Mar 082022
 
roland, fishing, son

In Support of Brackeen

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?

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). 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).

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 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]

*BIO:

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.  She is also a Congressional Commissioner on the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children.  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 graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned 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 earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, Dying in Indian Country.’

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 »
Oct 112021
 
children dying

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 »
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 Cooneyand others were working together to acquire financial services companies that they could “roll up” into a large financial conglomerate with Archer at the helmThey 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 bondsSugarman 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 afinancial 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 thatDennis 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 HirstDunkerley 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 MortonHughes 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 BidenBobulinski 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

References

  1. 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  
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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…
  6.  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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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-DevonArcher-and-HunterBiden-n262881 – [/author/shipwreckedcrew]ShipwreckedcrewOct 20, 2020 12:30 PM ETAP Photo/Visar Kryeziu
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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 –
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Foxnews.com: Tony Bobulinski as guest to debate – https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-plans-to-bring-HunterBiden-associate-TonyBobulinski-as-guest-to-debate – By John Roberts, Brooke Singman | Fox News Oct 2020
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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

Related Stories

  • Native Sun News Today: Hunter Biden‘s name used to legitimize sale of fraudulent tribal bonds (January 27, 2020)
  • Native Sun News Today: Lawsuit filed in fraudulent bond sale scheme (January 15, 2020)
  • Geneva Lone Hill: Economic development in Indian Country (January 15, 2020)
  • Oglala Sioux Tribe responds to allegations in massive bond scam (June 9, 2016)
  • Bail revoked for defendant in Oglala Sioux Tribe bond scheme (May 18, 2016)
  • Seven accused of defrauding Oglala Sioux Tribe in bond scheme (May 12, 2016)
  • Native Sun News: Oglala leaders divided on consultant contracts (April 7, 2016)
  • Lakota Country Times: Oglala Sioux district eyes ‘micro-gaming’ (April 1, 2016)
  • Native Sun News: Oglala Sioux Tribe questions business proposal (March 11, 2016)
  • Native Sun News: Oglala man’s business dealings under scrutiny (August 19, 2014)
  • Native Sun News: Payday loan story stirs squabble at Pine Ridge (July 7, 2014)          

Documents

03/17/17 – Greenberg Traurig, LLP Invoice to Wakpamni Lake and Reines – https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/150-12-gt-invoice-to-wlcc.pdf

06/26/19 – SEC v. Sugarman – https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2019/comp-pr2019-113.pdf

10/18/19 – Chicago Transit Authority RHCT v. Dilworth Paxson/ Greenberg Traurig, LLP – https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/1-1-complaint-w-exhibits.pdf  

 Ibid  – https://www.nativesunnews.today/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/complaint-Wakpamni-District-Raycen-Raines.pdf     

https://www.facebook.com/thegalaniscrimefamily/

 October 26, 2020  1 Response »
May 252019
 
Inform concerning ability to abuse absentee ballots

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.”…


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 »
Jun 082017
 
Gang Jumped Savannah

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 Pine Ridge in SDalmost 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 »
Apr 202017
 
children dying

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 »
Mar 252016
 
family

While the vast majority of comments and feedback about the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country’ have been extremely supportive – (an untold number of Americans [both tribally enrolled and not] have experienced and felt the same things we have) – there are still a few out there repeating the same stuff thrown at us in the 1990’s.

Today, a woman claimed my husband and I were “extremists” when we became politically involved years ago.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, ‘extremism’ is “the belief in and support for ideas that are very far from what most people consider correct and reasonable.”  Cambridge Dictionary defines it similarly as “someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable.”

For those who have been paying attention to the situation of a 6-yr-old girl named Lexi . who was moved from her home due to the Indian Child Welfare Act this last week, it is clear most people in America feel what happened to her was both unreasonable and unacceptable. By the above definitions – it was the tribal ‘establishment’ that was extreme.

Extremists” are groups of people trying to force their points of view and way of life onto others. Those who fight back are not the extremists. They are the defenders.

All parents have a right to defend their families – no matter what their heritage.

Extremists and racists – when it comes to federal Indian policy – are those who think they have a right to claim jurisdiction over the children and grandchildren of others simply due to heritage, and then attempt to vilify parents who stand up for themselves.

Roland and I first began speaking out against the ICWA in 1995 or so. We were never “extremists” – we were simply parents sticking up for ourselves. Others who agreed began contacting us because of the letters I wrote to the editor.

When the livelihoods of our friends and neighbors were threatened amidst other issues, we did what we could to support them as well, joining their groups when asked to. That’s not being an extremist, that’s being part of a community.

Tribal corruption also became an issue we spoke against. At the time, Roland’s tribal government had just been convicted in federal court for embezzlement and ballot box stuffing,

As time went on, more people who had been hurt by extremist’ (by definition) tribal governments and federal Indian policies – heard what we were saying and joined us. It’s as simple as that.

We learned more tribal members live off the reservation than on – many trying to raise their children away from Rez crime and corruption.

But then, that’s all in the book.

The end of this story has not yet been written. The next book will delve further into federal Indian policy and the rewards certain people in both tribal leadership and federal government get from iJack Abramofft.

Remember – Lobbyist Jack Abramoff went to prison in 2006 for taking money from tribal governments and buying Congressional votes with it – but none of the people who gave him money went to jail, and neither did the people he gave money to.

It didn’t stop just because one man went to prison.

So – were we “extremists” for wanting to protect our children from the Indian Child Welfare Act (should anything have happened to us)?

Were we “extremists” for wanting to help all the families that contacted us as years went by – both tribal enrolled and not – who had children in circumstances like Lexi’s?

…Were we “extremists” for fighting the same kind of corruption most of America is painfully aware of and currently debating and fighting this campaign season?

Not by definition.

 

 March 25, 2016  No Responses »
Oct 242014
 
Lavern 'Bundy' Littlewind

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 died 10-18-2014

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 »
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 »