ucfi

It’s the beginning of a new year. 2007 has came and gone and if it is anything like its predecessor, 2008 is sure to be full of surprises – tremendous strides in the name of tribal rights and benefits, further encroachment upon tribal nations by Anglo lawmakers, and hopefully appropriate and fair resolution to the Cobell Litigation.

A New Definition -

Due to a couple of ongoing situations on the tribal front, Congress is actively reviewing the status of a couple of dominant tribes that may lead Congress to redefine the terms of Tribal Sovereignty at least for those tribes involved.

The Pechanga Indians, dominant among small tribes in California led the way and it is unfortunate that other small tribes followed suit by removing members from the tribal rolls. The Pechanga did not actually complete this task in 2007, but many tribes who followed suit did so in 2007. The United States Supreme Court has refused to involve itself in intra-tribal matters of Indian nations and refused to hear these cases.

The second major and potentially devastating situation for all tribes (or at least those who have no respect for the law) is the current self-inflicted problem created by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The tribe held an election to decide a constitutional question that would remove descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen (slaves owned by Cherokees and emancipated by the Civil War who, most of the time possessed Cherokee Indian blood but were documented in the Dawes Roll as “negro” by racist census takers who refused to realize that there were intermarried black Cherokees just as there were intermarried white Cherokees. The entire historical err is based on racism as is the 2007 vote to remove the Freedmen and their Descendants).

A major problem is that the tribe was voting on an amendment that would both modify a constitution that was not the legal and valid constitution of the tribe, and, when approved and ratified, would violate federal law – an 1866 treaty (the US Constitution recognizes treaties as the “supreme law of the land”) between the Cherokee and the US Government that restored governmental status of the Cherokee Nation as an Indian tribe after the North prevailed in the Civil War and after the Cherokee Nation sided, for the most part, with the South (note that the last confederate general to surrender was none other than General Stand Watie, a Cherokee Indian and lineal ancestor of the author of this piece).

The treaty of 1866 restored the governmental relationship between the Cherokees and the US – but – as a condition, the Cherokees must accept and recognize that the Freedmen, the Delaware, and Shawnee and descendants of said groups as Cherokee Citizens and also, they would be treated as such and afforded the same benefits and rights as a Cherokee By Blood. This same treaty was used by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to sue the Department of Interior and successfully revoke the federal recognition of the Delaware Nation as an Indian Tribe. Lets get this straight: The treaty is used as a tool to terminate the Delaware Nation and move the Delaware people back under the control and count of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma because the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma claims that it mandates the Delaware people are Cherokee Citizens. Then, less than two years later, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma claims that that same treaty does not affect the status of the Cherokee Freedmen and that the Freedmen are not entitled to membership within the Cherokee Nation. Six or a half dozen? The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Administration including the Council who allows this to happen is responsible for the disgrace and perhaps the devastating downfall of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, est. 1976.

The election was called by Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Chief Chad Smith (banished from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees for acts of treason against the tribe) to modify the new CNO constitution which the Secretary of the Interior rejected due to the language in the constitution that removed federal oversight which is both mandated by and a condition of the Principal Chief’s Act, passed by the United States Congress.

After the Secretary of the Interior refused to approve the new constitution, the CNO cancelled their request for approval and the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court issued an illegal opinion that the constitution had been approved by voters and was therefore the legal and valid governing document of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

The court mandated the implementation of the illegal constitution. The same court was created under the new constitution so, theoretically, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court created and validated itself retroactively. One could only ask how that was even possible not to mention legal.

The election was held on March 3, 2007 and less than four percent of eligible voters cast ballots to approve and affirm the amendment that removed the freedman. The CNO administration, (because we can’t call it leadership) spun the results in a way that gave the perception that 77% of the Cherokee People voted in favor of the change when the actual number was 3.08% of the Cherokee People voted in support of the change. Days after the election, numerous Cherokee voters began writing in to editors of newspapers local to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma insisting that they were duped into voting for the removal and asking to have a chance to recast their ballots. Others commented that they did not even bother voting because there is a sitting dictator anyway. The Chief unconstitutionally serves his third term under the new constitution that established term limits of two terms. He controls the court and has a slate he refers to as “team Cherokee” and “the Royal We” that he uses to dominate and manipulate the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to meet his own agenda.

Any intelligent individual can understand the concept of the treaty here. You have entered into an agreement that is greatly beneficial to yourself but you have deliverables or “strings” if you will in order to receive benefits for yourself. If you do not carry out those deliverables, you don’t own up to your end of the agreement, and therefore, the other party should not be expected to keep their end either. THIS IS THE SAME SITUATION WITH THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA.
Representative Diane Watson of California heard about the plight of the Freedmen within the Cherokee Nation and took action. She introduced a bill in June 2007 that would sever and suspend federal funds from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as well as rights to conduct gaming, and rights to receive any federal assistance until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma became compliant with the requirements of the Cherokee treaty. The bill never mentions the words “Termination” as spun by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Administration.

The CNO Administration immediately began public campaigns to other members of Congress, Federally Recognized Tribes, and its own members to portray the bill not as an attempt by Congress to hold the CNO feet to the fire, but as an attack on tribal sovereignty. Under their portrayal, Watson was after the Cherokee Nation for exercising their sovereign right to determine their own membership and played this to other tribes stating that this could happen to them. The truth is that this was not an attack on the Cherokee Nation but simply repercussions for violating the treaty that granted the Cherokee Nation the sovereign status in the first place.

The CNO is right that tribes should be able to determine their own membership. This is a fundamental of sovereignty. What they are not telling is that they have already done that. They have determined their membership and they have no choice in the matter because they did it under FEDERAL TREATY. Any tribe should be able to determine its membership, as evident by the US Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to hear the cases mentioned above involving the Pechanga Indians of California. That is, as long as they have not already done so under treaty.

Once again, the Watson legislation is not an attack but rather consequence for actions. Had the Tribal Administration of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma followed the treaty, which supersedes any tribal law, the entire situation would have been avoided and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma would not face the music that is playing today in Washington, D.C. and echoing down through Kenwood, Bell, Jay, Nicut, and Evening Shade. Amnesty International has picked up on the story as has the New York Times. The New York Times editorial referred to the situation in its headline “The Shame of the Cherokee Nation (of Oklahoma)” and the shame also resonates from the halls of Washington through the full-blood communities in which the traditional and once proud Cherokees dwell today.

This entire ordeal has nothing to do with terminating the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. It does, however, have to do with Chad Smith’s inability to lead and his inability to admit when he is wrong. Smith as an individual and in his capacity as Chief is responsible for the entire situation. He cannot admit when he is wrong and his ego is far too large for him to acknowledge this. There is no attack. There is a prophecy of the white snake in Cherokee culture that devours the Indian people and their lands. This prophecy may be fulfilled soon under the Smith Administration. Smith is being called on the carpet for his actions and inability to act. He had two choices – Do the Right Thing – or – Do the Wrong Thing. Shame on Chief Chad Smith – the Shame of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is on his shoulders. Pure Cherokee blood is on his hands. It may never wash off.

There is one way out, however. Chad could ADMIT THAT THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA IS NOT THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OLD AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TREATY.

WADO.

THE MAN WITH THE PLAN

LOOKING BACK AT 2007 - HOW WILL 2007 BE PORTRAYED IN CHEROKEE HISTORY? January 1 2008 at 5:50 PM John's Place
By: THE MAN WITH THE PLAN ( realndn)
2008
It’s the beginning of a new year. 2007 has came and gone and if it is anything like its predecessor, 2008 is sure to be full of surprises – tremendous strides in the name of tribal rights and benefits, further encroachment upon tribal nations by Anglo lawmakers, and hopefully appropriate and fair resolution to the Cobell Litigation. A New Definition - Due to a couple of ongoing situations on the tribal front, Congress is actively reviewing the status of a couple of dominant tribes that may lead Congress to redefine the terms of Tribal Sovereignty at least for those tribes involved. The Pechanga Indians, dominant among small tribes in California led the way and it is unfortunate that other small tribes followed suit by removing members from the tribal rolls. The Pechanga did not actually complete this task in 2007, but many tribes who followed suit did so in 2007. The United States Supreme Court has refused to involve itself in intra-tribal matters of Indian nations and refused to hear these cases. The second major and potentially devastating situation for all tribes (or at least those who have no respect for the law) is the current self-inflicted problem created by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The tribe held an election to decide a constitutional question that would remove descendants of the Cherokee Freedmen (slaves owned by Cherokees and emancipated by the Civil War who, most of the time possessed Cherokee Indian blood but were documented in the Dawes Roll as “negro” by racist census takers who refused to realize that there were intermarried black Cherokees just as there were intermarried white Cherokees. The entire historical err is based on racism as is the 2007 vote to remove the Freedmen and their Descendants). A major problem is that the tribe was voting on an amendment that would both modify a constitution that was not the legal and valid constitution of the tribe, and, when approved and ratified, would violate federal law – an 1866 treaty (the US Constitution recognizes treaties as the “supreme law of the land”) between the Cherokee and the US Government that restored governmental status of the Cherokee Nation as an Indian tribe after the North prevailed in the Civil War and after the Cherokee Nation sided, for the most part, with the South (note that the last confederate general to surrender was none other than General Stand Watie, a Cherokee Indian and lineal ancestor of the author of this piece). The treaty of 1866 restored the governmental relationship between the Cherokees and the US – but – as a condition, the Cherokees must accept and recognize that the Freedmen, the Delaware, and Shawnee and descendants of said groups as Cherokee Citizens and also, they would be treated as such and afforded the same benefits and rights as a Cherokee By Blood. This same treaty was used by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to sue the Department of Interior and successfully revoke the federal recognition of the Delaware Nation as an Indian Tribe. Lets get this straight: The treaty is used as a tool to terminate the Delaware Nation and move the Delaware people back under the control and count of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma because the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma claims that it mandates the Delaware people are Cherokee Citizens. Then, less than two years later, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma claims that that same treaty does not affect the status of the Cherokee Freedmen and that the Freedmen are not entitled to membership within the Cherokee Nation. Six or a half dozen? The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Administration including the Council who allows this to happen is responsible for the disgrace and perhaps the devastating downfall of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, est. 1976. The election was called by Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Chief Chad Smith (banished from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees for acts of treason against the tribe) to modify the new CNO constitution which the Secretary of the Interior rejected due to the language in the constitution that removed federal oversight which is both mandated by and a condition of the Principal Chief’s Act, passed by the United States Congress. After the Secretary of the Interior refused to approve the new constitution, the CNO cancelled their request for approval and the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court issued an illegal opinion that the constitution had been approved by voters and was therefore the legal and valid governing document of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The court mandated the implementation of the illegal constitution. The same court was created under the new constitution so, theoretically, the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court created and validated itself retroactively. One could only ask how that was even possible not to mention legal. The election was held on March 3, 2007 and less than four percent of eligible voters cast ballots to approve and affirm the amendment that removed the freedman. The CNO administration, (because we can’t call it leadership) spun the results in a way that gave the perception that 77% of the Cherokee People voted in favor of the change when the actual number was 3.08% of the Cherokee People voted in support of the change. Days after the election, numerous Cherokee voters began writing in to editors of newspapers local to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma insisting that they were duped into voting for the removal and asking to have a chance to recast their ballots. Others commented that they did not even bother voting because there is a sitting dictator anyway. The Chief unconstitutionally serves his third term under the new constitution that established term limits of two terms. He controls the court and has a slate he refers to as “team Cherokee” and “the Royal We” that he uses to dominate and manipulate the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to meet his own agenda. Any intelligent individual can understand the concept of the treaty here. You have entered into an agreement that is greatly beneficial to yourself but you have deliverables or “strings” if you will in order to receive benefits for yourself. If you do not carry out those deliverables, you don’t own up to your end of the agreement, and therefore, the other party should not be expected to keep their end either. THIS IS THE SAME SITUATION WITH THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA. Representative Diane Watson of California heard about the plight of the Freedmen within the Cherokee Nation and took action. She introduced a bill in June 2007 that would sever and suspend federal funds from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as well as rights to conduct gaming, and rights to receive any federal assistance until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma became compliant with the requirements of the Cherokee treaty. The bill never mentions the words “Termination” as spun by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Administration. The CNO Administration immediately began public campaigns to other members of Congress, Federally Recognized Tribes, and its own members to portray the bill not as an attempt by Congress to hold the CNO feet to the fire, but as an attack on tribal sovereignty. Under their portrayal, Watson was after the Cherokee Nation for exercising their sovereign right to determine their own membership and played this to other tribes stating that this could happen to them. The truth is that this was not an attack on the Cherokee Nation but simply repercussions for violating the treaty that granted the Cherokee Nation the sovereign status in the first place. The CNO is right that tribes should be able to determine their own membership. This is a fundamental of sovereignty. What they are not telling is that they have already done that. They have determined their membership and they have no choice in the matter because they did it under FEDERAL TREATY. Any tribe should be able to determine its membership, as evident by the US Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to hear the cases mentioned above involving the Pechanga Indians of California. That is, as long as they have not already done so under treaty. Once again, the Watson legislation is not an attack but rather consequence for actions. Had the Tribal Administration of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma followed the treaty, which supersedes any tribal law, the entire situation would have been avoided and the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma would not face the music that is playing today in Washington, D.C. and echoing down through Kenwood, Bell, Jay, Nicut, and Evening Shade. Amnesty International has picked up on the story as has the New York Times. The New York Times editorial referred to the situation in its headline “The Shame of the Cherokee Nation (of Oklahoma)” and the shame also resonates from the halls of Washington through the full-blood communities in which the traditional and once proud Cherokees dwell today. This entire ordeal has nothing to do with terminating the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. It does, however, have to do with Chad Smith’s inability to lead and his inability to admit when he is wrong. Smith as an individual and in his capacity as Chief is responsible for the entire situation. He cannot admit when he is wrong and his ego is far too large for him to acknowledge this. There is no attack. There is a prophecy of the white snake in Cherokee culture that devours the Indian people and their lands. This prophecy may be fulfilled soon under the Smith Administration. Smith is being called on the carpet for his actions and inability to act. He had two choices – Do the Right Thing – or – Do the Wrong Thing. Shame on Chief Chad Smith – the Shame of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is on his shoulders. Pure Cherokee blood is on his hands. It may never wash off. There is one way out, however. Chad could ADMIT THAT THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA IS NOT THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OLD AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TREATY. WADO. THE MAN WITH THE PLAN

LOOKING BACK AT 2007 - HOW WILL 2007 BE PORTRAYED IN CHEROKEE HISTORY?