had not been achieved” and “When AIM took over Wounded Knee village in 1973, they hijacked the legacy of that community and Lakota people for their own gain. Since 1973 to present, AIM has exploited and cashed in on the notoriety of their take-over. However, nowhere along the line have they bothered to share with the residents of Wounded Knee village any of their so-gotten gains. ( The Stolen Legacy of Wounded Knee, 2009)”

Introducing fear is another tactic used in persuasion, and despite the smooth explanation given by Senator Abourezk, AIM introduced fear to both the non-tribal community as well as those they professed to represent.

Former Special Agent for the FBI, John Trimbach wrote,

“Aquash was dragged from the trunk of a car near the reservation town of Wanblee, South Dakota, and shot in the head in December 1975. The alleged triggerman, AIM member John Graham, will stand trial in state court although no date has been set. Graham’s accomplice Arlo Looking Cloud was convicted in federal court of aiding and abetting the murder in 2004. Following a series of interrogations, AIM leaders falsely accused Aquash of being an FBI informant. One of her interrogators was convicted killer Leonard Peltier. At an AIM conference in June 1975, Peltier put a loaded gun in Aquash’s mouth to administer “truth serum.” The trail of evidence could lead to Peltier’s former boss, AIM co-founder Dennis Banks.”

Two Elk also makes several comments addressing this,

“Russell Means does say, “Spies will be shot”

“…After AIM leadership was acquitted of all charges stemming from the take-over, they ran free-rein throughout the reservation. In the ensuing civil war between AIM and the goons, certainly there were more than 60 dead on both sides of that fence. Too many of these belonged to neither side, but were simply innocent victims caught in the cross-fire; such as the residents of Wounded Knee.”

“One death which occurred at Wounded Knee, which producers of [PBS program titled, ‘Wounded Knee,’] were made aware of but failed to mention, was the death of black civil rights activist, Ray Robinson. Failure to mention this at all is a clear indication to me that this is another public relations program for AIM.”

“The program further asserts that AIM’s demise came about due to the government trying to tie it up in the courts. The producers of this program would like us to believe in fairy-tale fashion, that as a result AIM fell into disarray and violent infighting and simply lost their way. The fact is, AIM leadership flushed it down the toilet two years after Wounded Knee by ordering the interrogation and murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash because they suspected her of being an FBI spy. As the news of her murder rippled through Indian Country, the risk of falling into AIM crosshairs seriously diminished its following.”

“…members of AIM have been charged, convicted, and have upcoming trials in the murder of AIM member Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. ( The Stolen Legacy of Wounded Knee, 2009).”

In fact, it was only in February 2014, that the FBI finally confirmed the death of Robinson. According to documents, a witness told agents “Robinson had been tortured and murdered within the AIM occupation perimeter, and then his remains were buried ‘in the hills.” (AP, 2014)

Tribal member had good reason to be wary of AIM. Jimmy Durham had inferred in a white paper early on that force might be necessary to get the majority of tribal members to cooperate with what AIM knew to be best for the tribes. He said,

“There are about a dozen American Indians in the U.S. today who say they are Marxist-Leninists. There are quite a few more who are in Marxist study groups. But the very large majority are, to differing degrees, verbally, “anti-communist” whilst their actions are communistic. But we need to be able to use the tools of Marxism-Leninism if we are to see effectively and fight our enemy. I do not believe that we have time to “let nature take its course,” or to have that kind of liberal “faith in the people” which means escaping one’s own responsibility for leadership and action.

Disorganization, lack of perspective and clarity, and everyone “doing their own thing” are American phenomena which are destructive to our struggle. Lack of strategic unity plays right into the hands of the enemy. A Marxist-Leninist analysis of the detailed realities of our situation, I believe, is the only way to combat such phenomena. (Durham, 1974)”

Non-tribal members were first frightened by the take-over of the BIA building in Washington DC and more so by the take-over of the village of Wounded Knee. Believing that the rage of AIM members must have a valid source (much as many believe of Palestine today) ‘white’ Americans wanted to do whatever necessary to make things right. Two Elk notes,

“AIM’S takeover of Wounded Knee was a public relations battle for American hearts and minds they are still waging to this day. ( The Stolen Legacy of Wounded Knee, 2009)”

Narrative story telling might be viewed as cultural tradition. Some see it as a well-honed skill. It’s been said many tribal members have long enjoyed spinning stories for melanin-deprived visitors from the east, laughing privately at the subsequent responses. Some say that enjoyment continues. Many non-tribal members who’ve never lived on or near a reservation but have had a regular diet of Hollywood over the years are interested in descriptions, testimony and anecdotes of reservation life. This played very well into AIM’s method of persuasion and post hoc fallacy.

One persuasive symbol that came out of the fight for tribal sovereignty is children. Children were said to be the “lifeblood” of the tribe – necessary for the purposes of tribal sovereignty and the continuation of the tribe. Since then, the concept of children of heritage being the possession of tribal government has been widely circulated and accepted.

According to founding AIM papers,

“A major objective of the movement is to regain the young. Once the BIA is eliminated and individual tribal states are created schools will not be a major problem. However, until such times as this goal is realized AIM must plan, support and execute the following school activities. (AIM, 1968)”

By 1978, Senator James Abourezk had become Chair of the Senate Indian Affairs committee, a committee that Senator Abourezk had been largely responsible for establishing. This committee was given jurisdiction over all legislation concerning Indian Affairs, including any socio-economic, healthcare, political, or trust issue involving Indian Country or its members.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), sponsored by Senator Abourezk in 1976, was passed in 1978 with the specific intention of giving tribal governments authority in the custody decision of any child they deem to be a tribal member – whether or not the child’s parents or grandparents want tribal government to interfere in that custody decision. The intent, Congress said, was to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. (Haga, 2013)”

More specifically, the ICWA intended “… to give Native American tribes a strong voice in child custody issues with an ultimate aim of ensuring tribes rights to maintain and preserve their language and culture. (5 Sioux Tribes Applied to Fund Their Own Foster Care Programs, 2014)”

Some would add – ‘and power and money.’ While calling for recognition of tribal sovereignty, AIM and tribal government leaders simultaneously demanded increased federal funding. Assertions that the children are theirs and federal government must totally abstain from interference are followed by claims that federal government does not adequately fund foster care on reservations. From oversight hearings to back room discussions to press releases, leaders have asserted that they are sovereign nations with the right to foster their own children, but it is incumbent on federal taxpayers to fund it.

“The solution to this hostile attitude toward the basic intent of ICWA is to give direct federal funding to the individual tribes to set up their own foster care, with adequate oversight, and get the state completely out of it,” said Daniel Sheehan, general counsel for the Lakota People’s Law Project. (Harriman, 2013)

Leaders insist on increased and perpetual federal funding – while simultaneously asserting sovereignty. Following the 2013 Supreme Court case, “Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl,” when the Court ruled and affirmed that a non-Indian, unwed mother has a right to decide the best interest of her child without interference from tribal governments, Senator Abourezk, the driving force behind the ICWA, responded,

“It’s an attack on tribal sovereignty through the children. I can’t believe they did this.” “The ICWA is in line with similar laws to bolster tribal sovereignty. That was our aim. We did everything we could to increase tribal sovereignty. That includes the Indian Child Welfare Act…” (Harriman, 2013)”

AIM Leader Clyde Bellecourt, using familiar emotional buzzwords, agreed and said the Supreme Court decision “is legalizing the kidnapping, theft of children and division of Indian families once again by states and churches. Churches have a lot to do with this. (Harriman, 2013)”

Peter Lengkeek, a former member of the Crow Creek Tribal Council, also agreed the 2013 ruling on ICWA threatens tribal sovereignty. “We have to fight on a daily basis for protection and strengthening of our sovereignty. When things like this happen, it weakens it even more.”

It is clear that control of the children was integral and first step for those seeking power over other members. One of AIM’s plans from the start was that they would implement and run a National Center providing basic teaching aids such as reading, cultural materials and lore to other people’s children – most of whom were and are multi-racial. AIM stated it would begin with pre-school and elementary education as “most behavior characteristics are learned within the first 5 years (AIM, 1968).”

Rhetoric aside, what has been overlooked is that according to the last two U.S censuses, 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country (U.S. Census 2010, 2011). Many (not all) have purposefully taken their children and moved away due to high crime on reservations and tribal government corruption. Further, most of the children and families affected by ICWA are of more than one heritage. As much as tribal leaders have wanted control of the children in order to preserve sovereignty, many parents of enrollable children did not want tribal government interfering with their families.

Nevertheless, this is not what the public was told. Instead, they were given the impression that most, if not all, persons of tribal heritage are in agreement with statements by AIM and tribal leaders. The general public has been told that meddling social services, abusive foster homes and unscrupulous adoptive parents were stealing all the children.

The words “stealing,” “stolen,” “kidnapping,” “theft,” “Trail of Tears” and “genocide” are all used quite often to play on perceived white guilt. The imagery of defenseless children stolen from their beloved family for the purpose of money and power was all that was needed to persuade a willing public that something needed to be done. The most common reaction seemed to be, “We took their land, now we are taking their children? Certainly, these were the tribe’s children and they belonged with the tribe.” For many, allowing tribal leaders control over the children seemed the right thing to do, bringing atonement and alleviating guilt.

Other members of the public and some Congressmen, faced with uncertainty over land titles and possible economic loss, unfortunately looked at the ICWA as a faux compromise, thinking they would have security and cognitive dissonance if tribal governments settled for jurisdiction over children rather than asking for land back.

Unbeknownst to this willing public, once ICWA was passed some tribes began taking defenseless children from their beloved family for the purposes of money and power (Tevlin, 2013). Further, land titles are not something some tribal governments are – or ever were – willing to compromise on.

While the words “stealing,” “theft,” “Trail of Tears” and “genocide” played on white guilt, they also stoked strongly held beliefs and anger in many tribal members – gaining more internal AIM support for a time. There is a human tendency to want to believe a powerful force is behind overwhelming problems, making those problems beyond one’s ability to manage. In this case, some tribal members were open to believing that a powerful white society was at root of all troubles on the reservations.

For other members, the organization fulfilled security, affiliation, and prestige needs. Another persuasive technique successfully used on fellow tribal members by AIM leaders was speaking to an inner longing for “Eternal Return” – a rejection of concrete historical time as it really happened and substituting a return to an interpretation of history as one wishes it might have been.

There was no social media in the 1970’s, but AIM leaders used the spoken word, written word and film effectively to spread their message. They printed their own newsletters and spread them to various reservations through what they called a “railroad” – runners traveling (by car) from one reservation to the next, delivering newsletters, flyers and other information. Using this method, they hoped to prevent their opponents from accessing their material as much as possible. For public broadcasts, they used local and national news agencies. Creating attention-getting events was critical to getting the media attention they needed.

On their later website, they omitted mention of violence or crime initiated by AIM members and used wording that would play at heartstrings of tribal members and non-members alike. Despite a published video of Russell Means talking to tribal leaders prior to Wounded Knee, telling them of the planned takeover and asking leaders for their support (Wounded Knee – Occupation ’73, 1972), AIM wrote as if the event was unplanned and altruistic,

“In 1973, more than 2,000 American Indians came to Wounded Knee…following a courthouse disturbance. At this historic site where a massacre of Indians by U.S. cavalry soldiers in 1890 ended years of armed conflict, the demand for hearings on sovereignty rights was met with a siege by FBI forces, Federal marshals, and BIA police (AIM, 1968).

Using these persuasive techniques, AIM accomplished three of the five states of campaign development: Identification, legitimacy, and participation. They stopped short of penetration and distribution when their unpredictability and violence became too much for most tribal members – although Senator Abourezk, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other elite ‘left of center’ persons on the national and international level inexplicably continued to associate and interact with the AIM leaders.

Senator Abourezk was so fond of Russell Means; he hired him as a staff person in his DC office. Means was the only convict in history to work for a Senator while serving prison time (Russell Means: About, 2014).

In the Social Movement Model of persuasion, AIM went quickly from “Social Unrest” to “Maintenance” and then “Termination” mode as many supporters lost faith and patience.

Conclusion:

The American Indian Movement and its supporters used deceptive and unethical persuasion methods throughout most of its existence. While purporting to be a non-violent entity focused on the well-being and betterment of the people they represent, they were in fact focused on controlling the people – at times through violence.

Tribal sovereignty was the primary and prized goal – at the expense of individuals, children and families.

The American Indian Movement was initially established in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for good reason and helped poverty-stricken Native American families at its start. However, as they garnered and felt the pleasure of attention and support, they quickly switched to a national, militant focus resulting in deep and unrecognized destructive and oppressive impact on families of all heritages across America.

AIM’s actions over the next few years went far beyond a legitimate push for justice, jobs and housing. In 1973, AIM members violently took over the small town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota and conducted a siege that lasted over 2 months. People of Wounded Knee claim that during the event, many of them were robbed and beaten, and some were killed.

The stated goals of justice, housing and jobs, while possibly initial goals of some members and branches of AIM, were not the end goals of its leadership. Instead, there was a factual push was for “tribal sovereignty” – the ability for certain tribal leaders to control other persons of Native American heritage as well as tribally owned resources and assets.

Unfortunately, there was a power struggle within the first couple of years. Tribal leaders already in power on reservations were not willing to give it up to this young new group. Wide disagreement existed in the native community concerning AIM and its agenda, especially after reports of violence against members began to surface.

As tribal supporters fell away, AIM declined as a leading organization. Yet, while many Native American families saw AIM as thugs, federal government officials inexplicably began to treat AIM leaders as legitimate authorities speaking for community members.

Tribal sovereignty, which was not on the radar of most people in the 1970’s, was now widely assumed reality. AIM didn’t manage to achieve power and control over the reservations for themselves, but they started the process for obtaining it for elected leaders on the reservations. Within a short time, sovereignty picked up speed, crushing tribal and non-tribal U.S. citizens alike in its path. So successful was the tribal sovereignty movement that by 1978, a law was passed giving tribal government’s authority and control over other people’s children.

The American Indian Movement and its supporters used deceptive and unethical persuasion methods throughout most of its existence. This has been apparent to many in law enforcement, if not the public. Senator Abourezk himself was monitored and investigated by the Denver police in the 1990’s while they investigated AIM’s activities.

Evidence of criminal activity aside, inconsistencies in claims and reasoning have been abundant.

It is recommended that readers look deeper into the protests and writings of tribal members and families affected by the Indian Child Welfare Act to learn how tribal government sovereignty has hurt them as individuals and families.

References

5 Sioux Tribes Applied to Fund Their Own Foster Care Programs. (2014, June 26). Retrieved from Lakota People’s Law Project: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/26/5-sioux-tribes-applied-fund-their-own-foster-care-programs-155501

A Pilot Study of Compliance in North Dakota, (December 2000) by NICWA and Casey Family Programs

Abourezk Shares Means & McGovern Memories. (2012, October 24). Retrieved October 5, 2014, from Keloland.com: http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/abourezk-shares-means–mcgovern-memories/?id=138966

Abourezk, J. G. (1972). THE OCCUPATION OF WOUNDED KNEE, 1973 – American Indian Movement. House of Representatives. Wounded Knee: U.S. Government. Retrieved October 6, 2014

ACF. (2007). Tribal Child Counts. Washington DC: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance. Log No: CCDF-ACF-PI-2007-02

Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (U.S. Supreme Court June 25, 2013).

AIM. (1968). “Self Determination of Free Peoples”: Founding Documents of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Retrieved October 1, 2014, from History Matters: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6897

AIM. (1972, October). Trail of Broken Treaties: 20-Point Position Paper. Retrieved September 6, 2014, from Ogihidaag Blog: http://ogichidaag.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/american-indian-movement-trail-of-broken-treaties-20-point-position-paper-1972-never-forget/

AIM History Part 2 (2008, October 10). [Motion Picture]. Retrieved September 4, 2014, from http://youtu.be/tSVNYFXp5c8

AP (2014). FBI confirms black activist was killed during 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee. Sioux Falls: Associate Press. Retrieved October 6, 2014, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-confirms-activist-ray-robinson-was-killed-during-1973-occupation-of-wounded-knee/

AP (2014, April 28). 42 people killed in homicidal violence in 2013 on country’s largest Indian reservation. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/28/42-people-killed-in-homicidal-violence-in-2013-on-country-largest-indian/

Belford, D. (Director). (2012). Life with James [Motion Picture].

Benedict, J. (2000). Without Reservation. New York: Harper.

BIA ICWA Guideline Changes (April 30, 2014) by Elizabeth Morris

Boxer, A. (2009). Native Americans and the Federal Government. Retrieved Sept 6, 2014, from History Today: http://www.historytoday.com/andrew-boxer/native-americans-and-federal-government

CAICW. (2013, August 8). Family Stories. Retrieved from Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare: http://caicw.org/family-advocacy/letters-from-families-2/

Cross, T.L. (1995a). Heritage & helping: A model curriculum for Indian child welfare practice, Module II: Protective services for Indian children. Portland, OR: National Indian Child Welfare Association.

Cross, T.L. (1995b). Heritage & helping: A model curriculum for Indian child welfare practice, Module IV: Family-centered services for Indian children. Portland, OR: National Indian Child Welfare Association.

Danger, F. (2013, July 5). My Uterus Will Not Be Used To Fill Your Tribal Rolls: . Retrieved from xojane.com: http://www.xojane.com/issues/my-uterus-will-not-be-used-to-fill-your-tribal-rolls-i-fought-the-icwa-and-won?utm_medium=facebook

Domestic and Sexual Violence outside the Reservations in North Dakota get lots of attention from the ACF. (September 2013) Email Correspondence between ACF Officials

Durham, J. (1974). AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURE: TRADITIONALISM AND SPIRITUALISM IN A REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from History Matters: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6904/

Editorial. (2013, July 5). Might Indian child welfare law one day be deemed unconstitutional? Retrieved from NewsOK.com: http://newsok.com/might-indian-child-welfare-law-one-day-be-deemed-unconstitutional/article/3858899/?page=2

Frosch, D. (2013, January 26). Focus on Preserving Heritage Can Limit Foster Care for Indians. Retrieved from NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/focus-on-heritage-hinders-foster-care-for-indians.html?_r=2&

Giese, P. (n.d.). For The Spirit of Annie Mae. (J. Dill, Ed.) Retrieved October 6, 2014, from http://www.dickshovel.com/dur.html

Haga, C. (2013, April 22). ND: At reservation, challenge can be to keep Indian children safe – and Indian. Retrieved from National Child Welfare Resource Center for Tribes: http://www.nrc4tribes.org/news.cfm?a=194

Harriman, P. (2013, June 26). Tribal sovereignty threatened by ruling on adopted Indian kids. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from Argus Leader: http://archive.argusleader.com/article/20130626/NEWS/306260022/Video-Tribal-sovereignty-threatened-by-ruling-adopted-Indian-kids

HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE 99th CONGRESS 2ND SESSION. (1974, 4 8). Retrieved 9 6, 2014, from Lifting the Veil: http://liftingtheveil.org/byler.htm

HONORABLE BJ JONES **- CHIEF JUDGE PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COMMUNITY TRIBALCOURT, S.-W. O.-T. (2007). Legislative History of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Retrieved from Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare: http://caicw.org/family-advocacy/legislative-history/#BJJonesHistory

In re SANTOS Y., B144822 (Cal. App. 4th, Second Dist. Div. Two July 20, 2001).

Jackson, J. C. (1999, February 12). Director of Government Affairs. (U. C. Rights, Interviewer) Retrieved from Jack C. Jackson, Jr., Director of Governmental Affairs, National Congress of American Indians, Statement on the importance of an accurate census to American Indians and Alaska Natives, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/cvrightcensus.

KARNOWSKI, S. (2013). Feds Say Native Mob Gang Dented but Work Remains. Minneapolis: ABC News.

Larson, C. U. (2013). Persuasion: Reception & Responsibility. Boston: Wadsworth.

Lawrence, B. (2007). Publisher. Native American Press/Ojibwe News.

Mannes, M. (2006, October 11). FACTORS AND EVENTS LEADING TO THE PASSAGE OF THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. Child Welfare, 74(1, Jan/Feb 95), 264-282. Retrieved September 6, 2014, from http://www.srwoodbridge.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Factors.pdf

Morris, E. (2007). VIEWPOINT: Law could tear children from a ‘tribe’ they love . Grand Forks: Grand Forks Herald.

Morris, Roland John. (1998). Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Seattle: Concerning Tribal corruption and Jurisdiction.

Ombudsman, N. P. (2013). SD: Indian Foster Care 1: NPR Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry. . New York: National Public Radio.

Omdahl, L. (2013, July). Commentary by Former ND Lt. Governor. Grand Forks: Grand Forks Herald.

Oversight Hearing. (2014). CHILD PROTECTION AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE SPIRIT LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION. Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Committee on Natural Resources. Washington DC: House of Representatives.

Quilt. (2004). Child Counts. Warm Spring: NCCIC. http://www.nccic.org/Tribal/effective/warmsprings/childcounts.html

Rezinate. (2014, September 30). Little Eichmanns. Retrieved from Rezinate: http://rezinate.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/little-eichmanns/

Rezinate. (2014, September 27). When the Circus Comes to Town. Retrieved from Rezinate: http://rezinate.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/when-the-circus-comes-to-town/

Richard Two Elk on Wounded Knee and the Truth-Hijacked & Blinded: The Stolen Legacy of Wounded Knee (2009). [Motion Picture]. South Dakota. Retrieved October 4, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbkm1lMI0DU

Routine Cruelty (2001), by Thomas Sowell

Russell Means: About. (2014). Retrieved October 5, 2014, from Russell Means Freedom: http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/about/

Sage’s Story (2014, March). Sage’s Story” Running from ICWA. (E. Morris, Interviewer) Arizona, U.S.A. doi:You Tube

Smart, P. M. (2004). In Harm’s Way. The Salt Lake Tribune.

Spaith, J. (1974). The Native American: At What Level Sovereignty? U.S. Government, The White House. Washington DC: Leonard Garment, Assistant to the President. Retrieved October 5, 2014

Sullivan, T. F. (2013). 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF.

Tevlin, J. (2013, February 12). Tevlin: Sierra shares lessons on Indian adoption. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/local/190953261.html?refer=y

The White Earth Nation Constitution. (2013, Nov 18). Retrieved from http://www.whiteearth.com/data/upfiles/files/workbookweb.pdf

Tom Sullivan’s attempt to go to Spirit Lake, (August, 2013) – email correspondence between Tom Sullivan and his DC Superiors

Tom Sullivan’s Response to Chairman McDonald’s Hearing Testimony (June 25, 2014) by Thomas Sullivan, Regional Director of the Administration for Children and Families

Tom Sullivan’s Response to ACF Superior Ms. McMullen, (July 1, 2014) – by Thomas Sullivan, Regional Director of the Administration for Children and Families

To Better Protect the Children, by Elizabeth Morris

Trimbach, J. H. (2007). American Indian Mafia. Denver: Outskirts Press. Retrieved September 6, 2014, from http://www.americanindianmafia.com

U.S. Census 2010. (2011, March 13). 21 Statistics From the Census Bureau for Heritage Month. . Retrieved from Indian Country Today: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/13/2http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/13/21-statistics-census-bureau-heritage-month-1522021-statistics-census-bureau-heritage-month-152202

U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. (1998, April 7). TESTIMONY OF MR. ROLAND MORRIS SR. . Retrieved from Dying in Indian Country: http://www.accessmontana.com/morris/page19.html#Morris

Wounded Knee – Occupation ’73 (1972). [Motion Picture]. Pine Ridge, South Dakota: Russel Means, Mar 21, 2007. Retrieved September 4, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRcAYOIhx4Y

October 12, 2014 No Responses »

COPYRIGHT

Sep 172013

No copy [reproduction], or duplication of content is allowed without previous permission from the author.

September 17, 2013 No Responses »

Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families

Oct 112021

October 11, 2021

Washington, DC – Wiley, a preeminent DC law firm, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Brackeen v. Haaland. The brief was filed in support of adoptive families and states in this high-profile case, which urges the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision involving the rights of Native American children and their families under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). The brief was joined by seven individual signatories who are former ICWA children or are parents to ICWA children, all of whom have been harmed by ICWA.

Wiley partner Stephen J. Obermeier and associate Krystal B. Swendsboe, who authored the amicus brief, are members of the firm’s Issues and Appeals Practice and are representing the nonprofit Alliance on a pro bono basis.

The case, which stems from a child-custody dispute, addresses the harm suffered by Indian children and their families as a result of ICWA – such as the denial of the full range of rights and protections of the federal and state constitutions to the petitioners when subjected to tribal jurisdiction under the ICWA.

“For nearly fifty years, ICWA has imposed race-based classifications on Indian children and their families – a clear violation of Equal Protection – and has caused horrendous individual suffering as a result,” Obermeier and Swendsboe explained in the Alliance’s brief.

As noted in the brief, this case raises particularly significant issues for Alliance because its members are birth parents, birth relatives, foster parents, and adoptive parents of children with varying amounts of Indian ancestry, as well as tribal members, individuals with tribal heritage, or former ICWA children – all of whom have seen or experienced the tragic consequences of applying ICWA’s race-based distinctions. The brief includes, as examples, stories from the individual amicus signatories who have been harmed by ICWA’s race-based distinctions and discriminatory placement preferences.

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the ICWA exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, according to the amicus brief.

Congress “may not exercise power over family and custody matters under the guise of regulating commerce with Indian Tribes,” the brief argued. “ICWA, therefore, exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce, as it is entirely unrelated to commerce and intrudes on noncommercial subjects belonging entirely to the states.”

https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Wiley-Files-Amicus-Brief-in-High-Profile-Supreme-Court-Case-on-Behalf-of-Christian-Alliance-for-Indian-Child-Welfare-and-Former-ICWA-Children-and-Families

October 11, 2021 No Responses »

Indian Country Crime: 36 Recent Grand Jury Indictments: Kidnapping, Drugs, Sexual Abuse, Murder and more

Sep 222020

Submitted by US Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Sep 21, 2020

United States Attorney Brian J. Kuester on Monday announced the results of the August and September 2020 Federal Grand Juries. The combined grand juries returned 32 unsealed and four sealed indictments on crimes ranging from kidnapping, federal firearms offenses, robbery, drug trafficking/distribution, child exploitation, aggravated sexual assaults in Indian country, and murder in Indian Country.

“The following named individuals have been charged with a federal crime or crimes by the return of an indictment by the Grand Jury. A grand jury Indictment does not constitute evidence of guilt. A grand jury Indictment is a method of bringing formal charges against the defendant. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and may not be found guilty unless evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States Sentencing Guidelines may be considered, upon conviction, by the sentencing court. Federal prison sentences are non-parolable.”

JIMCY McGIRT. Aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country (Three counts). McGirt, 71, of Wagoner County, is charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Allegations are, in 1996, McGirt knowingly engaged in sexual acts with a child under the age of 12. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

MICHAEL WAYNE MILLER. Felony child abuse in Indian Country (Two counts). Miller, 41, of Muskogee, is charged with willfully striking and injuring a child under the age of 18 in January 2019. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

BRANDON EDWARD BRIDGES. Child neglect in Indian Country. Bridges, 24, of Muskogee, is charged with neglecting the health, safety and welfare of children under his supervision and exposing them to the use and possession of illegal drugs and illegal activities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

KYLE JOSEPH VANNORTWICK. Murder in Indian Country. Vannortwick, 35, of Muskogee, is charged with the premeditated murder of his identical twin brother, Adam Vannortwick, with a knife. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

JEREMY SANUEL HOOTEN. Assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian Country; assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country; robbery in Indian Country; use, carry, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; first-degree burglary in Indian Country. Hooten, 19, of Eufaula, is charged with breaking and entering into a home and, restraining, violently assaulting, and robbing an elderly victim at gun point. In the commission of the robbery, the victim sustained lacerations to the head. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

GAGE HAYDEN ROSS. Assault with intent to commit Murder in Indian Country; assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in Indian Country; assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country; use, carry and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Ross, 22, of Oktaha, is charged with shooting a victim in the back with a firearm with intent to kill. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY. Murder in Indian Country; Murder in Indian Country in perpetration of kidnapping; kidnapping resulting in death. Murphy, 51, of Vernon, is charged with the kidnapping and premeditated murder of George Jacobs, on Aug. 28, 1999, with a knife. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

SOLOMON LAMONT HORSECHIEF. Aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country (Four counts). Horsechief, 35, of Muskogee, is charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a person under the age of 16 years old and administering intoxicants to said minor. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

COLTON DELAIN EDWARDS; JOBE ANTHONY TERRONEZ; PHILLIP LEMONT JONES, JR.; JAKEYVIOUS DUNE LEE KEY; JAYSEA MARKARA WILLIAMS. Assault with intent to commit murder in Indian Country (2 counts); attempted robbery in Indian Country (2 counts); first-degree burglary in Indian Country (2 counts); assault with a dangerous weapon, with intent to do bodily harm in Indian Country (2 counts); use, carry, and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; firearms conspiracy. Edwards, 19, Terronez, 19, Jones Jr., 19, Key, 19, and Williams, 19, all of Haskell, allegedly used firearms to attempt to shoot, assault, and ultimately murder victims during the commission of a burglary and attempted robbery. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

JOHNATHAN ZAMUDIO. Murder in Indian Country. Zamudio, 33, of Muskogee, is charged with the premeditated stabbing murder of Keith Dean Boswell, while in a physical altercation with the victim outside of a Family Dollar store in the city of Muskogee. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

DORION LAROY MARTIN. Assault with intent to commit murder in Indian Country; assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit bodily harm in Indian Country (2 counts); assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country; use, carry and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; felon in possession of firearm. Martin, 28, of Muskogee, allegedly used a firearm to attempt to shoot, assault, and ultimately murder victims by causing serious bodily injury during an altercation. Martin is further charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

DAVID NEIL DUNN. Assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country; use, carry, and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Dunn, 20, of Muskogee, is charged with brandishing and discharging a shortened .22 caliber rifle that resulted in a female victim sustaining gunshot wounds on October 9, 2019. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

JAYCE MICHAEL MOSQUITO. Aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country. Mosquito, 33, of Okmulgee, is charged with sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, alleging in June 2018, Mosquito knowingly engaged in sexual activity with a child under the age of 12. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

CALEB TRENT HODGINS; TYLER SHANE GRANDSTAFF; TYLER ROSS DEERINWATER. Murder in Indian Country; use, brandish, discharge, and carry a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; assault with intent to commit murder in Indian Country (3 counts). Hodgins, 25, of Holdenville; Grandstaff, 29, of Seminole, and Deerinwater, 29, of Holdenville, are charged with brandishing and using a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber pistol to kill Jonathon Merriman on or about June 24, 2018. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

NATHAN JOE CHECOTAH. Assault of an intimate partner and dating partner in Indian Country; assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit bodily harm in Indian Country. Checotah, 26, of Okmulgee, is alleged to have assaulted his dating partner by suffocating and strangling her. The FBI and Sapulpa Police Department are the investigative agencies.

JOSHUA RYAN GANN. Murder in Indian Country. Gann, 29, of Wetumka, is charged with the premeditated murder of his grandfather, Gregory Lee Fish, with a sword. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

KYLE ELLIOTT LEITKA. Abusive sexual contact in Indian Country. Leitka, 31, of Weleetka, is charged with having sexual contact with the victim without permission. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

MARK KEVIN DODSON; SETH HENRY THOMAS. Arson in Indian Country. Dodson, 51, of Okemah and Thomas, 22, of Okemah, are charged with conspiring and maliciously setting fire to a dwelling in Indian country, on or about Sept. 15, 2019. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

TOMMY RYAN GOUGE. Murder in Indian Country. Gouge, 41, of Clearview, is charged with the premeditated murder of his wife, Stephanie Michelle Gouge, on Feb. 14, 2020, with an edged weapon. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

AUSTIN DEAN McMAHAN. Murder in Indian Country (Two counts). McMahan, 21, of Okmulgee, is charged with the premeditated murder of Mandy Hart (his girlfriend) and Ronald Chandler by shooting them both with a firearm. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

MATTHEW ROY LAWSON. Sexual exploitation of a child / use of a child to produce a visual depiction; possession of certain material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Lawson, 33, of Springdale, Arkansas, is charged with willfully trying to persuade a person under the age of 12 years old to engage in sexually explicit conduct and using a child to produce visual depictions of a sexual nature. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

DIAMOND LEVI BRITT. Murder in Indian Country. Britt, 25, of Henryetta, is charged with the premeditated murder of his father, Gary Britt, on or about Sept. 16, 2019, with a sword. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

MARTHA CHRISTINE SIMPSON; JABAICA LEE TECUMSEH; TOMMY GLEN TECUMSEH. Murder in Indian Country. Simpson, 44, of Broken Arrow; J. Tecumseh, 40, of Okmulgee, and T. Tecumseh, 33, of Okmulgee, are all charged with the premeditated stabbing murder Robert Trevor Richardson. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

CAMERON AUSTIN BURGESS. Assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner in Indian Country; assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country; use, carry, and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Burgess, 22, of Morris, is charged with assaulting his partner with a firearm, causing substantial bodily injury by gunshot wound. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

DENNIS DEWAYNE CANTRELL. Possession with intent to distribute heroin; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; possession of firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; felon in possession of a firearm. Cantrell, 29, of McAlester, is charged with possession of heroin and methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Cantrell is further charged as a felon in possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crime. The Drug Enforcement Administration is the primary investigative agency.

MIKE AVERY THOMPSON, JR. Assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit bodily harm in Indian Country; assault resulting in serious bodily Injury in Indian Country. Thompson, 30, of Okemah, is charged with the stabbing, resulting in serious bodily harm, of a male in Indian Country. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

NELSON ONARO, D.O. Unlawful Distribution and Dispensing of Controlled Substances (24 counts). Onaro, a 67 year-old Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine out of McAlester, is charged with illegally dispensing and distributing controlled substances from approximately May 23, 2019, to on or about Nov. 26, 2019. The Drug Enforcement Administration is the primary investigative agency.

JOSHUA RYAN GREEN. Murder in Indian Country (2 counts); arson in Indian Country. Green, 30, of Okemah, is charged with the premeditated murder of his former girlfriend’s mother and brother with a firearm. Green is also charged with maliciously setting a fire to the incident residence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

KYLE JOE MAXWELL. Robbery in Indian Country. Maxwell, 26, of Weleetka, allegedly robbed a convenience store at gunpoint in Okfuskee County on November 8, 2017. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

MATTHEW WEST NIX. Involuntary manslaughter in Indian Country. Nix, 33, of Morris, is charged with involuntary manslaughter after causing a car accident, resulting in the death of a woman, while driving impaired. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

STEPHEN JACK NELSON. Assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit bodily harm in Indian Country. Nix, 32, of McAlester, is charged with discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm during a verbal altercation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

RAITHIELE ROBINSON; SKY ANGEL WRIGHT. Murder in Indian Country in perpetration of robbery; attempted robbery; conspiracy. Robinson, 46, of Broken Arrow and Wright, 25, of Broken Arrow, allegedly caused the unlawful killing of the victim, Mikael Parker, during the commission of the robbery. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigative agency.

September 22, 2020 No Responses »

Was Pedophilia Ignored by Winona LaDuke?

Sep 212020

Winona LaDuke, co-founder and executive director of ‘Honor the Earth,’ a group that rakes large amounts of money from extreme left corporations and foundations, has repeatedly turned a blind eye to sexual predators on her staff.

In 2019, a former employee sued Honor the Earth for ignoring sexual harrassment by fellow employee, Michael Dahl, who is a known pedophile. ‘Dahl, according to the lawsuit, has been “credibly accused of using his status as a spiritual leader to commit sexual violence against Native boys” and “The man’s “inappropriate sexual behavior towards boys became an open secret in the White Earth Community.” ‘Honor the Earth’ then engaged in sex discrimination and reprisal against the plaintiff, Margaret Campbell, choosing to protect Dahl and their reputation rather than protect staff and the community.

More recently Nahko “the Bear,” a nationally-known musician who was on the board of ‘Honor the Earth,’ was accused of pedophilia. There are also rumors that LaDuke is protecting accused pedophile Anthony Sul. Disturbingly, LaDuke’s own father, Vincent LaDuke, who claimed to lead his own “tribe,” was once accused of sexually assaulting a minor.

‘Honor the Earth,’ founded in 1993, wants America to switch to a “land-based’ economy, but does not want tribal members to have full title to their property. They want the land to remain in the control of tribal leaders.

LaDuke, who ran for Vice President of the United States in 1996 and 2000 on the Green Party ticket wth Ralph Nader, said in December, 2018, that she wants AOC’s socialist “Green New Deal” to be administered by “Native Americans.” By this, she means only those who adhere to far-left ideology. Conservative tribal members are regularily pushed away by tribal elite who embrace Marxism – not traditional Native American culture and custom. LaDuke said that the “next economy is going to have people like me making decisions. I’d like to be an architect for the next economy. I didn’t like the last one.”

‘Honor the Earth’s’ funding suddenly increased by a factor of 6 in 2016, the year President Trump was elected to office. One grant, $63,000, was given by the Tides Foundation – which recieves millions of dollars from George Soros’s organizations – to interfere with the Dakota Access Pipline. ‘Honor the Earth’ used deceiful propaganda to agitate out-of-state rioters, then transported them to North Dakota to camp on property near construction of the pipeline, which was outside the boundaries of the Standing Rock Reservation. The agitated rioters, who used oil products in one form or another througout their camp, were not told about the oil refinery, pipeline, and oil wells owned by the Three Affiliated Tribes – the MHA Nation – on the Fort Berthold Reservation 125 miles or so north on the very same river. They were only told to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline. A few months later, the tribal Chair of Standing Rock told the rioters to leave as they were destroying the wetlands they were camping on, bothering residents, expecting too many freebies, and causing too much crime. ‘Honor the Earth’ helped pay for the legal defense of those who were arrested for crimes.

Honor the Earth is now attempting to block the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline — a $2.9 billion project to replace a 1960s oil pipeline with a newer, safer one.

With regard to the sexual abuse apparently rampant within the organization, Standing Rock tribal member Jacqueline Keeler, journalist for Pollen Magazine, has done a podcast. Cindy Gomez, from the poscast “A Mexican Crossing Lines” has also talked about the sexual harrassment and abuse.

The Daily Caller reports:

In one instance in fall 2014, Dahl allegedly asked Campbell in front of a group environmental activists and funders, “Who’d you fuck last night? … You look like you’ve been fucked,” the lawsuit said.

When Campbell notified LaDuke, she dismissed the complaint and said Dahl suffered from “verbal Tourettes,” according to the lawsuit. The suit details a December 2014 encounter in Denver, Colorado, where Dahl “approached with a phallic object in his pocket” and told Campbell “I have something for you.”

Campbell told an Honor the Earth board member about the incident, who responded that “queens will try to get away with that, you just have to learn to stand up for yourself,” according to the complaint. Gender Justice, a non-profit legal advocacy group, filed suit on Campbell’s behalf.

The lawsuit also alleged Dahl was involved in youth organizing despite him being “credibly accused of using his status as a spiritual leader to commit sexual violence against Native boys.”

At a 2015 meeting with fellow tribal activists, Campbell and LaDuke learned Dahl had been accused of sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy by his mother during a 2012 ceremony on the White Earth Reservation.

“Dahl’s inappropriate sexual behavior towards boys became an open secret in the White Earth Community,” reads the complaint.

Campbell’s complaint also mentions a horseback ride in fall 2014 where Dahl allegedly joked about sharing a tent with two young men, including talking about giving boys a “hand job.” LaDuke was on that horseback ride, the complaint said.

The Brainerd Dispatch reports that Dahl also has a felony conviction for allowing three horses to “die from starvation, exposure and neglect.” One of the horses “was the great-granddaughter of the famed racing horse Secretariat, a Triple Crown winner in 1973.” The other two rode with ‘Honor the Earth’ at a 2015 event.

The filings from the lawsuit expose several abuses and deceptions, including “allegations about LaDuke’s deceased father Sun Bear and pedophilia/sexual abuse, and false teachings,” questioning of LaDuke’s enrollability at White Earth, and allegations by the White Earth Tribe that LaDuke’s ‘White Earth Land Recovery Project,’ which began in the 1990s, has not yet returned the more than 20,000 acres they acquired through donations back to the tribe. Return of the land to the tribe had been the claimed goal and intent of the project as stated to the donors. Tax documents show that as late as 2019, WELRP had at least 1million in funds available.

Tara Houska, campaign manager for ‘Honor the Earth’ as well as the “Native American Advisor to Bernie Sanders” in 2016, abruptly resigned from ‘Honor the Earth’ in 2019, following the filing of Campbell’s complaint involving Michael Dahl.

Campbell’s lawsuit, which is still in litigation, alleges that LaDuke has used her influence to prevent Campbell from being hired elsewhere. Michael Dahl, on the other hand, was hired by the Detroit Lakes public school district in 2016 to teach tribal culture and language.

We hope the courts will hold LaDuke and ‘Honor the Earth accountable for the harm they and Dahl have caused.

References

Becker County MN: Campbell vs Honor the Earth (Allegations about Michael Dahl pedophilia)

###

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: