Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Descendents of Cherokee Black Slaves

UPDATE: I'm bumping this up as the comments continue to swell.

The folks at Hudson and Holland Scholars have a talk scheduled. Did YOU know that the Cherokees were slavemasters to African people? Did you know they dragged their slaves with them on the "Trail of Tears"? Who cried more, the Cherokee or their SLAVES?

The descendents of Cherokee black slaves


February 13, 2009

The Descendents of the Cherokee Freedmen: Victims of Sovereignty?"
12pm at the Eigenmann 6th Fl Room 621

Talk by Delphine Criscenzo (African American and African Diaspora Studies)"

The descendents of Cherokee black slaves have been faced with severalactions on the part of the Cherokee Nation to revoke their citizenship.
These efforts climaxed in March 2007 and have given birth to an importantwave of resistance. The Cherokee Nation says that their sovereignty as an Indian Nation gives them the right to decide who gets to be Cherokee.
On theside of the descendents of the Cherokee Freedmen, they did not choose to beinvolved with the Cherokee Nation, nor did their ancestors. Is history stillrelevant or are the descendents of the Freedmen the victims of an Indianstruggle to maintain their sovereignty?"

194 comments:

stand your ground said...

The black Slaves who where owned and then NOT owned by the
Cherokee Nation, suffered with them
traveled with them, learned their languages, inter-married with them, had children by them, all these people ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE Cherokee Tribe.

If they are not AND IF YOU FOLLOW THAT LOGIC, then all the other Indians who married White folks, Mexicans or Asians, and had children, well it stands to reason that their Offspring are also
NOT INDIAN.
So now who are the realI indians?
those who never married out of their race or their tribe, THOSE WHO NEVER"THINNED THEIR BLOODLINE"?
Well then, you've got about
ONE THOUSAND REAL INDIANS left in the good old U.S of A.
FREEDMEN ARE CHEROKEE,
if they are not, then neither is Chief Chad Smith of the Cherokees.

Anonymous said...

Of course they are eligible to be Cherokee Nation citizens, IF they can prove that they descend from an Indian listed on the Cherokee Dawes Rolls, which the Cherokee Nation uses as its base rolls, just as many other tribes do. It's pretty simple. The people kicking up the ruckus cannot prove descent from a single Cherokee.

And you might want to tweak your facts--you are misleading people by saying that the Cherokee Nation owned slaves. The Cherokee Nation as a government and an overall people never owned slaves, and I challenge you to cite a valid source that shows that it did. Only a very small percent (less than two percent) of individual Cherokees owned slaves. The majority of the tribe rejected the practice. The reality is only a very small handful of slaves of individual Cherokees actually traveled the Trail of Tears. Some 16,000 to 20,000 Cherokees traveled the trail, but records show that fewer than 100 slaves made the trip. I just think this has been blown wildly out of proportion.

Besides, it's not about whether their ancestors were on the Trail of Tears. That's a side argument, intended to distract from the real one.

Also the statement in the OP that the Freedmen descendants did not choose to be involved with the Cherokee Nation, nor did their ancestors, is a twisting of the facts. If you will do your own research , you'll find that thousands of "state" men and women, free people of color from the U.S. old South, moved to Indian Territory after the Civil War, as they had been told that they would have a better chance to own land and be treated better than they would in the U.S. South. Many of the so-called descendants of Cherokee slaves are in reality descendants of the slaves of U.S. citizens who moved to the Cherokee Nation voluntarily after 1863, when the Cherokee Nation abolished slavery.

I hope this helps a few people to understand that the full issue and facts are far more complex than what is presented here.

Anonymous said...

If the tribe allowed them to have slaves, then they are responsible for them, no matter how many there were.

If there were 100 slaves, that means that ALL of THEM were slaves. And they were Cherokee property.

NDNLady said...

Who cried more tears?? Of all the distortions and lies that have been told about Cherokee history to emotionally manipulate this issue; this is truly one of the vilest. Who cried more tears? A people who had existed as a distinct nation in their homeland for thousands of years and whose spiritual and cultural existence was deeply interwoven with that land? Or a people who had been enslaved in that country for a period of sixty years? As was pointed out, only about 100 of the slaves owned by Cherokee people actually participated in the forced removal. Historical documentation clearly shows that the wealthy Cherokees who owned large numbers of slaves were mostly the Treaty signers who removed with their slaves in relative comfort. Two notable exceptions to that were Principal Chief John Ross and his brother Lewis, and they provided for transport to the west for most of their slaves by commercial flatboats. In the diaries of the leaders of the thirteen detachments of Cherokees on the Trail, there is one mention of a slave’s death. The Cherokees lost a quarter of their population. Who cried more tears?

You know the first people enslaved on this continent were Indian people, including Cherokees. But when the legacy of slavery is discussed today, Indian people would never dream of trying to exploit that suffering as their own. Would that descendants of freedmen could be as honest. I have actually seen a blog that claims “the slaves traveled the Trail dragged behind the wagons in chains”; this is a flat out lie. Read the diaries of detachment leaders. People took care of each other as best they could, Cherokees and slaves alike. They had to in order to survive. But in the media feeding frenzy surrounding this issue, descendants have felt free to indulge in the most despicable of lies in order to reinforce their own sense of victimhood. I actually saw one article in the black press that stated that the Cherokees had voted to disenroll the members who WERE their “black slaves”, as though the Cherokee Nation abolished slavery last week instead of three years BEFORE the United States. An impression that descendants, by clinging to the name “Freedmen”, are glad to reinforce.


Why is this important? Simple. The rights of the Cherokee Nation are not based on the injustices of the past. Our rights proceed from our continuous existence as an indigenous nation and they include the right to autonomy in matters of self-governance. When the Civil War ended, the Cherokee Nation recognized their responsibility to those who had been enslaved by Cherokee citizens and, though there was great dissent over the right way to meet that responsibility among Cherokees AND freedmen, the Cherokee Nation, by extending citizenship, ensured that the freedmen received land and monetary compensation that freed slaves in the American south never received. In all the turn-of-the-century allotment laws and court cases, it is clear that both the United States and the Cherokees knew that the incorporation of an entire class of non-Indians into the tribe was intended to benefit a “finite class” of people and was a direct result of the need to see that reparation was made. The entire Cherokee Nation did that for the people who ACTUALLY suffered from the actions of Cherokee people.

During the seventy years following allotment and the destruction of our country, Cherokees and freedmen in two separation directions. There is a vast difference between the identity of those who struggle to integrate into the dominant society and those who struggle against forced assimilation into that society. When our government was finally permitted to reorganize, the Cherokees chose to enroll only those of Indian ancestry. That is our right under Cherokee, federal and international law. By demanding that we enroll non-Indian descendants of those whose citizenship was a product ONLY of their enslavement among the Cherokees, the freedmen descendants are themselves claiming a “vestige of slavery”. They cling to the “badge of slavery” in order to force the Cherokee Nation to wear the “badge of slave-owners”. And the fact that they must lie and distort both our history and the law matters not to them. This is truly sad. In truth, non-Indian descendants are no more harmed by our actions than the 699 million 750 thousand other Americans who ALSO do not qualify for citizenship in our nation. But the harm to the Cherokees right to self-determination is very real.

I was eleven when I heard Martin Luther King tell the world that it is better to judge a person by the content of their character than the color of their skin. I took those words to heart. If this is such a “noble cause”, why is everybody telling so many lies? The fact is that we do not "discriminate". Our paperwork is colorblind. We do not enroll non-Indians of any color and we enroll all those who can meet the requirements of Indian ancestry regardless of color. There are thousands of enrolled citizenship who are descendants of freedmen and Cherokee marriages. We have a shared history yes, but that doesn't take away from the Cherokees' right to define their identity by Indian ancestry.

just do it said...

Does it matter who cried more tears? Thats B.S. AND YOU KNOW IT.
Please, no more excuses for the wrongdoing being done, no matter which way you tweak HISTORY.
You are all in the same boat with the Pechanga, the Picayune, the Robinson Rancheria and all the other corrupt Tribes.
By the way if you are of mixed race then what makes you think that you are any more indian then the Freedmen.
As I said b/4 corruption and pure hatred is what these Tribes are about, thats what keeps it going, including the Cherokee.
NO MATTER WHAT, IT IS WHAT IT IS,
HATRED.

stand your ground said...

DITTO ON THE ABOVE...
corruption is based on greed, power and also hatred.
Nothing new... an age old song
practiced by many in history,
excuses are used to do harm.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL YOU CORRUPT TRIBES...
YOUR CHAIR'S, BOARDMEMBERS, COMMITTEES, and to all the political whores in your pocket.

Anonymous said...

Clearly the minds here have been slammed shut, locked tightly and the key thrown far, far away. Ignorance is very costly. I fear our Cherokee people, ninety-nine percent of whom are not descendants of slaveholders, are going to be forced by the ignorant to unjustly pay for something that a miniscule fraction of the tribe ever practiced. It's the same logic as arresting and putting in prison the entire campus because Michael Phelps visited for the weekend and smoked pot there. Apparently logic is not the prevailing strength on the Pechanga Blog. Sure is a lot of hatred here, though, and good golly it's pretty obvious to the casual visitor that it's not coming from the Cherokees.

Anonymous said...

As my Cherokee grandmother always told me: You cannot argue with a fool or you become one, too.

This blog is full of venom and hatred and fools.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what happens in court or in Congress or anywhere else. You can't turn Non-Indian Freedmen into Cherokees. It's not possible.

You can issue blue cards until you are blue in the face and folks can put tribal car tags on their SUV's and Cadillacs, but non-Indian Freemen will never be Cherokees. It's not possible.

I can't wait until this issue is put to rest.

Luiseno said...

My brother 'aamokat will probably disagree with me but I tend to side mostly with the Cherokee on this issue. But lets put the shoe on the other foot, because this is in a much smaller way what happened to us at Pechanga.

What if the Freedman had gained control of key positions in the tribe while they were still members? What if they then had disenrolled true Cherokee members. Members who had been in the tribe for thousands of years. How would you handle it? Would you be angry? Disenrolled by not only a group that could not prove they were direct decedents of original tribal members, but some with absolutely NO Indian blood....

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, that is not the case with the Cherokee Nation and the non-Indian Freedmen. There are many, many descendants of Freedmen who also have Cherokee ancestors that are already Cherokee citizens. It seems to be the non-Indians who want to have tribal benefits without having proof of Indian ancestry who are the most vocal. It is disheartening to read so much misinformation about the situation.

Allen L. Lee said...

What I don't understand from the Cherokee anonymous posters is how you consider the rights of others a punishment to you?
If you want to live in a land of racial blood nations then lets get with it. One drop of Indian Blood will make you an Indian and one drop of Negro blood will make you a Negro and qualified for any Negro Nation of America. Don't talk to me about Africa because our ancestors paid our dues right here.
The problem is you want to keep your foot on your dime and others too. That's why the Cherokee Nation maintained jurisdiction over several all Black towns after Cherokee freedmen descendants were liberated and given Cherokee citizenship.
There was no point of self determination for freed slaves after the Civil War. Any rights were granted by more powerful people in the Indian Nations and the U.S. of America. Several attempts were made to establish Black states in this country and guess who did everything in their power to stop us.
People of many races, Black, White, Native American and others paid the ultimate sacrifice for a slave descendant like myself to possess the rights of an enfranchised citizen in the states and tribes were our ancestors were enslaved. I can't imagine a greater measure of dishonor to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for my rights then to tell people like you that it is OK to take them.

NDNLady said...

Luiseno, no matter how you switch the shoe from foot to foot, you cannot make it fit because there are substantial differences between our issue and yours. The first being what you pointed out. That your situation is the result of those who have abused their positions of leadership. The Cherokees, themselves, have voted three times over thirty years to restrict their membership to those of Indian ancestry. Our oldest form of non-Indian enrollment, that of intermarriage, was also discontinued. But you don't see our husbands and wives dragging us into court and lobbying to destroy us before Congress. Perhaps, being family, they understand what's at stake.

Another difference is that of "due process." The Cherokees have made every effort they can possibly make to ensure that this issue is settled by law, both in Cherokee and federal courts.

I have said it before here, and I'll say it again. The histories of our situation and yours are very different. So are the legalities. To me, the effort of California disenrollees to equate the issues is a cynical and calculated move that has nothing to do with "justice."

But yes, Luiseno, I DO understand your frustration and anger. It's alot like ours. It's hard to know the truth and watch while deliberate campaigns of lies are used to promote hate and division and destroy legitimate rights. I know just how you feel.

'aamokat said...

But what I don't understand NDNLady is, what about the treaty of 1866?

Didn't that grant Cherokee citizenship to the Freedmen?

I understand what you are saying that there are already Freedmen in the tribe who have Cherokee blood from an ancestor from the Dawes roll but shouldn't the tribe abide by the treaty and include the other Freedmen who are not on that roll?

I know we the disenrolled in California tend to side with other disenrolled because in most if not all situations out here the disenrolled have not been given due process.

You are right, the Cheerokee situation is unique but for me it boils down to that 1866 treaty.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, your comments are a perfect example of the distortions of history that are nothing more than attempts to emotionally manipulate this issue. And they show just how stark the differences are between African-American views and Native American perspectives.

First, you have no "rights" in the Cherokee Nation unless the Cherokee Nation chooses to extend them. That is the law. What the freedmen descendants have is a desire and a sense of "entitlement" that they are passionate about. In exactly the same way that some whites were passionate about their "entitlement" to a segregated society. Regardless of "right". In exactly the same way some whites and some blacks were passionate about their "entitlement" to our lands. Regardless of "right". Disregarding the rights of indigenous peoples is a fine old American tradition. And it has always been a punishment for nothing more than being Indian and having something someone else wanted. It still is.

Your statement about "one drop of blood" is blatantly adhominem. We enroll all those who meet our legal requirements of Indian ancestry regardless of "other blood". There are thousands of actual Black Cherokees and you know it.

Your statements about history are grossly misinformed. And a perfect example of how so many choose to speak to this issue but feel no responsibility to actually know what they are talking about. The Cherokee Nation maintained "jurisdiction" over the all Black towns because they were in the Cherokee Nation! And that was definitely not our choice or the freedmen's. Both before the Treaty of 1866 and after Cherokees and freedmen did their best to convince the US to let them separate, precisely so that freedmen would have the degree of self-determination they desired. When the US refused us both, freedmen, AS CHEROKEE CITIZENS, began their quest for allotment and statehood. Why do you think there was such animosity between the majority of Cherokees and freedmen?

The Indians did everything in their power to stop a Black State? You betcha they did. The Indians did everything in their power to stop any state! Can you not hear yourself? WHOSE LAND WAS IT? Can you not wrap your mind around the fact that just about every tribal nation in Oklahoma was there because they had been forced at great cost of life from their original homeland? Can you not understand their attachment to the land that was all they had left? Not to mention the right to exist as distinct nations, free from the interference of the US or a state?

I have read about the black land speculators who circulated handbills encouraging blacks from the American South to pour into Indian Territory in order to take "free land" and promote the establishment of a "black state". I certainly understand what historians have said was the single most overwhelming desire of freedmen, to own land. What you don't seem to understand is that land wasn't "free". Indian nations paid the price.

History is what it is. Do you think that the Indian nations cared whether it was black or white intruders who were destroying their nations? Do you think the Plains people cared whether they were white calvary or black who came to harass and kill them? There is a difference between living in the past and learning from it. Like I say, freedmen descendants claim "rights" due to injustices of the past. Well, there are plenty of those to go around. What is important is where we are now as a result of that past. And Indian nations are still struggling for the most basic rights of self-determination, including the right to autonomy in internal affairs, the right to exist as distinct peoples and the right to their land and resources.

Yes indeed, I know how my ancestors paid the ultimate price for the right of our Nation to exist! And it would be the ultimate dishonor to tell anybody it's OK to continue to ignore that right.

Anonymous said...

'aamokat, the Treaty of 1866 did not give citizenship to the Freedmen. This is more misinformation that is being spread. The treaty gave the Freedmen land rights, not citizenship. The Cherokee Nation is a sovereign nation and the only entity that can extend Cherokee citizenship rights. It would be like saying a treaty between France and the U.S. could make Italians U.S. citizens. The U.S. is the only entity that can extend U.S. citizenship, not France. It is the same way with the U.S. and the Cherokee Nation.

The Freedmen were given Cherokee land when Oklahoma became a state, but that did not make them Cherokee citizens.

Like NDNLady said, the Cherokee Nation has voted three times for the Cherokee Consitution to require all Cherokee citizens have at least one ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. Everyone else, regardless of what color they are, including white, black, and brown, simply do not meet that requirement.

NDNLady said...

Actually, 'aamokat and anonymous are wrong and right. The Treaty of 1866 did not grant citizenship. All one has to do is read Article 15 regarding the incorporation of the Delaware and Shawnee to see the difference in the language. Any lawyer can tell you (if they are honest!) that two clauses with different language in the same contract have different meanings. And the US courts themselves have said that the Treaty did not grant citizenship. The Whitmire court said it was intended to convey "political rights". But anonymous is wrong about one thing. The Cherokees, themselves, amended their own Constitution to extend citizenship. The original freedmen who met the residency requirements of the Treaty article did apply for and were granted citizenship, including rights to occupy land. The right to occupy land, though, was not the ultimate goal of freedmen; the right to own land was. Which is why freedmen worked so hard to promote allotment and statehood. I want to stress that this was perfectly understandable and right for freedmen. But it was disastrous for the Cherokees! Which is why the United States was wrong to deny the requests of both Cherokees and freedmen to allow them to separate. And this also why the United States didn't. The US had been promoting allotment since 1855.

'aamokat, in the first place, as I said, the Treaty never "granted citizenship". Secondly, the US gave themselves the right to statutorily "abrogate" (read break) treaties simply by passing Congressional legislation. Read the two Supreme Court cases, the Cherokee Tobacco case and Lone Wolf vs Hitchcock. In the legislation breaking all our treaties, that destroyed our country and paralyzed our Nation for seventy years, the US also superceded the language of Article 9 to limit the rights granted to those who met very specific residency requirements, those people were then listed on the Dawes final roll. In addition to the language which replaced the language of Article 9, Congress also abrogated any treaty entitlement to enrollment in a prior law. In short, freedmen and their descendants who met residency requirement at THAT TIME had rights under the Treaty; today's descendants of freedmen do not.

As I said in a previous discussion, human rights monitoring bodies have long criticized the US for their failure to live up to treaty obligations and for their belief that they can break treaties at will and ignore the human rights of indigenous peoples at will. The one area where they have suggested the US "break" treaties is in all the treaty provisions that are violations of indigenous rights to self-determination. Even if Article 9 were still in effect, international human rights experts would be calling for the US to abrogate it.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the Treaty of 1866 was later modified by the U.S. Government by several acts including the Five Tribes Act. In doing so, the U.S. abrogated a portion of the treaty, resulting in non-Indian Freedmen descendants no longer having, as a matter of federal law, a right to citizenship of the Cherokee Nation.

Allen L. Lee said...

The Treaty of 1866 was an agreement which was ratified by the Cherokee in a Constitutional amendment in November of 1866 which stated:
"...All native born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the Nation by adoption, and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be, citizens of the Cherokee Nation. [138]..."
http://www.tngenweb.org/tncolor/keetood5.htm
In "In re ESTATE OF McDADE
1923 OK 476
218 P. 532
95 Okla. 120" the Oklahoma State Courts deemed the 1866 Treaty the "curative act" providing rights to former Cherokee slaves who returned after the war and took residence in the nation.
"In re ESTATE OF McDADE. WALKER
v.
TYNER et al.
¶42 We are forced to the conclusion that Prince Tyner was incapable of inheriting, unless he became legitimate by virtue of some curative act, and in this connection it is urged that the following portion of art. 9 of the Cherokee Treaty of July 19, 1866, rendered legitimate the issue of slave marriages:
"That the Cherokee Nation further agrees that all freedmen, who have been liberated by voluntary acts of their former owners or by law, as well as all free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the Rebellion and are now residents therein who may return within six months, and their descendants, shall have all the rights of native Cherokees."
http://wyom.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=40549
The Cherokee Constitution of 1999 concedes the limitations of the Treaty of 1866:
"Constitution
of the
Cherokee Nation
Article II. Territorial Jurisdiction
The boundaries of the Cherokee Nation territory shall be those described by the patents of
1838 and 1846 diminished only by the Treaty of July 19, 1866, and the Act of March 3, 1893.


Adopted by the Delegates of the 1999 Constitution Convention on March 6, 1999; approved for release by
the Constitution Convention Style Committee on July 30, 1999;
http://www.cherokee.org/Docs/TribalGovernment/Executive/CCC/2003_CN_CONSTITUTION.pdf
Finally, I have to correct myself when I inferred that no African descent persons had a hand in their self-determination with-in the tribes:
"...The Keetoowah's commitment to African American enfranchisement was further evidenced following the Civil War. Though the Cherokee Nation, and the Downing Party as well, was composed of former slaveowners, the leadership of the Keetoowah Society continued to press for the rights of their African American constituency. One member of the Nation wrote to then President Grant in 1872 of the Keetoowah advocacy of African American political rights in spite of severe challenges:
Mr. Grant...most of the Cherykees is down on the darkys. The Cherykees says they aint in favour of the black man havin any claim, that they had rather have any body else have a rite than us poor blacks...[Lewis] downing, is for us, Chelater [Oochalata], and mr. Six Killer, them tree is in our favour, and what can they doo with so many [on the other side]? ... [We] all think it rite too, after we have made them rich and built their land, doo you [?]... Now, mister grante, I wante a mesig from [you] rite away. [9]
In the Creek Nation, the relationship between the Africans and the Creek Keetoowah was quite more profound and explicit than it was in the Cherokee Nation; the Creek had always been more receptive to Africans and had much less assimilated than others of the Five Nations. In the peace negotiations following the Civil War, several members of the negotiating party of the Northern Creeks were Africans including the Reverend Harry Islands. [13] When Samuel Checote of the Southern Creek surrendered leadership of the Creek Nation to Sands Harjo, the council met at the home of an African American Creek named Scipio Barnett. [14] When terms of a new treaty were negotiated in Washington in 1866, Reverend Harry Islands was the translator between the Creek Representatives and the Federal authorities led by Ely S. Parker. [15]
In the Creek national elections of 1870, it was the "colored towns" of North Fork, Arkansas, and Canadian who unanimously backed the full blood candidates for office and carried them to victory. In the elections of 1875, once again the "colored towns" were decisive in carrying Lochar Harjo and Ward Coachman to chieftainship in the Creek Nation; the conservative/freedmen alliance controlled the destiny of the Creek Nation time and again. "

http://www.tngenweb.org/tncolor/keetoodc.htm
I agree you should do yourown research. Please visit the following link and read a little about this important history.
"
"TNGenWeb, Presents
Three Important Research Papers
by Patrick Minges"
http://www.tngenweb.org/tncolor/color-pm.htm

Allen L. Lee said...

To anonymous of 2/14, 8:32 am
The most recent act restoring and validating the 1866 Treaty was actually decided in 2004 in favor of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma sued the Delaware, invoking Article 15 of the 1866 Treaty and won. How the Nation will prove that the Treaty is invalid in the "Cherokee Nation v Nash' case five years later should be interesting.
Any claims that the treaty has been invalid since 1906 and the Five Civilized Tribes Act should be weighed with consideration of the following case:
"United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit NOV 16 2004
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, on behalf of all its members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-5055 GALE NORTON, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, AURENE MARTIN, Acting Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and DELAWARE TRIBE OF INDIANS, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees...
...The United States subsequently entered into a treaty with the Cherokee Nation. Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, U.S.-Cherokee Nation, 14 Stat. 799 ("1866 Cherokee Treaty"). Article 15 of the 1866 Cherokee Treaty provided an "incorporation option" and "preservation option" for friendly Indians settling upon Cherokee lands:...
...We are not unsympathetic to the Delawares' cause. The DOI's unlawful actions, however, cannot provide the Delawares the status they seek. The agency's decision to extend recognition to the Delawares rested on an alleged "comprehensive legal analysis" that devoted three sentences, in a footnote, to the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the 1866 Cherokee Treaty and 1867 Agreement. Agencies, like courts, must follow Supreme Court decisions and congressional acts. The DOI's recognition of the Delawares in this case was contrary to the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Journeycake and Delaware Indians and violated  103(3) of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=035055&exact=1 "

Allen L. Lee said...

In other words, if the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma can invoke the Treaty of 1866 to sue the Delaware tribe on behalf of "all its members," and be validated by the federal courts, than it would stand to reason that any and all of its members can invoke the 1866 Treaty to defend themselves, including the Freedmen descendants.

Allen L. Lee said...

...and the Indian Civil Rights Act 0f 1968 would empower those members to seek an internal resolution with-in the tribe invoking the re-habilitated Treaty of 1866. In fact, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma case that re-habilitated the Treaty of 1866 may have actually re-habilitated Reconstruction treaties for the other slave holding tribes as well, at least in the federal courts?

Creeper said...

Dear NDNLADY
I don't see this blog as full of hatred... I see all the Wronged and Disenfranchised defending themselves against crimes being perpetraded against THEM by corrupt Tribal Leaders with the help of corrupt Politicians
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY?
That is not hatred.
It's getting out the information to others who have been denied their civil rights. Indian Country itself is creating the hatred.
If Tribes disenroll it's called ADJUSTING THE RECORDS
If the Disenrolled are creating BLOGS and start talking back , WANTING THEIR JUSTICE AND THEIR DAY IN COURT then it'S hatred?
Corrupt tribes acting as third world country's do, the Tribal Leaders have all the rights and
"DON'T YOU DARE CHALLENGE THAT"
We are being told just to accept it and go on with your life.

NOT IN MY BOOK.
WE DEMAND OUR DAY IN COURT, TO BE HEARD, TO HAVE THESE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF OUR CIVIL AND HUMAN
RIGHTS TO MAKE KNOWN TO ALL.

Cherokeesevenstar said...

My name is David Cornsilk. I will publish my remarks under my own name, so there will be no question regarding who I am, or where I stand.

Allen, you are, in my opinion, having a debate with Gale Ross and Linda Turnbull Lewis, perhaps also with some entries by Julia Coats. Your arguments are clear and correct. They claim that there are lies being spread to brainwash the readers. That is an insult to the reader, as if he/she is incapable of coming to a logical and correct conclusion in a debate.

The most insidious piece of disinformation promoted by the anti-freedmen posters is their claim that the freedmen agitated for allottment and statehood. This is utterly false and not substantiated by any document of the period. As was the case in the Creek Nation, the Cherokee Freedmen were against allottment and statehood. While there were large numbers of state-negros entering the Cherokee and others Nations, their influence on the local Freedment population was more of recalcitrance against allottment than in favor of it. It defies logic that the Freedmen would trade free access to as much land as they could cultivate and improve for a state system run by whites that denied the black brethren access to land, denied them civil and political rights and lynched them if they stood up.

The state-negros brought with them horrific tales of ill treatment at the hands of the KKK and white night riders in the south. They brought information about the institutionalized Jim Crow laws passed by the state which were virtually non-existant in the Cherokee Nation. Also, a careful examination of the Dawes enrollment records of the Freedmen (Yes they are on the Dawes Roll) shows that the Cherokee Freedmen did not live with, nor intermarry much with state-negros.

What is most compelling about the Freedmen enrollment record is the amount of information provided to the Dawes Commission showing Cherokee Indian blood flowing in the veins of the Freedmen, but not permitted to be recorded on the Roll. Why? Because negro blood tainted them so badly, they could be nothing but Freedmen despite their Cherokee blood!

While the Cherokee full bloods refused to vote in the 1901 allotment agreement election, the Freedmen voted against it, their votes numbering nearly 1,000. On the other hand the majority of votes cast in favor of allottment were from intermarried whites and thin bloods, mostly the ancestors of those opposed to the Freedmen today and also descendants of slave-owning Cherokees.

It is also clearly a diversionary argument to claim that only a small percentage of Cherokee citizens owned slaves. That is not the point. The government of the whole Cherokee people protected and promoted slavery. The Cherokee Nation government passed slave laws, misegination laws and codified slavery and the maltreatment of human beings. This government, created by, for and of the Cherokee people resprented ALL Cherokees. If the majority of Cherokees opposed slavery then why did slavery flourish? The real reason is that slavery was not originally opposed by any Cherokees. The first slave owners were full bloods such as Nancy Ward. The economy of the full bloods was not suited to slave owning in the same way that the plantation economy of the mixed blood was. A full blood could not afford a $500 slave to work a 40 acre garden. Opposition to slavery arose in the 1840s among the full bloods as a way to rally them politically against the rising power of the mixed blood slave owning class. Slaves were a symbol of oppression against the full bloods by the mixed bloods seizing power in the tribe. The Missionaries used slavery as a wedge to divide the full bloods from their mixed blood kin. This opposition to slavery, fostered by missionaries with their own agenda, did not stop Cherokee full bloods from voting for and supporting leadership that enshrined slavery in tribal law. The slave-promoting-protecting government of the Cherokee Nation represented ALL Cherokees and thus, slavery tainted us all.

Another lie that needs to be corrected is the statement that only "100" slaves came west on the Trail of Tears. The 1835 Henderson Roll, widely accepted by Cherokee historical scholars and academics as the definitive list of Cherokees who came west on the Trail of Tears, shows the property holdings of the Cherokees about to be forced from their homes. In this list are the numbers of chickens, cows, hogs, chairs and slaves owned by the Cherokees. Slaves number about 1,500 souls.

In 1846 the Cherokees who came on the Trail of Tears filed claims for lost property due to the forced removal. Among the items they claimed lost or stolen included chickens, hogs, horses, bedsteads and homes. Glaringly absent from those lists were claims for lost slaves, with the exception of those that died enroute or ran away and a few stolen. When a slave of good quality might cost upwards of $500, there was no reason for the Cherokees not to claim lost slaves except for the fact that they didn't lose many. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that 1,500 slaves were enumerated in 1835 and most of those survived the arduous trek west, despite the fact that they had to carry the luggage. And the claim that "ONLY ONE" slave died on the Trail of Tears is self-serving and ignores the fact that there was little mention of when a cow died and slaves being only property, there was need to mention them either. And the pathetic argument of whose tears were saltier is nothing short of disgusting.

It is also a lie that there was tremendous animosity between the Cherokee Indians and the Cherokee Freedmen in the post-Civil War pre-Dawes era. To the contrary, while the Freedmen did tend to isolate themselves into communities, so too did the full bloods. The mixed bloods, most of the former slave owners and confederate soldiers, courted the Freedmen vote in their elections.

A Cherokee Freedmen named Jerry Alberty was elected to the National Council in 1883 on the socalled Downing ticket. The Downing Party represented the former slave owning, Confederate mixed blood Cherokees. Alberty was elected from the Cooweescoowee District of the Cherokee Nation where a majority of tribal citizens were thin bloods of the Confederate persusion. Doesn't sound like much animosity to me! And again, in the 1890s a Freedmen named Joseph Stick Ross was elected to the National Council from the Tahlequah District. The Tahlequah District, in which sat the city of Tahlequah, the Capital of the Cherokee Nation, was the most highly politicized and mixed blood district in the Cherokee Nation where Freedmen citizens numbered less than one percent of the total voting population. There were at least six cases in which Freedmen were elected to the National Council of the Cherokee Nation from 1883 to 1900. There might have been a few haters in the tribe, as there still are today apparently. But most Cherokees accepted the Freedmen as citizens, serving with them on boards, juries and electing them to public office.

It is a lie that the Cherokees, upon signing the Treaty of 1866 intended only that a "finite" number of Freedmen would enjoy the rights of tribal citizenship. If that were the case, the words "AND THEIR DESCENDANTS" would not appear in Article 9. The only "finite" intent of the Treaty was the six month window to return. After that date, no Freedmen could return and claim to be a bonefide citizen. Even this fact was overlooked by our generous ancestors when Lewis Ross, then Principal Chief, introduced several bills to admit to citizenship Freedmen who had returned too late.

Adoption in our Nation, which is another word for "naturalization" as used by white folks, is a permanent state of being. It is generational and so long as the grass grows and the water flows or until Congress deems otherwise, the Treaty of 1866 remains the law of the land.

Treaties are to be construed in the way that the Indians would have understood them at the time of their adoption. There is ample evidence that the Cherokee people construed the Treaty of 1866 as an agreement to grant full and equal citizenship to the Freedmen and their descendants. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to amend the Constitution that same year to enshrine the exact words from the Treaty in our organic document.

Chiefs of the Cherokee Nation, such as William Potter Ross and Dennis Wolfe Bushyhead would not have stood up for the rights of the Freedmen as citizens in their testimonies, speeches and executive orders. Chief Lewis Downing would not have introduced bill after bill in the Council to provide for the education of Freedmen children if he saw them as only temporary citizens of the Nation. Candidates for the highest offices in our Nation would not have courted their votes to win elections had they not been permanent citizens.

The argument that you cannot take a black or white person and make them into a Cherokee flies in the face of the law, in fact, both federal and Cherokee law. Numerous federal cases have shown that white men who have aligned themselves with an Indian tribe by marriage and become citizens of that tribe are no longer protected by their status as U.S. citizen relative to tribal law. A federal court case, styled Alberty v. U.S., shows clearly that the Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation were citizens under the jurisdiction of the tribe in criminal matters and that jurisdiction ousted federal authority in punishing crimes. In 1833 the Cherokee Supreme Court ruled that a black woman, formerly a slave adopted by the Deer Clan of the Cherokees, dressed in tribal regalia and named Ghi-ge-yu (Beloved) was in fact a Cherokee. The Court went so far as to say that since her adoption, "she and her children have EVER been NATIVE CHEROKEES." If you want to know more about her, read "Ties That Bind," by Tiya Miles.

Congress has made no changes to the 1866 Treaty, despite the misreprentations told by some of the posters on this board. The Act of 1906 closed the Dawes Rolls and provided that there would be no new citizens or Freedmen placed upon that list. If there are to be no new Freedmen citizens by those words, then there were to be no new Cherokee Indian citizens either. The danger of the 1906 Act argument is that the effect of closing the rolls is upon all Cherokee citizens, not just the Freedmen. Chad Smith, by making that argument, may have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

It was argued that because the socalled "Intermarried white" roll was excluded in the recent amendment to exclude the Freedmen Roll, that we have rid ourselves of white people made members of our tribe. That is false. There are currently three Cherokee tribal members who are descended from adopted whites listed on the Cherokees by blood section of the Dawes Roll. Their ancestors were listed with NO degree of blood, yet they remain citizens of the Nation. It is a ruse, a red herring, to claim that excluding the "Intermarried white" section has excluded the white people and thus made the amendment fair and not racist. Think about it folks. If they were intermarried, then they were married to Cherokee Indians and their children would be Cherokees by blood. By excluding that section of the roll, not a single person previously enrolled was excluded.

Debates such as these serve little purpose because the parties to whom the resolution of this matter is charged know all the facts. The case is currently in three courts, two federal and one tribal. The lawyers for the Freedmen, Jon Velie in the federal venue and Ralph Keen Jr. in the tribal, have made excellent showings of the facts. The lawyers for the Cherokee Nation have made their counter arguments and judges will have to decide. If the court cases rule against the Freedmen in such a way as to leave ambiguity regarding their status and the status of the Treaty of 1866, Congress, may yet be required to intervene.

cindymason73@aol.com said...

Allen Lee and John Cornsilk are attached at the hip. Of course, David is Cornsilk's son. Enough said.

John Cornsilk said...

Most certainly enough said by a CNOTsuckin fool!! Yes it is true Allen Lee and I agree on the corruption by the supposed leaders of CNOT, if that joins us at the hip that is GOOD...First let me say before some fool accuses me of calling folks nasty names, CNOT is an acronym for the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, TRAITORS" with traitors added for the traitorus acts of Chief Smith and cohorts against Cherokee People. and the idiot supporters babbling the pure BS on here hawking the Smith crap can only be deemed suckers: Thus the term CNOT-suckers!!

Now that you folls know your place let me say if you want to ge serious about the truth of the matter simply click this link read and pay sum dang tention!! http://www.cornsilks.com/johnarticles.html then once you have read all that go to http://www.cornsilks.com and read all the corroborational Documentation of all that you read in the articles!! its all there folks if ya want to know the truth!! It all Backs up What Mr. Allen Lee says!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Memebr, UKB as well,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

Anonymous said...

Gotcha riled, huh? LOL! LOL! LOL!

Anonymous said...

Fools! LOL! LOL! LOL!

Eli Grayson said...

Anonymous please stop using the words non-Indian Freedmen and say what you really mean "those niggers"...the last bunch of people who had no honor used robes to disguise themselves, you know, the KKK..you learned well.

Eli Grayson

kurux said...

Greetings, I am Kurux from Tahlequah.

I am a fullblood CHerokee, and have always been. MOst of these pro-Chad smith people did not grow up Cherokee, and are thinbloods that live in another state. ON here they are mainly from California, which is literally 1,000 miles away from this battle. They only know how to try to be cherokee from the CUlture class the Cherkee Nation sends around the country, which by the way was actually CREATED by CHad Smith! So it is no wonder that most of these ignorant "over night" cherokee spew Chad Smith's propoganda. I say "pro chad Smith" because that is what they are. They are not pro-Cherokee NAtion. If they were they would work for inclusion, not exclusion.

THe Freedmen were excepted, we wrote "and descendants" in the treaty, and I think their inclusion is as plain as day.

As these people on here argue that "only a few Cherokee owned slaves", Why not let the "few Slaves" and their "descendants" be Citizens as promised in the Treaty? No one is advocating to just let all kinda folks in the tribe, only those who are listed on the Dawes ROlls, which include Freedmen. AS DAvid said, there are FUllblood whites who simply bought their way onto the "by blood' Roll. This "by Blood" roll is only a label, and does not neccessarily mean that everyone is "by blood". ALso Whites can gain their citizenship through the Delaware and SHawnee rolls, which also contain whites on theri rolls.

90% of our tribe is under 1/4 BQ. Our BQ is down to 1/9,064ths. MOSt grew up white, and never claimed indian while growing up until they got healthcare and now casino jobs. Now since the Freedmen won their due IN TRIBAL COURT, the whites want them out of their "club". Now Chad is undermining the Tribal COurt by filing in federal court! He was the main one whining that teh issue should stay in our Tribal Court! He is a snake, and an idiot.

I have grown up in our homelands, I have grown up in our culture, and religion. I speak and understand Cherokee, and I was always taught that the Freedmen were Cherokee. Gaining a blue "Cherokee Citizenship" card cannot hide the rednecks nor yellow bellies of the white 'overnight' cherokee.

Tahlequah born too! said...

Kurux: You live in Tahlequah? What do you do to help your Cherokee people other than gripe about it?

Tahlequah born too! said...

Eli: YOU are the only person using that word here. How pathetic.

Former (But Still) Pechanga said...

I am from Pechanga and I remember a little over a year ago when some of us who have been disenrolled went to the California Native American Caucus meeting and how anti Freedmen Cherokee rubbed elbows with and supported scondrels from Pechanga when they stacked the deck to pass a resolution that was aimed to undue a previous resolution that had been passed by the caucus in support of individual Indians' rights.

That second resolution that the anti Freedmen and pro California disenrollment people supported actually was against provisions in the previous resolution that supported the spirit of Proposition 1A, which legalized Las Vegas style gambling on California reservations, which was supposed to help all California Indians.

The pro disenrollment people actually had shuttle buses from Pechanga bringing in people, most of whom had no idea what they were voting on and some of whom who were drunk to the meeting to support their resolution.

Also, an at large board member of the caucus sent out E mails to people offering to buy them dinner and pay for their California Native American Caucus membership in return for their votes.

If there is any doubt as to the integrity of the Pechanga scoundrels, just look at their spanking brand new golf course that is built amid buriel grounds of their ancestors that chairman Mark Macarro had promised congress and the Dept. of Interior that no changes at all would be made to the land if it was made part of tbe reservation.

But once the land was added to the reservation Pechanga tore it up and put the golf course in.

That is who the anti Freedmen Cherokee supported.

Eli Grayson said...

Tahlequah, come out of your robe and be a proud racist. YES YOU CAN!
The only pathetic issue here is racism. Yours and a few others.

Eli Grayson

NDNLady said...

David Cornsilk says that we are lying about history but, in fact, there is a great deal of documentation to support what I say, documentation that he either chooses to ignore or never bothered to learn. I grew up in a family that placed great importance on Cherokee history and the willful distortion of that history is something every Cherokee should find offensive. Mr. Lee, you say “do your own research” as you cut and paste from the internet. I suggest you take that article you found, follow the footnotes and read the books which are cited. They paint a very different portrait of the times than your unnamed author did. The role of slavery in the Cherokee Nation, the Cherokee Nation’s participation in the Civil War, the brutal negotiations resulting in the Treaty of 1866 and the forty years leading up to allotment have been the subject of several meticulously footnoted works by reputable historians like Theda Purdue, Wm McLoughlin, Gary Moulton, Morris Wardell, Daniel Littlefield and many others. When you read everything you can find, Mr. Lee, as I have done; and when you follow those footnotes as best you can, then you will have followed your own patronizing advice. I also have the diaries and letters of my g-grandfather, a Keetoowah, a Pin and a member of Lewis Downing’s Third Indian Home Guard which he joined at the age of sixteen.

David says that it is a lie that there was antagonism between freedmen and Cherokees. Even the words of Lewis Rough, posted here by Allen Lee, say indisputably that there was considerable animosity between the two. And it was directly related to the ambiguity of the Treaty article, who exactly it applied to and what exactly it meant. The vast majority of Cherokees had fought for the Union and many of them had been supporters of abolition before the War. They bitterly resented both the way the United States treated Chief John Ross as “disloyal” during the negotiations and the fact that the US was simultaneously treating with the Watie faction who really had fought against them. The resulting final Treaty contained many concessions that would contribute to the dissolution of the Cherokee Nation, including loss of land, railroad rights and the incorporation of former slaves and free blacks. David points out that Lewis Downing, whom he mistakenly identifies as “Lewis Ross”, tried to pass a bill to extend citizenship to those former slaves who did not return before the time limit in the Treaty. Downing was not alone. William P Ross, Oochalata (Charles Thompson) and Six Killer also did. But these measures always failed due to overwhelming opposition from Cherokees on all sides of the political spectrum.

The remarks of Lewis Rough are probably representative of most freedmen’s feelings…that unpaid labor by slaves made Cherokees rich. These feelings are perfectly understandable. On the other hand, the majority of Loyal Cherokees had never owned slaves and the ostentatious displays of wealth by mixed-bloods had contributed greatly to their abolitionist sentiments in the first place. They had seen their country devastated in a war they never wanted and every freedmen admitted meant less land and fewer resources for Cherokees. Wm McLoughlin, in “After the Trail of Tears”, says “Antagonism against former slaves was intensified after IT BECAME CLEAR THAT MOST OF THEM FAVORED TERRITORIALIZATION AND DENATIONALIZATION OF THE CHEROKEE NATION SINCE THEY WOULD THEN EACH OBTAIN A HOMESTEAD IN FEE SIMPLE.”

In “The Cherokee Freedmen”, Daniel Littlefield, himself a freedmen descendant supporter, meticulously recounts the forty year struggle between Cherokees and the freedmen citizens, as well as the freedmen’s constant demands for federal intervention into the Cherokees’ ability to determine citizenship. He closes by saying, “WHILE ALLOTMENT WAS PERHAPS THE FREEDMEN’S MOST TRIUMPHANT MOMENT, their forty year struggle ended in, at best, a jaded victory. The struggle was one of several major influences that had weakened the Cherokee Nation and led to its ultimate dissolution. Unfortunately for the freedmen, they had contributed to the removal of the protection of the Indian nation, in which they had been tolerated and given access to the political and judicial structure as well as the tax free use of the land. With allotment and the destruction of their nation’s protection, they were thrust into the Anglo-dominated society at a time when racial hatred was at one of the highest points in American history.”

The constant wrangling over citizenship prompted Congress to pass legislation permitting suits in the US Court of Claims to settle not just the meaning of Article 9 regarding freedmen, but also Article 15 and the incorporation of Shawnee and Delaware. When asked to clarify the language of Article 9, the Court, in Whitmire, found the language “and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants” was: “intended for the protection of the Cherokee Nation as a limitation upon the number of persons who might avail themselves of the provisions of the treaty, and consequently that they referred to both the freedmen and the free colored persons previously named in the article; that is to say, freedmen and the descendants of freedmen who did not return within six months are excluded from the benefits of the treaty and of the decree, and that this period of six months extends from the date of the promulgation of the treaty, August 11, 1866, and consequently did not expire until February 11, 1867.”

This was the first time the language of the Treaty was modified. It was not the last. The 1906 Five Tribes Act, in Sec 3, amended the language of Article 9 very specifically. The Act states:

“The roll of Cherokee freedmen shall include only such persons of African descent, either free colored or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual personal bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation on or before February eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; but this provision shall not prevent the enrollment of any person who has heretofore made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or its successor and has been adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Secretary of Interior. “

In a subsequent court case, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, found that this language superseded the language of Article 9 because a later statute supersedes a prior Treaty. The court stated quite clearly

“If any doubt theretofore existed as to the proper construction to be given article 9 of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, that doubt was dissipated by the language of sec. 3 of the above act of April 26th, 1906, for that language constitutes a legislative interpretation of, and supersedes pro tanto, the prior treaty. Cherokee Tobacco (Boudinot v. United States) 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. ed. 227. In other words, we think that, under the TRUE construction of the language of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, the benefits of citizenship were conferred ONLY upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.”

David Cornsilk says that debates such as this “serve little purpose” but of course he travels the country speaking, as well as writing, spreading the kind of propaganda he has written here. When you know the history, it is painfully clear that this same sort of disinformation has always preceded some devastating blow to Cherokee rights. And there have always been Cherokees who were willing to participate in that, usually in service to a personal political vendetta. There have also always been Cherokees who did their best to defend Cherokee rights with the best of all defenses. The truth. So long as a real discussion about the truth of history doesn't take place, no real reconciliation can take place. For any of us.

Allen L. Lee said...

It's not really about past injustices when NDNLady says:
"NDNLady said...
"...Like I say, freedmen descendants claim "rights" due to injustices of the past..."
What it is about is acknowledging and enforcing all corrective measures from those injustices. So when an Anonymous says:
"Anonymous said...
Like NDNLady said, the Cherokee Nation has voted three times for the Cherokee Consitution to require all Cherokee citizens have at least one ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. "
It is important to recognize all of the corrective measures to reverse the damage done by the Dawes Act to tribes. I take no issue with the accuracy of the rolls, for genealogists and historians, they are extremely valuable, but the Dawes Act itself is the subject of several consective court decisions and congressional acts .
Since the 1930's and some may include "The Five Civilized Tribes Act" Congress and native Nations have been in a tug of war to reverse the effects of the dawes Act, which most historians review as destructive to native sovreignty:
"...Also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 terminated the Dawes Act's allotment system,"
http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/indian-reorganization-act
Take into account over the years of acts like the "Indian Reorganization Act," the "Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act," The "Indian Self Determination Act," the "Indian Civil Rights Act," and one timely and relevant court cases such as the Cherokee Nation v Delaware in 2004 and the "Cobell vs. Kempthorne " which Obama and Salazar have said they intend to settle directly related to correcting damage done by the Dawes Act. It would be inconceivable that anyone would believe that all the other acts to correct the the damage done by the Dawes Act would be valid and enforceable but that the damage done to only article 9 of the 1866 treaty by the Dawes Act was irreversible and permanent.
Obama and Salazar intend to take corrective measures in the Cobell v Kempthorne case as it relates to the Dawes act. They should do the same for any damage done to freedmen descendants as a result of the Dawes Act.
It's not about past wrongs, it's about preserving and enforcing the corrective measures as a result of the Dawes Act for those past wrongs, be it Cobell or Vann.
Allen L. Lee

"Friday February 13, 2009 COBELL WELCOMES SECRETARY'S STATEMENT ON INDIAN TRUST LAWSUIT BROWNING, Mont., Feb. 13 -- Elousie Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the 13-year-old class action lawsuit over the federal government's mismanagement of Individual Indian Trust accounts, said today she was pleased that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has stated the Obama administration will try to settle the litigation.
In testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee Thursday, Salazar said he "will try to bring" the case "to conclusion."
The secretary also said he was aware that two previous Interior secretaries had been held in civil contempt in the case.
Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation, said that the more than 500,000 Indians covered by the lawsuit want to see the case resolved properly.
"We are happy that the Obama administration appears to be taking a positive view toward resolving our case," Ms. Cobell said.
"The Secretary must understand that the Cobell litigation cannot be settled unless such settlement is fair, equitable, and in accordance with trust law."
http://www.indiantrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.ViewDetail&PressRelease_id=201&Month=2&Year=2009

Sweet Caroline said...

If the majority of the posters here didn't know how to copy/paste you'd be up a creek.

Tahlequah born too! said...

As always, Eli only "comes out" to play when he feels others are around to help.

Anonymous said...

Cornsilk and Kurux are the same poster. They're just trying to make readers think there are more of them than there really is.

Eli, you are the racist here. Watch your mouth. It reflects your intelligence.

kurux said...

julia, just because your boyfriend Chad Smith paid for your PHD out of the CHerokee People's MOney, plus your campaign, doesnt mean you know anything!

I am a Cherokee in the Kituwah society, our religious society here at home. It is AGAINST OUR RELIGION to discrimate on color, this is against GOD'S LAWS which he handed to the CHerokee in our sacred wampum belts. SOme of us still practice these ways, and so we wholeheartedly accept the Freedmen as Cherokee by law and culture. It is quite obvious on here which are true Cherokee indians and live our ways, and those who are white people, carrying with them their bigotry and ignorance, with a blue Cherokee Card.

Inclusion of the Freedmen WAS A CHOICE! the 5 tribe accepted their freedmen with limits based on their acceptance. THe Chickasaw Nation TOTALLY DISOWNED THEM, and simply gave them land and $$ - reparations, but not citizenship. THe Cherokee adoption of the Freedmen was the most liberal and wide spread acceptance besides the Seminoles who were intermarried a lot with them. If we did all of this fighting, then we would have simply gave them reparations, and been done, but we did the best thing, and accepted them as our brothers. We fought against railroads, and other land concessions, this was what was important to us, the freedmen were already accepted as of 1863, and with our constitutional modification.

The % tribes act is wrong, and you can check with all the authors you listed above, and they will tell you the same thing. Freedmen, and Cherokee indians were placed on the Freedmen Roll regardless of BQ so that they were more easily dispossed of their Land.

The 5 tirbes act also freezes the entire Cherokee NAtion in time. If this were in effect, the only "citizens" of the CNO would be those few original enrollees who today are over 100 yrs old.

THose Cherokee the pro-chad person is talking about are thinbloods. at the time of the Dawes, we had citizens with 1/256 BQ already. THese were the white Cherokee of their time, and were the slave holdong class. If your g-grandpa was a pin, then he would have the same views as me, and be tied to god's laws. You are lying, because I know who you are one of 2 people, and Neither has the BQ to have a G-grandpa as a pin.

CHad is grasping at straws. He is wrong, and the CNO will lose. I cannot wait, and we will vote all of the snakes out.

kurux said...

PS.

I am not David. I know hiima nd his dad. It is you Pro-CHad people who always try an be more than one person.

I dont agree with DAvid on somethings, but on the Freedmen issue, he is correct. DOnt forget the beat the pants off of the Cherokee Nation in court, even with all their high powered attorneys and $$!

Eli Grayson said...

Hum seems like I hit a nerve Anonymous, it must be my writing about you and others who hide behind your Internet KKK robes.
I think the public have a right to know what you mean by non-Indian Freedmen...you mean the N-word. Nothing more. At least be honest about your feelings.

kurux said...

Another P.S.

I get bothered by this Statemen: the Cherokee people voted 3 times to limt enrollment. This is categorically false and UNTRUE. the only vote we've had on citizenship was the one in March, after chad went all over teh country lying about the Freedmen to these ignorant white cherokee.

THe other 2 instaces, CHad is trying to conflate, our 2 constitutional votes to mean some type of preference to the "by blood" rolls. Also here is another FAct, as I said before, the "by blood" roll is only a LABEL there are fullblood whites on the "by Blood" roll, so a strict adhearance of the "by blood" lebeled rolls, still allows WHITE PEOPLE to be citizens, yet somehow these Pro-chadders seem not to care, and thus we are lead to the practical conclusion that Eli brings up, which is that they are sitting at their computers in their finest white sheets!

We DID NOT vote 3 times, only once. Ralph Keen Sr. and EArl Boyd pierce BOTH attorneys for the CNO under Bill Keeler and Ross Swimmer advised the Chiefs to leave teh Freedmen alone, and to SPECIFIALLY leave out refernces to the "by blood" roll becasue freedmen exclusion would "open up a can of worms" as Pierce stated in his correspondane with Keeler. THe constitution was passed in '76, with the last freedmen case being won in '69 which affirmed their citizenship at the time. everyone who was involved with the COnstitution was involved with the Freedmen case in '69, and so it was a GIVEN that teh Freedmen were citizens, because the FEDERAL COURT just ruled so!

Chad and his ilk continue to rry and rewrite history. This is one of the reasons for his revisionist history course. Chad sent his girlfriend Julia COates to get her degrees so that they could justify their position. SHe is not from here, and is a white woman from California. She is a Assitant Professor at UC Davis, in the Ethnic studies. indian studies dept. She is the one on here (or at least writing some of it) spreading vitriol about the Freedmen. Julia needs to be drummed out of the University of Clifornia system. I dont see why on earth they would allow a bigotted racist to teach. She claims to be a liberal indian in CA, then flies home, and oppresses black people in the south! I encourage all on here from CA to write to the UC board of regents to get her dismissed! or your local representative.

SO,take what they say with a grain of salt. If you were to actually read their sources fully, they would tel you different. The 5 tribes act, and the works of thise authors cited above, all fall in favor of the Freedmen.

Eli Grayson said...

Excepts from the past. It would seem some people never learn. Unforunately, you can still find this hatred of freedmen today.

http://premium.fileden.com/premium/2008/2/18/1765574/Document%20(39).pdf

Eli Grayson said...

sorry...misspelled unfortunately

kurux said...

Eli: who is willim wilson? what was his BQ?

Anonymous said...

I'm new to this post and really hesitate to say anything since there is so much name calling going on so I'll just say this and move on. It is curious to read how some of these posters think black folks with no Indian blood (referred to as non-Indian freedmen in some posts and something rude in other posts)should be Cherokee members, and then they bad mouth other Cherokees and what their blood quantum is. One poster describes some Cherokees as thin bloods yet they obviously meet the requirement of having an ancestor on the rolls or they wouldn't be members in the first place. Yet the reason the Freedmen can't get a membership card is because they can't show they have any Indian blood at all. That would be a lot less than a thin blood wouldn't it. That would be no blood at all.

It doesn't seem to me that there is a hatred of freedmen as stated above by Mr. Grayson. It seems they just don't meet the requirements to be Cherokees.

Eli Grayson said...

He was a Cherokee council member from a 140 years ago...hated black people. He gave a testimony to the Senate Indian Affairs committee in 1885 on conditions of Indians in Indian territory...which was a traveling (road show) of Senators visiting a number of tribes before the passage of the Curtis Act...they used these testimony to persuade other members of congress on the need to pass the Curtis act...
Were you able to open the link....my email is eligrayson@hotmail.com
I can email you the entire document, some 700 pages or more...but good history.

Eli Grayson said...

Anonymous said It doesn't seem to me that there is a hatred of freedmen as stated above by Mr. Grayson. It seems they just don't meet the requirements to be Cherokees.

You also said you are new...so that must explain your comment.

My friend when the freedmen descendants ancestors were purchased on auction blocks, they did not need Indian blood. The Cherokee have a moral and legal responsibility to people they held as slaves...Indian blood has nothing to do with their citizenship. If the Cherokee Nation chose to enroll people with an ounce of Indian blood, they have that right...but with their slave and their descendants the Cherokees lost that right when 620,000 Americans lost their lives fighting for or against slavery in America's Civil War. (Im sure you know about the Five Civilized Tribes participation in the Civil War). The US required Mississippi and the rest of the Southern Confederacy to nationalized their African Slaves and they told the Creeks, Cherokee, Choctaw and Seminoles to do the same.

Just question Anonymous the NEW...do you think Mississippians have a right to vote to take away citizenship to black people in their state who don't have a drop of white blood? Ridiculous you think....it is...but that is what this tribe and some others have done....


Anyways friend...these tribes are political groups of people not races....there is no such thing as the Cherokee race...its nation of people not a race...and they like a few others should wake up and smell the coffee...the United States which had slavery for less than 80 years ain't screaming kick the Negroes back to Africa and neither should some VERY VERY VERY THIN so call BLOOD Oklahoman Cherokees...

t'eetilawuncha! said...

It seems to me that families or clans of tribes were defined by our ancestors. The make of the families or clans defines a tribe. When people disrespect our ancestors by trying to change the make up of our tribes, under the cloak of sovereignty or disenrolling entire clans under the chatter that they are defining their membership, it is no longer a tribe but a club. The real reason that disenrollment issues are on the rise is because of the political power struggles within tribal communities, and here in California you can add millions of dollars. The greed has overwhelmed tribal communities, and the struggles of some to stay in political power have blinded many to the true Indian way. Support all your brothers and sisters. Many clans were adopted in the Indian way, especially hundreds of years ago before any of us were here.

Allen L. Lee said...

To new anonymous
The riddle of Indian Blood and pre-existing sovereignty is the same as the "tree falling in the forest" riddle. If no hearing life form is near enough to perceive the sound, then it does not exist. The same with pre-existing sovereignty and Indian blood. I've asked anyone who can answer to provide an example of an Indian Blood requirement prior to Oct.12, 1492, and as of yet, I have no answer?
By-Blood in the legal since is based on the legal, not racial or DNA make-up of an ancestor of the citizen. Every dis-enrolled Cherokee Freedmen Descendants is a By-Blood Cherokee based on the legal status of their ancestors, as t'eetilawuncha said,
not their race or DNA make-up.

Allen L. Lee said...

“NDNLady said...


The Indians did everything in their power to stop a Black State? You betcha they did. The Indians did everything in their power to stop any state!”
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2887382220113280558&postID=4047224572865256436&isPopup=true


Chronicles of Oklahoma
Volume 8, No. 2
June, 1930
THE LIFE AND WORK OF SEQUOYAH
By John B. Davis, B. S., M. A.
Page 149


On August 21, 1905, the executives of four of the Five Civilized Tribes joined in a convention at Muskogee in a determined effort to secure separate statehood for Indian Territory.
They wrote a constitution for the Territory and named the proposed new state "Sequoyah." All residents of the Indian Territory were invited to assist. The convention was important in that it represented the first political co-operation between the whites and Indians. The constitution and plan for statehood was voted on by all of the people of Indian Territory and adopted by a majority of more than 47,000 votes. For political reasons it received no consideration at Washington, and apparently the work of the Sequoyah convention went for naught. However, the experience served the eastern section of the state well, for when the Constitutional convention met at Guthrie a year later it was controlled by the men who had organized the Sequoyah Convention. W. H. Murray (Alfalfa Bill), the vice-president of the Sequoyah convention, was elected president of the Guthrie convention. C. N. Haskell, who had been prominent in the Sequoyah convention, was elected the first governor of the state of Oklahoma. The characteristic features of the Sequoyah constitution were embodied in the Oklahoma constitution.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v008/v008p149.html

Anonymous said...

Your question about Mississippi doesn't make any sense. Mississppi is a state and the Cherokees are an Indian tribe. If I'm not mistaken, the slaves were all freed at the end of the civil war and became U.S. citizens. There would be need for them to become members of an Indian tribe too. I realize some black folks intermarried with the Indians, as did a lot of whites, and I suppose their children would be part Indian, part Cherokee in this scenario and they would obviously be part of the tribe. But I don't see how the parent who doesn't have Indian blood could be a member of the tribe.

Eli Grayson said...

Anonymous you are indeed new...

The slaves held by the Americans received American citizenship....

The freedmen of the Five (slave owning) Civilized Tribes did not received American citizenship after their emancipation. They received citizenship in the NATION that held them as slaves. In this case the Cherokee Nation. They received their American citizenship at the same time the rest of the Cherokee citizens got theirs...during the Oklahoma statehood process some 40 years after the Civil War...
As far as comparing the Cherokee Nation to the state of Mississippi...my friend they are both governments...political sovereigns....which seems to be a problem for most americans to understand.

Eli Grayson said...

Anonymous the new...one more thing you stated...
But I don't see how the parent who doesn't have Indian blood could be a member of the tribe.

Free yourself of the Indian blood crap...as I said before if the Cherokee Nation wants to enroll people based on blood..go right ahead...but when it comes to their slave descendants...you don't have right to demand anything from them except having the blood of their slave ancestor who by treaty and by whats morally right have a just right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation...

Sweet Caroline said...

"as I said before" Eli. Who are YOU to say anything as gospel? Who are you at all? YOU have been brainwashed by Cornsilk...period. YOU are the epitome of "crap".

Eli Grayson said...

Such an un-sweet thing to say Caroline...but perhaps with a little insulin my dear you can hear the message and not hate the messenger......such hate for others, free yourself before you end up in hell...I wonder what would Jesus say about you sweet Caroline...you ever pray...and I wonder do you pray to a non-Indian Jesus....hum just wondering...

John Cornsilk said...

Well Allen, Eli, and kurux, it appears all these CNOT-suckin fools, Still don't got a dang clue, they go and find material that they can can twist up and make it fit the equine excrement Smith feeds these three CNOT-suckin fools, Julia Coates,Linda T Lewis, and the one who blows "Gayle" Ross! rather than go to www.cornsilks.com like I told them in my last post, and other idiots feeding off the regirgitated equine crap and blathering the same type BS too!!

I put together some material folks, with linked documentation within each linked article, that will square away all the CRAP spewed by you CNOT-suckin fools! Simply read

THIS ONE!! And Continue on with THIS ONE!!And Finally THIS ONE!! and All the LINKS to documentation, then you can shuck this suit of STUPID from whence all you CNOT-SUCKERS post!!


John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Memebr, UKB as well,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

Sweet Caroline said...

John, John, John...NOBODY with any sense at all reads your words on your web site. It's a matter of interpretation. Your's not always being correct. Please understand others have a right to believe what they want (whether it agrees with your opinion) just as you do.

Eli: The real Cherokee people know who you are...not who you THINK you are. Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with what you all are perpetrating here. But he will when the time comes. You need to take a good hard look at yourself. The people that matter do.

Eli Grayson said...

Sweet Caroline 'run to the light'...I don't care if you know me or not....
Wow, thanks for the words for the day, 'the real Cherokee people'...lets compare that to 'non-Indian Freedmen'...

And yes the non-Indian Jesus does have everything to do with this...I wonder have you ever prayed, oh Lord, please give us, the real Cherokees, the strength to kick these non-Indian Freedmen out in cold to starve and disappear. Help us, the real Cherokees, rewrite our history and Lord a small white lie ain't gonna hurt no one but those non-Indian Freedmen who ain't important to you anyway. In the non Indian Jesus name I pray.
Unsweet Caroline does that prayer sounds familiar...you know the KKK prayed before each raid on a black home.

Mr Cornsilk, great links.

Tahlequah born too! said...

You make absolutely no sense at all, Eli. As Cornsilk would say, "you're babbling, because you have nothing to say." You just proved it. May God be with YOU...you need it.

Tahlequah born too! said...

Oh, Eli??? Why do you know so much about the KKK policies? Me think you protest too much, Eli. Are you really KKK?

Eli Grayson said...

Tahlequah born? (what is your real name? Are you brave enough to tel?)

Oh...I think you understand, your not that stupid...you know your hate is the same as the KKK...your arguement is the same as Mississippi's "state rights" arguement...in treating Black people harshly and unfair.
And as far as the non Indian Jesus...you know hypocrite what I'm talking about...you clearly understand...but keep on keeping on playing stupid...

John Cornsilk said...

Well Sweet C, Eli's post tells you what people think of the links I post if they are NOT a CNOT-SUCKER such as yourself that is...

So happens my words at the linked articles are very rarely an opine of mine, simply statement of facts corroborated by the numerous links to historical and legal documentation: For example have you EVER read the part of the 1866 Treaty pertinent to the Freedmen's status and then the amended Cherokee Peoples 1839 Constitution in 1866 to reflect the Treaty law, on the Cherokee freedmen's Citizenship!
And the equine manure Smith babbles for legitimacy of his BS actions and you jerkwads regurgitate is the Congressional Act of 1906 that closed the Dawes Rolls and provided that there would be no new citizens placed upon that list. The U.S, Smith adds FREEDMEN.

Congress has made no changes to the 1866 Treaty, despite all this Horse CRAP and the misrepresentations by you CNOT-SUCKERS on this board. The Simple fact is if there are to be no new Freedmen citizens by those words, then there will to be no new Cherokee citizens of any form or fashion. The danger of the 1906 Act argument is that the effect of closing the rolls is upon all Cherokee citizens, not just the Freedmen. And as David said "Chad Smith, by making that argument, may have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater."

To learn what it all really means See David Cornsilk’s Articles WHAT IS CNO? and if you have a desire to read the legal document here is the Five Tribes Act 1906 which I don’t think you CNOT suckers will do, I post to show we don’t just babble we corroborate what we say with documentation…So rave on about the BS you babble, it means nothing!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Memebr, UKB as well,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

Tahlequah born too! said...

You're becoming redundant and boring, JC and Eli.

Tahlequah born too! said...

Eli: You didn't answer the question. Are you really KKK in disguise here?

Eli Grayson said...

Tahlequah born too...are you going to be a "real Cherokee" and tell us your name?
Yes you can! Come on, you can tell us...take off your white ghost sheets and come forth...be a proud racist...
After all, don't you want your name submitted in the Ross Barnett Award for the most racist accomplishments of 2009?

Allen L. Lee said...

Thank you John Cornsilk for detailing the pratfall of the 1906 CNO argument. No new citizens, be they By blood Indian race Cherokees or non-Indian race Freedmen were to be admitted after 1906 because the rolls were closed to all, not just the Freedmen.

Eli Grayson said...

Who is Ross Barnett?

Allen L. Lee said...

"Hello Eli,
Good to hear from you. I'm not guessing the persons you ask that question to are going to answer you,
so I'll briefly fill in the blank, and take care:

" Ross Robert Barnett (January 22, 1898 – November 6, 1987) was the Democratic governor of the U.S. state of Mississippi from 1960 to 1964
...Barnett freely used racial epithets in his campaign speeches. His belief that, "the Negro is different because God made him different to punish him...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Barnett

John Cornsilk said...

Well TBt, i think one might say redundancy would be in the eye of the CNOT-sucker, simply because facts of the matter are only demonstratable by the continued posting of the links to them, and just might appear de-trop, because you idiots don't want to hear or see truth in the matter, or for your everyday reader to see them either! Dontchu think??

And TBt, if you knew who Eli Grayson is, you would, as I and others that know him, would see the evident malevolent stupidity in your accusation, your babblings are more in line with the apparent KKK Actions of CNOT!! Dontchu know??

And Eli and Allen, wasn't George Wallace of Alabama of the same type racist CRAP heads as these CNOT-suckin fools an Barnett too!
Some time back I wrote an Article, again CNOT-suckers check out the links to corroborate what I say!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Memebr, UKB as well,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

Eli Grayson said...

Hi Allen and Elder Cornsilk.
Of course I know who Governor Ross Barnett was...someone else posted that question under my name.
I even met Barnett when I was a small child at a parade. George Wallace of Alabama was another governor of the south who promoted ousting blacks from his state. Unfortunately there were many senators who felt the same way.

Mr. Cornsilk thank you for keeping them honest. I have notice over the years that they never address your message but instead attack you personally. Also you and Allen always use your 'real Cherokee' identification unlike the cowards that promote hate.
Thanks.

Allen L. Lee said...

Hello Eli,
I think it's obvious that the game playing has begun with postings when they lose the substance of their arguments. I'm also fairly certain "new anonymous" isn't really "new."
Thanks for the recognition of honesty, and continuing with what you would expect of me, I need to tell you that I am not a Cherokee citizen. My citizenship status is American. My direct interest in this dispute is from a Choctaw slave heritage from my mother's side. Verdie Triplett, president of the "Choctaw-Chickasaw Freedmen Assc." knows my family better than I do in the Fort Smith,Ark., Tulsa, Okla., area, but my grandmother clearly conveyed our history to us while we were children. While I would not claim a tribal legal right because of the choices my parents made to live solely as African-Americans, my other relatives who maintained some tribal relationships I would support.
What bothers me as an independent historian and knowing my family history is the lies. I think their should be a special civil law catagory for intellectual malpracice when "lettered" persons who allege factual statements that are outside of their field of expertise or who knowingly mis-represent facts with-in their field of expertise. For those people not "lettered' "ignorance as no excuse" already holds them accountable.
The Choctaw Freedmen and the Choctaw tribe are in peaceful dialogue as far as I know right now, and I hope they can come to a peaceful understanding about the very non-traditional issue of blood quantum.
If the Seminole had not tried to expel their Black tribal members, I probabaly would not have paid attention to the fact that the Choctaw were being recognized by the U.S. without its; Freedmen descendant tribal members as agreed on with the Choctaw Chickasaw Treaty of 1866. It appears that the sole basis for the Choctaw overlooking the Treaty is Blood Quantum, with the Cherokee dis-enrollments and what is happening with the california genetic qualification I think the noise has got so loud it is almost deafening. So now here we are all fighting this eugenics battle.
keep up the good work Eli and all, I will continue to do my part, lest it befalls me as well:

"“Articles of agreement and convention between the United States and the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations of Indians, made and concluded at the City of Washington the twenty-eighth day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six,…

…ARTICLE 3. The Choctaws and Chickasaws, in consideration of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars, hereby cede to the United States the territory west of the 98 deg. west longitude, known as the leased district, provided that the said sum shall be invested and held by the United States, at an interest not less than five per cent, in trust for the said nations, until the legislatures of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations respectively shall have made such laws, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to give all persons of African descent, resident in the said nation at the date of the treaty of Fort Smith, and their descendants, heretofore held in slavery among said nations, all the rights, privileges, and immunities, including the right of suffrage, of citizens of said nations, except in the annuities, moneys, and public domain claimed by, or belonging to, said nations respectively; and also to give to such persons who were residents as aforesaid, and their descendants, forty acres each of the land of said nations on the same terms as the Choctaws and Chickasaws,
http://home.roadrunner.com/~fd5ct/treaty_with_the_choctaw_and_chic.htm

Allen L. Lee

NDNLady said...

Mr. Grayson, John Cornsilk keeps no one honest, least of all himself. His “chronicles” would have to have more facts to even approach the realm of fantasy. Ditto for David’s interpretation of the law. The 1906 act certainly changed the 1866 treaty. The court ruled that Sec 3 superseded Article 9. But then, honesty is not exactly your long suit either.

I see you screaming “hate” and “racism” here but when you lie in an attempt to provoke racial animosity against an Indian tribal nation, you are the one indulging in racist hate speech. We are not a state. We have absolutely no legal responsibility to determine our citizenship in the same way as a state. That is a lie. The indigenous peoples of America pre-exist any state and as such, we have every right to determine our identity by indigenous ancestry. The same as every other Indian nation. We are not simply “political groups of people”. That is a lie. That may be all we are to YOU, but that is still a lie. Our rights as indigenous peoples stem from our continuous existence as a distinct people with a distinct identity including our own governments, cultures, histories, philosophies and ties to lands and territories prior to colonial contact. Here is the official US position on indigenous rights that they represent to the world is their policy with regard to Indian nations:

"Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions."

You say that we have a moral and legal responsibility to those people we enslaved. Yes, our ancestors did. And they met that responsibility. In the dicta of the Supreme Court decision that affirmed that Article 9 had been superseded by Sec 3 of The Five Tribes Act, the Court said that the Treaty articles made by all Five Tribes were intended to provide for those who had been enslaved and for freed blacks living in their jurisdiction. The US Court of Claims said that the Cherokee Nation had a right to be protected by a limitation on those who could avail themselves of the benefits of the Treaty. Congress agreed when they superseded Article 9 with the language of Sec 3 of the Five Tribes Act. I have never enslaved anyone, Mr. Grayson and you have never been enslaved by anyone in the Cherokee Nation. I have the same moral and legal responsibility to you that you have to me. Equal rights mean equal responsibility for the rights of others. The most fundamental right of the Cherokee Nation is the right to self-determination. If you have to violate the human rights of the Cherokee Nation to take what you want, it’s not yours.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, you said that Indian people stood in the way of a black state. That happened in Oklahoma Territory, not Indian Territory so those are the Indians I was referring to in my reply. I can see that, for clarity’s sake, I should have been more specific. As far as your remarks about “pre-existing sovereignty” being like a tree falling with no one to hear it, that is both staggeringly ignorant and extremely racist. Are you really trying to imply that our nations were not sovereign until there was someone here to infringe on our rights? That we did not conduct our governments, enforce our own laws, practice our culture, manage our trade relationships, define our territory, etc prior to colonial contact? Unbelievable. Are you trying to say that our sovereignty did not exist until the United States “recognized it”? As far as blood requirements before contact, we certainly did distinguish between Cherokees and other peoples. We have always had a way to adopt non-Cherokees, but with few exceptions, it was always in the context of marriage or family. As Circe Strum put it:

“Blood ties among Cherokee kin were not merely symbolic. Cherokee clan members believed that they literally shared a common blood, a blood they were morally obligated to protect and defend.”

Though the clan system is no longer as prevalent in Cherokee society as it once was, the Cherokee people still believe that ancestry is as important as it ever was. When you and Mr. Grayson belittle that and treat it with contempt, you just show what kind of people you are. You obviously know nothing about Cherokees.

In a 1941 Solicitor’s Opinion, it was stated that Freedmen were Indian by Law only and that, by the reorganization of governments, the tribes could limit membership to Indians by Blood. The opinion was made in the anticipation of reorganizations under the OIWA, but subsequent court decisions have stated that the same rights of inherent sovereignty apply to tribes who chose to reorganize by constitutional referendum. Indian by law was never the same as Indian by blood.

You have said that what bothers you as an “independent historian” is the lies. That’s clearly not true, or you would take the time to really learn Cherokee history (as opposed to your Choctaw family history) before you categorically support the misrepresentations of other “independent historians”. The lies posted here are easily refuted but, since they support your position, you prefer to embrace them. This makes you a propagandist, not a historian. I do certainly agree with you on one thing, people who misrepresent the facts of history and law in order to promote racial animosity against others should certainly be held accountable. And you can start with the “findings” of HR 2824.

Oh, and have you noticed how different the Choctaw treaty provision is from the Cherokee? As is the Creek. And the Seminole. Our histories are different too. As I said to Mr. Grayson, the Supreme Court, in dicta, said that what they did have in common was the intent to suitably provide for freed slaves and free blacks in Indian Territory. We did that. There were better ways for the US to have pursued those ends that did not require violating the tribes’ rights, but they ignored them. The “historical injustice” was the very existence of Article 9, but you want to suggest that legislation superseding it ande correcting that wrong is somehow wrong?? Why? Because you want to believe that the legacy of slavery is more important that the rights of indigenous peoples. And that's just wrong.

NDNLady said...

t'eetilawuncha! As I have said here before, our situation and yours are different. As I hope I have helped others to understand, this was not an adoption according to anything traditional. It was a difficult time for both freedmen and Cherokees. It ended over a hundred years ago. During the seventy years before our government was permitted to reorganize, Cherokees in Cherokee communities kept alive the remnants of self-government. The decision to restrict our membership to those of Indian ancestry was overwhelming approved by members of those same core communities. Cherokees do not believe it is right to discriminate. They also do not believe limiting our enrollment to those of Indian ancestry is “discrimination.” I respect our ancestors for struggling against all odds to preserve the Cherokee Nation. I respect the decision of the collective voice of Cherokees today. This is not the result of actions by so-called “corrupt tribal officials” but the voice of the Cherokee people. And you should respect that our case is very different from yours.

Allen L. Lee said...

To NDNLady,
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as a governing body exists as a state.
You are one third correct on your presentation about human rights. Unfortunately the other two thirds is lacking, and as the saying goes all rights are inseparable.
You do not need a state to preserve your Indian racial identity, you can do that as a matter of private choice. You continuosly confuse and mix up the terms Cherokee Blood as a tribal identity and Indian Blood as a racial one, as if they are one in the same, and they are not. This I am sure you do purposely, hoping that a reader will not dissect the two. My anology to Indian Blood and pre-existing sovereignty stands. Indian Blood is a European concept, not a pre-existing indigenousd one.
Anyhow, the principles of international law will follow. Your point about sovereign rights of the tribes is included in the first part of the principle. When the rest of the principles is worked on and included as they are inseparable, I think we will have a solution. I hope your not spitting anymore coffee on your keyboard.
International Human Rights Law

International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/InternationalLaw.aspx

"

Barbara L. said...

Allen: You're becoming a rude person just like Cornsilk. Please don't let him influence you in that manner. You speak and write eloquently, which makes the rest of us read your writings (most do not read JC's due to his lack of respect of the written word. Please don't let him spoil it for you. Thank you.

Eli Grayson said...

"You say that we have a moral and legal responsibility to those people we enslaved. Yes, our ancestors did. And they met that responsibility...."

NDNLADY..are you kidding?

You as a CURRENT member of the Cherokee Nation have a moral obligation to your nation's freedmen descendants yesterday, today and forever!
Your attitude and arguement is a clear treat to all tribal sovereignty. Your arguement plays right into the hands of ONE Nation, who has stated for years WE (Americans) have no obligation to Indian people and Tribal nations. End them now!

Also what bothers me about people like you who play stupid is the fact that you try to demean and trivialize what slavery was as if the barter and trade of human beings does not matter. YOU ARE AN EVIL PERSON.

The public should understand one thing in all of this...the ethnic cleansing is being committed by people like NDNlady, who are alive and well today. The Cherokee people living a hundred years ago understood why Africans were made citizens. This is MODERN DAY MADDNESS.

By the way maybe the Cornsilks could post the ever changing lies of the Cherokee government on this issue....my goodness how many different stories have they told.

John Cornsilk said...

Well Eli, simply ask and ye shall recieve!!

Barbara L. said...
Allen: You're becoming a rude person just like Cornsilk. Please don't let him influence you in that manner. You speak and write eloquently, which makes the rest of us read your writings (most do not read JC's due to his lack of respect of the written word. Please don't let him spoil it for you. Thank you.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!!

Barb what a CROCK of absolute pure equine manure!! Any Person like Allen that is interested in facts will be is influenced by TRUTH in regards to conversation in/on Indian Matters whether by me or any harbinger of Simple truth in matters of historical Cherokee and or Five Tribes facts and law!! And you can rest assured my words are Read by the Top CNOTS, and how to counter it is fed to you CNOT-suckers to regurgitate as the pure male bovine feces you dunderheads blather consistently, as evidenced by the babblings of the supposed NDNLady, I know NO ladies that can lay down a line of PURE BS like her, this can only be (LTL), Linda Turnbull Lewis doing the writing, may be Coates doing the babbling!!


NDNLady said...
Mr. Grayson, John Cornsilk keeps no one honest, least of all himself. His chronicles would have to have more facts to even approach the realm of fantasy. Ditto for David’s interpretation of the law.

The 1906 act certainly changed the 1866 treaty. The court ruled that Sec 3 superseded Article 9. But then, honesty is not exactly your long suit either.

The Elder Cornsilk sez!

What a CROCK-a-CRAP, LTL you make a statement then follow with pure BS, practically in the same sentence in another attempt of BS’ing the reader hoping they will not do the math and realize 2 and 2 make 4, not 2 and some other digit! To see what I mean folks GO HERE and read the 1906 act, of course it could be said what Smith always claims "the Cherokee Nation is in full force and effect" and by the Congressional act he always mentions, and is actually a fact of the matter which is, the 1906 Five Tribes Restoration Act Which States: It says and quite clearly "The tribal governments are hereby extended indefinitely by Joint Resolution No. 7 of March 2, 1906, 34 Stat. 822, and by Section 28 of the Five Tribes Act of April 26, 1906, ch. 1876, 34 Stat. 148", and with out a judicial system which a government must have to be a complete democratic government, CNOT does not have legally and is simply a dictatorship, smith is the head honcho!!



I pointed this out before I guess they think you can‘t read, this is another trait of LTL, her total nescient-ness of the readers, if you will read the act you will see it reads just like David said it does, then if you will GO HERE and read the court order of the Harjo v. Kleppe case Not the Dicta but the court order, then here and read the Creek Nation V. Hodel you will see right off the Cherokee Nation Is Still in the state of suspension as a governing entity, by the Curtis Act (Act of June 28, 1898), ch. 517, 30 Stat. 495. Section 28 of the Curtis Act provided that on July 1, 1898, "all tribal courts in Indian Territory shall be abolished, and now where can it be found that the Cherokee Nation was excepted…

The Creeks were the first to face this problem in harjo V Kleppe, 420 F. Supp. 1110, 1118-1131 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd 581 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1978), and as mentioned above the court held that the Five Tribes Act of 1906 continued the executive and legislative authority of the Creek government under the Creek constitution of 1867 Only...

Then folks to refute the pure BS of the supposed NDNLady what the Court ruled in Hodel had absolutely nothing to do with Article 9 of the 1866 Ttreaty as you can see if you will read the case it plainly says in Muscogee Creek Nation v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1988), Section 47, 31 Stat. 873). That court held that the authority of the Creek Nation to establish tribal courts was reinstated by Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936, 25 U.S.C. 503. Therefore from the Hodel Court Document The holding of the Court is that the Curtis Act was repealed by the OIWA and that therefore the Muscogee (Creek) Nation has the power to establish Tribal Courts...

And the Thing to note People and LTL/NDNLady, is the act of repeal only applies to and the simple operative fact of the "order" is for those tribes organized under OIWA.

If this is so for the Creek in federal Court, you can dang well be assured it is so for the Cherokee Nation as well who have not been to any court to date, nor have they been allowed as a special entity to restore their court system. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma court is a lie.

And the ONLY means to have the Cherokee Nation to be an Active viable Government of the Cherokee people, would have been to have reorganized under the (OIWA) Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, which they did not, nor have they done to this date.

Then to Imply that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is the Cherokee Nation is a big Lie, If the DORMANT Cherokee Nation were rise and reorganized as the CNO which they could do, then, all would not be a big lie.



NDNLady said:

You say that we have a moral and legal responsibility to those people we enslaved. Yes, our ancestors did. And they met that responsibility. In the dicta of the Supreme Court decision that affirmed that Article 9 had been superseded by Sec 3 of The Five Tribes Act, the Court said that the Treaty articles made by all Five Tribes were intended to provide for those who had been enslaved and for freed blacks living in their jurisdiction. The US Court of Claims said that the Cherokee Nation had a right to be protected by a limitation on those who could avail themselves of the benefits of the Treaty. Congress agreed when they superseded Article 9 with the language of Sec 3 of the Five Tribes Act.

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

Well folks as you can the nescient-ness by NDNLady/LTL of your ability to read with comprehension continues, she raves on with the asinine babble about the Hodel Court and the made up CRAP about , section 3 and article 9, as you can see above I explained this with corroboration by the actual documents, showing the babble is nothing but pure male bovine excrement slung against the wall hoping some will stick!

NdNLady said:

The lies posted here are easily refuted but, since they support your position, you prefer to embrace them. This makes you a propagandist, not a historian. I do certainly agree with you on one thing, people who misrepresent the facts of history and law in order to promote racial animosity against others should certainly be held accountable. And you can start with the findings of HR 2824.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Yes LTL the lies and pure BS, misrepresentations of fact in/on Cherokee and legal history posted by you CNOT-suckers is so easily refuted, and I do so with linked documentation for example the very source you site Congresswoman’s Bill, to cut CNOT funding I have suggested so many time that folks actually read it for the Value of the factual history and Law it cites and the violation by CNOT! CLICK HERE for the bill folks, and see what I mean.

NdNLady said:

In a 1941 Solicitor’s Opinion, it was stated that Freedmen were Indian by Law only and that, by the reorganization of governments, the tribes could limit membership to Indians by Blood. The opinion was made in the anticipation of reorganizations under the OIWA, but subsequent court decisions have stated that the same rights of inherent sovereignty apply to tribes who chose to reorganize by constitutional referendum. Indian by law was never the same as Indian by blood.

I the Elder Cornsilks says!

More pure BS by LTL flung hoping some will stick and you will not notice it is pure male bovine manure!!

In 1941 there was no Freedmen issue for the Solicitor to even be writing about , the fact on the matter is in 1944, the issue of the Keetoowah was ongoing and a solicitors opinion written in 1937 which was at issue in the matter of the Keetoowah’s recognition as a Cherokee entity! Had absolutely nothing to do with the Freedmen folks!! See the opinion here! for your self to see the pure BS flung!!






Allen Lee Said:

To NDNLady,
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as a governing body exists as a state.
You are one third correct on your presentation about human rights. Unfortunately the other two thirds is lacking, and as the saying goes all rights are inseparable.
You do not need a state to preserve your Indian racial identity, you can do that as a matter of private choice. You continuously confuse and mix up the terms Cherokee Blood as a tribal identity and Indian Blood as a racial one, as if they are one in the same, and they are not. This I am sure you do purposely, hoping that a reader will not dissect the two. My analogy to Indian Blood and pre-existing sovereignty stands. Indian Blood is a European concept, not a pre-existing indigenous one.
Anyhow, the principles of international law will follow. Your point about sovereign rights of the tribes is included in the first part of the principle. When the rest of the principles is worked on and included as they are inseparable, I think we will have a solution. I hope your not spitting anymore coffee on your keyboard.
International Human Rights Law

International human rights law lays down obligations which States are bound to respect. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/InternationalLaw.aspx

I the Elder Cornsilk Sez!

Right on Allen, this is so well put on the BS being flung by this CNOT-sucker in an attempt of BS’ing the Readers!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, lucky for me I wasn’t drinking coffee. Of course international law lays down obligations which the US is bound to respect. The US is expected to refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of all human rights…including the rights of indigenous peoples. Not long ago, you twisted yourself inside out in a whole thread trying to make indigenous rights apply to non-indigenous individuals and you can’t. As I told you then, the laws have specific meanings and applications and just because you wish they supported the forced integration of an Indian tribal nation, they do not. It is considered to be a form of cultural genocide and is expressly forbidden.

From the Preamble of the UNDRIP

Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to
development in accordance with their own needs and interests,
Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources
Article 2
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and
individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the
exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or
identity
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the
right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local
affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 7
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct people
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic
discrimination directed against them.
Article 9
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous
community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they
live.

Follow that last one, Mr. Lee? Determine their own identity. It is our choice to make. The Cherokee Nation government does NOT exist as a “state.” That is a lie. It exists as the government of an indigenous people. That’s what individual (my personal rights as a Cherokee) and collective (the rights of the Cherokee Nation) mean. And as I said, we have always had our own customs, traditions and laws regarding who is Cherokee and as I also pointed out, it certainly has always been based on ancestry or ancestry/marriage. Using Cherokee blood or Indian blood is not some bit of racial sleight of hand, our citizenship laws encompass “Indian blood” because we include Shawnee, Delaware, and others we took in before the Civil War, like some remnant Creek and Natchez people. That was our choice to make. It still is. Your opinion that “Indian blood” is a European concept not a pre-existing “indigenous” one is a truly desperate attempt to deny the obvious. All indigenous peoples in America “pre-existed colonial contact as distinct peoples and yes, they defined that by ancestry or blood. They still do. So now, why don't you go through the whole rigamarole again trying to demonstrate the "missing two thirds" you say make these rights anything other than what they are. The human rights of indigenous peoples that the US certainly has an obligation uphold. As do you.

Allen L. Lee said...

Your argument about blood has one contradiction, if Cherokee Blood was a linking bond of the tribe then Cherokee Blood was different from other existing peoples blood and therefore undesirable.
NDNlady says:
" Using Cherokee blood or Indian blood is not some bit of racial sleight of hand, our citizenship laws encompass “Indian blood” because we include Shawnee, Delaware, and others we took in before the Civil War, like some remnant Creek and Natchez people. That was our choice to make. It still is.

"The federal government caused the former Kansas Shawnees and the Cherokees to enter into a formal agreement in 1869, whereby the Shawnees received allotments and citizenship in Cherokee Nation. "
http://www.shawnee-tribe.com/history.htm
The Oklahoma branches were established in 1867, with the purchase of land by Delawares from the Cherokee nation; two payments totalling $438,000 were made. A court dispute then followed over whether the sale included rights for the Delaware within the Cherokee nation. In 1898 the Curtis Act dissolved tribal governments and ordered the allotment of tribal lands to individual members of tribes. The Lenape fought the act in the courts but lost, the courts ruling that in 1867 they had only purchased rights to the land for their lifetimes. The lands were allotted in 160 acre (650,000 m²) lots in 1907, with any land left over sold to caucasians.

In 1979 the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs revoked the tribal status of the Delaware living among Cherokee in Oklahoma, and included the Delaware as Cherokee. This decision was finally overturned in 1996. The Cherokee nation then filed suit to overturn the recognition of the Delaware as a tribe.
http://www.comanchelodge.com/nations/delaware-tribe.html
I think it safe to say both tribes were forced into the Cherokee Nation against their wishes. It's racially suspicious that the only issue of denied rights of an alleged "forced populations" in the Cherokee Nation are the Freedmen? The other two forced population have been seeking their own sovereignty only to find it blocked by none other than the Cherokee Nation.

John Cornsilk said...

Allen there is no debating with the CNOT-sucker NDNLady/LTL Linda Turnbull Lewis, she has absolutely no concern for facts of any matter she is babbling about, as I demonstrated in my response above she just simply makes up CRAP as she goes trying to castigate you and your ability to corroborate what you say with LINKED Documentation just like I do...

If you notice and I am sure the readers notice no matter what she says there is never any proof by a posting at least of an excerpt from any cited source, just her interpretation of some portion of dicta in any given case to fit the BS she is slinging on the subject at the time!!

She is so easy to show up for what she is and does, but she just trods on as if the readers are to stupid to catch her drift, as I said above this has always been a trait in the writhings of LTL her nesciences of who she is trying to BS!!
She could cure thus suit of STUPID from whence she posts if she would only go to www.cornsilks.com and read and read and pay some dang tention!!So Simple!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

outlander said...

cornsilk's site is trash...looks like trash too with all the click on's. someone needs to help him set it up correctly. for someone who thinks he's "all that", it just doesn't work. donna (outlander)

O Pechanga said...

So Donna, are you volunteering your expertise to help? Or, do you just not understand LINKS?

What doesn't work for you?

outlander said...

understand it all...it just looks trashy.

Allen L. Lee said...

1941?
The U.S. has made so many remedial and corrective acts to distance itself from the racial attitudes of the mid twentieth century, The only applicable thing tranferable into modern law would be the statement "Indian by law"
That was before integrating the military, 1948, integrating schools, 1954 and before Indian tribal termination of the 1950's and the list goes on.
One would be hard pressed to rely on racial law or dicta from 1941 to justify a racially discrimatory act today.
Anyhow, another excerpt about the current issue of "Indian by law." courtesy of my good ally, Eli Grayson

"Court: Browning man ruled not an Indian, acquitted
By LEN IWANSKI • Associated Press Writer • February 10, 2009
...HELENA — A federal appeals court says a Browning man is not a Native American as defined by federal law, and reversed his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury
...While Cruz has 22 percent Indian blood, he disputed prosecutors' determination that he was an Indian as defined by federal law.
...Cruz has "descendant'' status with the Blackfeet Tribe, but the appellate judges said he failed to meet a four-pronged test of whether he could be classified as a Native American under law for the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime: "1) tribal enrollment; 2) government recognition formally and informally through receipt of assistance reserved only to Indians; 3) enjoyment of the benefits of tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition as an Indian through residence on a reservation and participation in Indian social life.''
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20090210/NEWS01/90210008/1002

John Cornsilk said...

Well O Pechanga, I think we got us another fony CNOT-sucker posting as someone else, this Outlander CRAP-head that implied its name is Donna...

There is an outlander from Cali, named Donna, that never signs her post's with anything other than outlander that posts frequently on my Forum John's Place And she really appreciates Cornsilks.com, it is a site that helped convert her from a CNOTsuckin fool to a poster that understands what CNOT and the Weezle Smith is...

Our outlander (Donna) is a Cherokee from Oklahoma orignally, and you may know her, she is quite familliar with the pechanga's disenrollement plight.

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

MY name is donna too (outlander) said...

There you go posting something about someone you have no idea about. Kind of like your other posts. Believe it or not, JC, there could and is more than one Donna from the Outland. Is that in your realm of understanding?

John Cornsilk said...

Very possible, but i would bet a dollar to a hole in a donut, yours is nothing but CNOT suckin made up CRAP, because you read John's Place and are trying to get me on Donna's case. Didn Eli say some one posted in his name, CNOT SUCKIN chitheads are noted for such bullchit!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

'aamokat said...

I don't think the name calling does either side of this issue any good.

As I said earlier, the bottom line for me is if the 1866 treaty gives the Freedmen citizen as Cherokees.

The marathon posts don't help the situation either as it is hard to weed through them to get to the point of them.

However, from what I have read up to this point, I believe the Freedmen have a good case for remaining in their tribe.

I just wish the pro disenrollment Pechanga people would come and debate us, the Pechanga disenrolled, more often and I wish they would talk specifics instead of their usual general statements about how the facts aren't on our side and how we should get on with our lives.

But I don't see that happening as Pechanga people are told by the tribal leadership to not talk publically about our issues.

That is one thing I like about this Cherokee debate, both sides talk about specifics of what is going on.

Outlander said...

Whoever is using my alias of Outlander should be ashamed of theirselves. To begin with, I support John Cornsilk and his website. I also support the Original Pechanga Blog site, both sites are dedicated to telling some truths, plus you can comment.

This is my first post on this site, but you can check out John's Place and I post their frequently and I always sign as Outlander.

Outlander

John Cornsilk said...

Thanks Outlander, I figgered this knucklehead was just a fony piece-a-shyt!!

Well aamokat, its not really name calling, it is street talk labeling the CNOT-suckin fools for what they are, Idiots for hawking the Cherokee Chief Smith's bullshyt!!!

Yes The 1866 Treaty is the document that guarantees the Freedmen their Cherokee Citizenship, and the Cherokee People amending their 1839 Constitution in the same year of the signing of the treaty to reflect the the fact of law and acceptence of this class of Cherokee as citizens, and they were a class of Cherokee, as you can well see if you will check out The 1880 Census of the Cherokee the Whiteman had nothing to do with this it was the Cherokee Government that wanted their Citizens enumerated for a count of the Cherokee people.

And if you will, note the listing of all the adopted classes of Cherokee, included Colored, White people. and Negro. So one can readly see the Dawes was NOT the Beginning of black folks being Cherokee...

And aamokat to get anything said it usually takes a quite a bit of writing to get it across, the difference with what I say and a CNOT-suckin fool like NDNLady i have facts cited with with documentation linked, all she does is babble pure equine manure, with just her lying words. It's not really hard to weed through the blathering for a point, it just takes time with her BS to ascertain there is no point to the babble!

Yes the conclusion you have arived at is most assuredly correct, the Freedmen descendants of the Cherokee Citizens enumerated on the Dawes Rolls are Cherokee absolutely no different than the rest of we Cherokee descendants of our ancestors, these babbling shytheads included.

And the difference in/with the aspect of the Pechanga disenrollment and the Cherokee kick out of the freedmen is...

As constitutional law stands the Pechanga, just like the Cherokee Nation, Creek, Sioux etc. AND just like the United States has the constitutional right to say who can be a Citizen of their nation, as was demonstrated by the US, with the round-up and shipping out and tearing apart families, with the mexicans, don't make it right, it just the law..

A Prime example of the Tribal Constitutional right to determine Citizenship was demonstrated right here in the land of CNOT by the United Keetoowah Band of cherokee (UKB), who are a constituted tribal entity of cherokee People, of which I am a member as well as a CNOT member, Chief Chad Smith was as well, the UKB saw fit for his treasonous acts againt their people, to kick him out and banish him from the Tribe, and they did, stripped him of his Keetoowah Citizenship...

This is the saving grace for the Pechanga ruling party, dont make it right but its the law... The people can change the law,if they were allowed, this may be the million dollar question will they be allowed??

Now for the Cherokee Freedmen, and all of the Freedmen of the other four Tribal citizens of the Dawes era, their Citizenship is by fact of Treaty Law the 1866 each Tribe had one, and it is protected by the fact there of. And ONLY an Act of the legislature of the Ruling party the United States (CONGRESS) can change that law, and quite simply it has not to Date, the CNOT-suckers babble about the 1906 act doing it, but it did not, and I and others have explained that with Documentation numerous times, but they keep on babbling the bullshyt anyway, and sadly fooling a few dumazzez that wont bother to learn. Quite simply all the 1906 act had anything to do with was the fact of the actions of the congressional act called the Curtis Act, which as I have pointed out, abolished the five Tribes Government

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

'aamokat said...

Mr. Cornsilk, the difference with the Pechanga disenrollment situation is that we can document that our tribe violated its own laws and constitution.

WHAT THE TRIBE DID TO US WAS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO PECHANGA LAW.

In 2005 the tribe voted to outlaw disenrollment but my family line, the Hunters, were kicked out in 2006 anyway.

In 2004 another family line, who are descendants of the chief from the mid 1850's, had been kicked out.

But there were his other descendants, who are the descendants of the sister of the family line who were kicked out, who were cleared from disenrollment with virtually the same family history.

So one family line who also couldn't answer the reason the other family line were disenrolled for were cleared while their blood relatives are disenrolled.

I and others have talked about the violations of Pechanga law on otbher threads so I won't detail those issues here.

But in general it is clear that on this one issue alone (and there are several other violations as well), that kicking out one family line with almost the same information of another family line (blood of the family disenrolled) violates Article V of Pechanga's constitution against malice or predjudice of individual tribal members.

That has been our problem that because we don't have a treaty regarding membership with the federal government and we don't have a clause in our constitution to allow the BIA to intervene, Pechanga can violated their internal laws with impunity and invoke sovereignty that it is no one outside of the tribe's business about what goes on at Pechanga.

'aamokat said...

One more thing, the descendants of the chief of the mid 1800's who were disenrolled in 2004 did meet the requirments set forth in the first written enrollment of 1978 so they shouldn't have been kicked out of the tribe in the first place.

But even if for argument's sake they didn't meet the requirments, why clear the other family line, their blood relatives, who also couldn't meet the enrollment committee's twisted interpretation of the enrollment requirments?

CAN WE SAY MALICE AND PREDJUDICE?

p.s. by the way, a descendant of the family line cleared was on the committee and she voted to kick her own blood out of the tribe.

Mr. Cornsilk, I guess I write long posts too but I split them up as I think they are easier to read and easier for my own thought process.

John Cornsilk said...

Well aamokat, that appears to be pure corruption taken to the extreme...

BUT it is a sovereign right, and that right is recognized by the feds, their main cry in such a situation, it is an internal matter, and it is by fact of law...

I have no doubt your claims are valid as to the corruption, the federal government recognizes the elected officials of any of the Indian Governments as the Official Authority, by virtue of the sovereign right...

The BIA does not need a clause to intervene, all they need is an excuse...BUT sadly never for an individual always for the elected, if the shoe is on the other foot, to see what i mean, do a physical uprising and watch how fast the BIA will come to protect the corrupt!!

We had an instance back in the 90's called the "Byrd Fiasco", where Chief Joe Byrd was acting like a stupid dumazz, the law enforcement of CNOT turned on him at the behest of the TOP CNOTS of the CNOT Machine, Swimmer and Mankiller, because of their connections in DC they even had the secretary of the Interior acting personally in trying to hogtie Byrd for the roasting, He invoked his right as an elected Leader demanded the BIA intervene an protect his dumazz, they had no choice and did!

And that is why you can't do anything, your hope is the U.S. congress will act on behalf of your people. I think the Pechanga have the best you are gonna find in a Lawyer, he fights the stance of the BIA all the time on who they are behind!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Mr. Grayson, it is not evil to tell the truth. You should try it some time. I would never trivialize slavery. But you do not live with slavery; you live with the legacy of slavery. To say that because American citizenship was imperative for freed slaves in the American South, then it follows that tribal citizenship was the appropriate remedy for the Cherokees ignores one critical reality. We were not then nor were we ever a “body politic” defined by geography alone. America was a product of all those who came to these shores from somewhere else. It was absolutely necessary and just, that those rights should be extended to those who were brought here in chains and suffering, and against their will.

But we were already here and our citizenship had always been a product of a specific ancestry or intermarriage. As international human rights law makes clear this was our inherent right then and it still is. Simply because Cherokee rights were ignored then (as were freedmen rights) that does not justify ignoring them now. And as I said, it is a matter of historical record that both Cherokees and freedmen objected to tribal citizenship, though for very different reasons. The freedmen of the Cherokees did not want tribal citizenship. They wanted land, which we were more than prepared to give and which they eventually received from us. The freed slaves in the South received American citizenship but no land. A recent dissertation from an economics PhD candidate showed conclusively that receiving land made an economic impact for Cherokee freedmen that is still measurable today. She wrote it to prove that land reparations would have dramatically altered the history of the American South.

You accuse me of belittling the suffering of slavery but you cannot find a single thing I have ever said to support that accusation. On the other hand, when you compare an indigenous people to Mississippi, you demean, belittle and diminish the physical and cultural genocide that is the true “original sin” of America. When you indulge yourself with overblown rhetoric like “ethnic cleansing”, you demean, belittle and diminish the suffering of millions of people around the world who experience the real thing. And you show just how low the pathology of “victim mentality” can sink.

Our rights as indigenous peoples are inherent and do not stem from historic injustices; those injustices stem from the fact that our inherent rights were ignored, resulting in the loss of billions of acres of land, as well as lives, languages, cultures and other resources, all to the detriment of our tribal nations. And you are living proof that those rights continue to be ignored. As Dr. Diene, the UN Special Rappateur, said on his recent visit to the US, Native Americans and African-Americans should be working together for human rights in the United States. As anyone who is involved in the human rights arena knows, the US regularly ignores its obligations to BOTH minority populations and indigenous peoples. If we could work together, a great deal more could be accomplished. But that will never happen until we can have an honest dialogue about our history and about the fact that we may be equal but we are also different, as are our rights. I do not speak for the Cherokee Nation government. I speak only for myself. As a simple Cherokee citizen, though, I will continue to speak out for the indigenous rights of the Cherokee Nation. Whether they are under attack from white One Nation groups or the Congressional Black Caucus.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, if, as you say, “ignorance is no excuse”, then there truly is no excuse for you. How can you call yourself any kind of historian and not know the differences in both history and law that apply to the Shawnee and Delaware incorporation as opposed to the incorporation of freedmen and freed blacks? The requirements of Article 9 and Article 15 are dramatically different. Article 9 says “shall have all the rights of native Cherokees”. Article 15 regarding Shawnee and Delaware is much more explicit. It says “they shall be incorporated into and EVER AFTER remain a part of the Cherokee Nation, on equal terms in every respect with native citizens.” You also ignore the fact that the terms for the incorporation of both Delaware and Shawnee were governed not just by the Treaty but by very detailed negotiated agreements. No such negotiated agreement ever applied to freedmen. The only thing close to such an “agreement” between the two appears to be in their mutual petitions to the United States, asking permission to allow them to separate. And of course, Article 15 was not superseded by Congressional action. Article 9 most definitely was.

The Cherokee Nation objected to and stopped the Delawares’ attempt to separate because they did so on terms that violated the 1867 agreement. We have sponsored a negotiated bill in Congress that allows the Delaware to separate in a way that follows our original agreement, just as we did for the Loyal Shawnee, who have already separated. So you see, Mr. Lee, as usual, you ignore the truth of both history and law. And again, you think cutting and pasting is “doing research.” You are not an “independent historian”, you are an “internet historian” and as John Cornsilk’s website proves, there is a lot of junk on the internet and without any real foundation in the history or the law, you cannot tell the difference. But then you have no real interest in hearing the truth, now, do you?

And you show again that you have no clue as to the way Cherokees look at things when you say “then Cherokee Blood was different from other existing peoples blood and THEREFORE UNDESIRABLE”. That’s white racial thinking to say that because something is different then it follows that one is superior. We are quite capable of believing that we are all equal without believing that we are all the same.

John Cornsilk said...

Sadly NDNLady as a simpleMINDED Cherokee, that prattles incessantly on matters of which you don't have a dang clue, all you know is the buillshyt from Smiths crap called Cherokee History...

as I keep telling you it could be cured if you would just go read the Cherokee Freedmen HistoryI put together last year and all the 20 some linked documentation for corroboration...

Then if you would only read and pay sum dang tention the Cherokee History 1863 to 1995 I put together, including Part 2 And Part 3, and all the 40 some links for corroboration!! You could forever shuck the suit of ignertz from whence you post...So simple!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

David Cornsilk said...

Allow me to pose a few questions for those who would expell the Freedmen. Regardless of your reasoning, feeble or strong for that purpose, I would ask: "What then is to become of the Freedmen following extinguishment of their rights?" Is the extinguishment of existing rights compensible? Who would pay such a fee? Would you simply expell them and they become nothing more than any other U.S. citizen, thus denying their previous status even existed or was of some value? What of their rights to property acruing to their ancestor prior to Oklahoma statehood, ie the Railroad Judgement fund of 1988 and thus inheritable by those living today the same as we Cherokees by blood? What of the fact they are, according to their situation, ie citizens of an Indian nation, identified as Indians by federal law, blood or no blood? Again, I will state that the debates regarding whether the Freedmen have rights will be decided by the courts. But what of the aftermath of expulsion? I am interested in your thoughts on that subject.

Allen L. Lee said...

NDN Lady said
“…The Cherokee Nation objected to and stopped the Delawares’ attempt to separate because they did so on terms that violated the 1867 agreement. “

I’m sure it was a professional oversight on your part to mention the 1867 agreement and omit the 1866 treaty from your review , but please allow me to include this equally relevant part of the case and decision being .

“CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, on behalf of all its members,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; AURENE MARTIN, Acting Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; and DELAWARE TRIBE OF INDIANS
Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER
Filed February 16, 2005

… We are not unsympathetic to the Delawares' cause. The DOI's unlawful actions, however, cannot provide the Delawares the status they seek. The agency's decision to extend recognition to the Delawares rested on an alleged "comprehensive legal analysis" that devoted three sentences, in a footnote, to the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the 1866 Cherokee Treaty and 1867 Agreement.”
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2004/11/03-5055a.htm
Hopefully Barabara L will take an equal amount of effort to remind you of your rudeness.

stand your ground said...

Mr.Lee and Mr.Cornsilk...
no matter how many times you post facts and evidence pertaining to the Freedmen and the Cherokee Tribes historical connections, it does'nt seem to matter to those who hate you, they will always think that they are in the right...
It is the same with the Pechanga
Ttibes left over people, all are brainwashed into the same corrupt thinking by their moraly bankrupt Tribal Leaders.
We see this evidence more and more
with other Tribes following the same blueplan.
To fight this paper genocide you need to be united and strong in
your fight and don't ever back down, the evidence of this corruption is getting out into the mainstream and more and more people are aware,
so "stand your ground"
SOMEDAY IT WILL ALL CHANGE.

The Local Crank said...

One fact I have not seen mentioned here is that the "petition" submitted on the issue of Freedmen disenrollment was blatantly riddled with fraud. Non-citizens signed it; citizens who opposed it found their names attached to it; signatures appeared in alphabetical order--all tricks familiar to those of us in Texas. This fraud was noted in Judge Stacy Leeds dissent, then ignored by the Smith Administration. Whether you are for or against the Freedmen, would you want your position supported by fraud?

Outlander said...

For Local Crank,
You are right, that petition was meant to ignite racial flames and yes it was provable fraud in the long run. However, it was still used by Chad Smith to call for a special vote to "let the membership" decide. I knew when I read those words what the outcome would be. That is a ploy used by leadership to shift the blame, they can always say... "I'm not the fault, the membership decided."

Thanks for bringing up the subject of that petition.

Outlander

John Cornsilk said...

Well Patrick, I too thank you for mentioning the petition, while I did not mention it individually in my claim the CNOT-suckers can educate themselves at www.cornsilks.com Stacy leeds dissent is a permanent fixture on cornsilks along with her dissent on the installation of the BOGUS 99constitution under which the Weezle Smith is pulling all the bullshyt!!
And folks if for some reason the links don't work they can be see at the CNOT Court Website
Also while at cornsilks read the Ralph Keen Jr. Brief for the Freedmen in CNOT court, it shows you Smith and CNOT aint got a leg to stand on, legally, couse they don't give a shyt about law as Leeds dissent on the 99 Crap called a constitution, quite well shows you!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

John Cornsilk said...

Yes Stand your Ground, the corruption is getting out and more and more people are learning of it and seeing the federal Governments stance on allowing people to be abused by their BOGUS governments based on the sovereign rights of the people controlled by a few.

As i have said the U.S congress is your only hope, as it is ours, if you have been paying attention you have seen how hard the Weezle Smith has fought to have a court of law rule, while at the same time demonstraing law means nothing to him...

The Cherokee High Court has rulled he didn't like it so he set out to thwart it, by the BOGUS Petition mentioned above.
I recieved This Website url in the mail tody on the plight of the Cali Indians, it is sad and clearly shows the U.S. Congress is your only hope, just like our CNOT your ruling Junta has no regard for human rights!! So Sad how a CNOT-SUCKER, supposed Cherokee, can unconscionably hawk this weezle bullshyt against Cherokee People... Appears no different for the ruling Pechanga-Shytheads!!ANIT??

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

Eli Grayson said...

ndnlady you have convinced me that the planet is flat.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, the entire first paragraph of my last post to you covered the difference between the language of Article 9 and Article 15 in the Treaty, so I certainly did not omit it. I also pointed out that no Congressional legislation has superseded the language of Article l5 while Article 9 certainly has been superseded. So what would a 2004 court opinion mentioning Article 15 have to do with Article 9? Are you saying that court opinion means the whole treaty is still in effect? Oh boy! Well, I'll leave it to you to tell all those Oklahomans they have to clear out of our country. Good luck with that.

stand your ground, I do not hate anybody. I hate the lies and distortions used to incite the inflammatory charge of "racist" against good Cherokee people. No one is denying the historical connections between freedmen and Cherokees. The question for the Cherokee people to decide was whether that historical connection merited citizenship. The overwhelming majority of voters said no. Only Cherokee ancestry does. Out of the dozens of Cherokees who have discussed the vote with me, I have heard exactly three people make remarks that indicated they were motivated by racist feelings. Those people are hardly a credit to us but I truly doubt any people can claim to be perfect.

Mr Cornsilk, since I have seen you time and time again misrepresent events I was a personal eyewitness to, I have no doubt you couldn't write a true history if your life depended on it. And your substitution of personal opinions for actual court decisions means ditto for the law. I'll stick with reputable historians who actually back up their words. And reading the applicable court decisions for myself. And yes, I certainly did cite the 1906 Five Tribes Act and posted the exact quote from Sec 3 as well as the exact quote from the Garfield decision that stated that the language from Sec 3 (which I posted) superseded Article 9. The Hodel decision has nothing to do with either and I never claimed it did. However for anyone who believes your version of Hodel, I would suggest they do what I did, read it for yourself.

Local Crank, the same court ruled the petition was valid that ruled in the Allen decision. If the petition is fraud, was the Allen decision not valid? Or like Mr. Cornsilk, do you consider only the legal actions you agree with to be real law.

David, it is my personal opinion that those freedmen descendants who enrolled during the year before the vote should be entitled to remain as citizens. They were properly enrolled under a decision made by the Cherokee courts. The amendment requiring Indian ancestry should govern applications from the date of the vote forward. As to whether all the freedmen descendants are entitled to the proceeds of the real property of the tribe their ancestors were because they were enrolled; I fail to see any difference between their situation and that of any Indian descendant who does not meet the enrollment requirements that their ancestor did. The Cherokees rights to their own constitutional process are paramount.

Mr Grayson, don't get too close to the edge then, lest you fall off.

Allen L. Lee said...

To NDNLADY,
In response to your statement:
"NDNLady said...
Mr. Lee, the entire first paragraph of my last post to you covered the difference between the language of Article 9 and Article 15 in the Treaty, so I certainly did not omit it. I also pointed out that no Congressional legislation has superseded the language of Article l5 while Article 9 certainly has been superseded. So what would a 2004 court opinion mentioning Article 15 have to do with Article 9? Are you saying that court opinion means the whole treaty is still in effect? Oh boy! Well, I'll leave it to you to tell all those Oklahomans they have to clear out of our country. Good luck with that."
My answer would be:

"...Ending treaty obligations
Withdrawal...
Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
Article 9 is clearly a human rights provision. If either the U.S. or the Cherokee Nation abrogated such a provision, then they have done so against the principls of treaties and human rights. The language of article 9 is as valid as the language of article 15 because it addresses human rights. to continue:
"Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
The preceding excerpt is leading to the this; the 1867 Delaware agreement is law implemented by the Cherokee Nation directly related to the Treaty of 1866:

"...In pursuance of this treaty, and under this amended constitution, the Cherokees and Delawares came together, and *200 entered into an agreement of date April 8, 1867, which, after referring to certain treaties, among them this of July 19, 1866, and reciting that a 'full and free conference has been had between the representatives of the Cherokees and the Delawares, in view of the treaties herein referred to, looking to a location of the Delawares upon the Cherokee lands, and their consolidation with said Cherokee Nation,' stipulates as follows:...
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/Cherokee_Nation_v_Journeycake_155_196.HTM

The Amendment to the Cherokee Constitution granting citizenship to the Freedmen and their descendants was also law implemented by the Cherokee directly related to the Treaty of 1866:

"...The Cherokee Nation Constitution was amended in a special convention on November 26, 1866.

"All native born Cherokees, all Indians, and whites legally members of the Nation by adoption, and all freedmen who have been liberated by voluntary act of their former owners or by law, as well as free colored persons who were in the country at the commencement of the rebellion, and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months from the 19th day of July, 1866, and their descendants, who reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, shall be taken and deemed to be, citizens of the Cherokee Nation."[24].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Freedmen_Controversy

The July 19, 1866 Treaty is menntioned as the causing agent for both actions. Are we to believe that in 2004, article 9 has a different or lesser, origin, motive or intent than article 15?

Allen L. Lee said...

In addition:
NDN Lady said
“…The Cherokee Nation objected to and stopped the Delawares’ attempt to separate because they did so on terms that violated the 1867 agreement. “

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v Norton, filed 07/23/2002
“…At the outset, it is noteworthy that all parties agree the status of the Delaware does not result from the 1867 Agreement, which was identified as the controlling authority in the 1979 letter, but rather from the 1866 Treaty…”
"...http://www.indianz.com/docs/court/delaware0723.pdf

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, the status of the Delaware may be controlled by the Treaty, but if you will read what I actually said you will see that it was that the disagreement between the two over the separation may be found in the terms of the agreement. And I have never said that the amendment to the Cherokee Constitution in 1866 was not a result of the Treaty. Of course, it was. Of course, that constitution has been superseded as has Article 9 of the Treaty.

You said that Article 9 was "clearly a human rights provision." Again, you clearly demonstrate your ignorance of human rights law. You seem to be truly unable to grasp the fact that international human rights law actually exists as LAW. It is not a product of your imagination and cannot be made to mean whatever YOU want.

In the first place, Article 9 was not only a clear violation of the Cherokee Nation's human rights, (no "human rights provision" can be a clear violation of human rights!) but the plain fact is that human rights "provisions" are found in international human rights treaties and those instruments are not forcibly negotiated at gunpoint between a member-state and an indigenous people! Said gun being partition.

But if you want to say that "withdrawal" from the Treaty should be governed by the standards set forth in international law, good for you! I'm with you all the way. Human rights experts DO object to the US policy of unilaterally abrogating Indian treaties. Now, you'll have to see how far you can get with that with the US, since it was the United States that abrogated, superseded and otherwise shredded the Treaty in allotment legislation. In clear violation of many of our most basic human rights. And again, you would have to argue that they may not "withdraw" from ALL the provisions of the instrument, not just the one you like, the one that panders to your self-interest. There is a way for a member-state to take a prior exception to a specific provision when they ratify these treaties, but there is no record of that happening with the Treaty of 1866.

So, that puts us back to you going door to door, checking for blue cards and ordering everyone else to leave. Like I said, good luck with that.

Allen L. Lee said...

To NDNLADY
NDNLady said:
"But if you want to say that "withdrawal" from the Treaty should be governed by the standards set forth in international law, good for you! I'm with you all the way. "

My answer is yes, I do want to say that. I also want to say that removal from ones tribes without just cause is a human rights concern,and so do several other persons in Indian Country,including several who qualify as racial "Indians" by your standards, read on:

"Snoqualmie banishment case ripping apart tribe

...Asked how banishment had affected him, former chairman Bill Sweet likened it to leprosy. Linda Sweet-Baxter, a tribal spiritual leader, testified that, "It's just like death."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008765115_snoqtrial20m0.html

As for the sovereign right to be wrong, mistakes will happen, but there is such a thing as recognition and accountabilty that other sovereigns may and do wield when they percieve that one sovereign may be committing acts harmful to it's own citizens as well as to the citizens of other sovereigns. When you dis-enroll someone you leave no choice but for the dis-enrolled to sit on the outside and beg the tribe or to seek recognition and legitimacy from other sovereigns. The dis-enrolled have no "internal" Indian Country power to use as you recommend. The advice that Indian Country wrongs should be settled in Indian Country has the hint of racism. If electing a Black President was considered a problem that should be left to Black Americans, Barack Obama would not be the president of the U.S. today.
Allen L. Lee

Allen L. Lee said...

Also to NDNLADY,
I think I've mentioned this to you before under one of your other names, but I have no problem at all asking that the entire 1866Treaty is honored.

John Cornsilk said...

NDNL/LTL Said:

Mr Cornsilk, since I have seen you time and time again misrepresent events I was a personal eyewitness to, I have no doubt you couldn't write a true history if your life depended on it.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Well NDNL/LTL if you would be so kind as to post any thing that you and I have witnessed, and I wrote about, for the good folks to read, I bet they would appreciate it, but do keep in mind anything you and I may have witnessed at the same time ther would have been a number of other Cherokee seeing the same dang thang!!

NDNL/LTL Said:

And your substitution of personal opinions for actual court decisions means ditto for the law.

Once again I suspect the readers would love to see any of my writings where I opine in place of citing actual law, never happens folks!! just that dang simple...

NDNL/LTL said:

I'll stick with reputable historians who actually back up their words. And reading the applicable court decisions for myself.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Once Again I bet the readers would jut love that as well, in place of all the regirgutated equine manure you blather, fed you by Smith and cohorts! And YES read the court cases you attempt to cite and you must remember to cite the court order, not the DICTA which is nothing but reasoning as to how and why the jurist arrived at the conclusion of the actual order it self, its actually so simple folks!

And I will demonstrate this in the response to the next paragraph of this bullshyt by NDNL/LTL!!

NDNL/LTL said:

And yes, I certainly did cite the 1906 Five Tribes Act and posted the exact quote from Sec 3 as well as the exact quote from the Garfield decision that stated that the language from Sec 3 (which I posted) superseded Article 9.

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

Yes you have cited the 1906 Five trib act, and without a dang clue as to what it is or means!!

First though we must determine what is a Garfield Decision, could it be this??
Surely Not, but does make as much sense!!

NDNL/LTL said:

The Hodel decision has nothing to do with either and I never claimed it did. However for anyone who believes your version of Hodel, I would suggest they do what I did, read it for yourself.


I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Oh But it does have everythig to do with the fact of law of how and why the Creek is a Nation. CNOT suckers like to cite the Dicta at section 21: that says"The OIWA clearly does not expressly repeal the abolition of the Tribal Courts. It contains no reference to the Curtis Act or the related legislation"

But you slung the implicated Bullshyt of Dicta hoping some would stick to the reader, because of the simple fact it is the Hodel Case that sets the law for who and how, of the five tribes can be an Indian tribe as was splained by a Lawyer back during The mankiller Junta...

And quite simply NDNL/LTL all it takes is a simple reading of the Hodel Case, an ya don't even gotta be a lawyer to grasp the actual law to cite.

It is at Section 36 of the document: It could be said there is two parts to the order, the first pard is only Dicta not unlike all prior sections, the Actual order begins with "Accordingly, we hold that the Curtis Act was repealed by the OIWA and that therefore the Muscogee (Creek) Nation has the power to establish Tribal Courts with civil and criminal jurisdiction, subject, of course, to the limitations imposed by statutes generally applicable to all tribes."

Yes Folks as NDNL/LTL suggests read it for your self and know the facts of the matter. And I would point out a reading of the 1906 Five Tribes act, to see the absolute pure bullshyt spewed by NDNL/LTL as to section 3 that supercedes Article 9 of the Law of the land the 1866 Treaty, pure made up horseshyt by Smith and fed to these Idiots. You can see the Act on Stacy Leeds Website and as NDNL/LTL suggests read it for your self!!

And BTW, NDNL/LTL to demonstrate any of my writings that you may want to claim is an opine of mine, simply read for example my History of the Freedmen you will see at least 20 cited links to material to corroborate what I say, that could possibly be construed as my opine. You will find this to be true with all of my writings, I don't just make up bullshyt like you, and expect the readers to take it seriously!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

Barbara L said...

I cannot believe a web site of any character would allow John Cornsilk's foul mouth. Can the man site anything without cussing (no matter how it is spelled) and maligning others?

I am not a CNOT person (as he uses repeatedly). I am someone trying to learn on here and his postings are not appreciated. Please post without your personal opinion of people and cussing. Thank you.

John Cornsilk said...

Well Barbara L, that is the standard cry of ALL CNOT-suckin fools that prattle the Smith Bullshyt! If you are serious and want to learn, spend a few days at www.cornsilks.com and read and read not neccessarily anything I have to say but the documentation you will find there...PRIME Example right at the top of the page the Ralph Keed Jr. Brief in the Freedmen Case in the court of CNOT in fact you can CLICK HERE and go to it directly, and learn of the complete and truth of the crap of CNOT against Cherokee People, the Cherokee Freedmen!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Mr. Cornsilk, your continued assertion that the federal government has a right to intrude on the self-governance of Indian tribal nations means you are a sell-out. Your continued assertion that the current government of the Cherokee Nation somehow operates at a deficit compared to other tribes as a result of past infringements of the federal government means you are a liar. If you would lie about something so essential as the right to self-determination for the Cherokee people, you would obviously lie about anything. If you really want to be any kind of “purveyor of truth”, here is the relevant law. Post it on that cesspool you call a website.


Whitmire v. Cherokee Nation, Court of Claims 1911, rev’d on other grounds by Cherokee Nation v. Whitmire, 1912, citing decree of Feb. 18, 1896

found the language “and are now residents therein, or who may return within six months, and their descendants” was:

“intended for the protection of the Cherokee Nation as a limitation upon the number of persons who might avail themselves of the provisions of the treaty, and consequently that they referred to both the freedmen and the free colored persons previously named in the article; that is to say, freedmen and the descendants of freedmen who did not return within six months are excluded from the benefits of the treaty and of the decree, and that this period of six months extends from the date of the promulgation of the treaty, August 11, 1866, and consequently did not expire until February 11, 1867.”


The 1906 Five Tribes Act, in Sec 3,

“The roll of Cherokee freedmen shall include only such persons of African descent, either free colored or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual personal bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation on or before February eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; but this provision shall not prevent the enrollment of any person who has heretofore made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or its successor and has been adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Secretary of Interior. “


Garfield v. United States ex rel. Lowe, D. C. Appeals Court 1909, aff’d. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 1912

“If any doubt theretofore existed as to the proper construction to be given article 9 of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, that doubt was dissipated by the language of sec. 3 of the above act of April 26th, 1906, for that language constitutes a legislative interpretation of, and supersedes pro tanto, the prior treaty. Cherokee Tobacco (Boudinot v. United States) 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. ed. 227. In other words, we think that, under the true construction of the language of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, the benefits of citizenship were conferred only upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.”


Wheeler vs Swimmer 10th Circuit Appeals 1987

In a companion case to this, appellants sought a determination that the BIA had authority to interfere in a tribal election even where the tribe provided administrative and judicial procedures for contesting elections. Wheeler v. United States Dept. of Interior, 811 F.2d 549 (10th Cir.1987). We held in that case that the Department of Interior, and thus the BIA, had no authority to take action contrary to the tribal resolution of the disputes, and therefore the courts have no authority to order the Department to grant the relief sought. This court also held that the Cherokee Nation possesses an inherent right to self-government that is not diminished by its failure to reorganize under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 503. We reaffirmed that the Cherokee Nation is a distinct organization capable of governing itself and that it is entitled to pursue this right without federal government intrusion.


Wheeler vs US 10th Circuit Appeals 1987

"the Cherokee Nation has a system for interpreting tribal law, and, when a tribal forum is available ... the aggrieved party must seek relief in that forum."


Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 10th Cir. 1989

We conclude that allowing plaintiffs to assert claims under sections 1981 and 2000d would affect the Tribe's right to self-governance in a purely internal matter. Under the first exception set forth above, therefore, the statutes do not apply. Plaintiffs in essence assert that defendants have discriminated on the basis of race by refusing to accord them tribal membership and its privileges and benefits. Plaintiffs argue that they state a claim for relief under both section 1981 and section 2000d because these provisions prohibit race discrimination. However, no right is more integral to a tribe's self-governance than its ability to establish its membership. "A tribe's right to define its own membership for tribal purposes has long been recognized as central to its existence as an independent political community." Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. at 1684 n. 32; see also Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 1257, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981); United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322 n. 18, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1085 n. 18, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978). Applying the statutory prohibitions against race discrimination to a tribe's designation of tribal members would in effect eviscerate the tribe's sovereign power to define itself, and thus would constitute an unacceptable interference "with a tribe's ability to maintain itself as a culturally and politically distinct entity." Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 72, 98 S.Ct. at 1684. We thus hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under sections 1981 and 2000d.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, I certainly have pages of evidence that you "want to say that disenrollment is a human rights concern", however the fact that you want to say it doesn't make it true. And that goes for anybody regardless of race. As I have said here before, a good human rights attorney might be able to provide some guidance to the California disenrollees who have been denied due process, but the international human rights law is clear that each indigenous people has the collective right to determine their citizenship. That's not something I made up because I want to say it. It exists as actual law. As far as one sovereign intruding on another; in the case of the United States interfering in internal tribal self-governance, well, that's a human rights violation!

And there is nothing racist about the idea that dispute resolutions should be settled in Indian Country. Barack Obama is President of the United States, the government of all American citizens. The workings of tribal nations are the concern of tribal citizens. That's what the right of autonomy in matters of self-governance means. And that is a humah right. The mechanisms do not exist currently, but I believe they will. It's hardly an idea that is original to me. And as I said, the federal government could facilitate a mediation process, but that is very different from the Congressional intervention you support.

I am thrilled to hear that you would support reinstating all the articles of the Treaty of 1866. Here's what I suggest you do. Write all the members of the CBC who signed off on Diane Watson's bill (including Watson herself, of course) and tell them that if they want to reinstate Article 9, they must in good conscience reinstate the Treaty in its entirety. Insist that they get back to you with their response. And be sure to let me know what they say.

Allen L. Lee said...

Of course re-instating article 9 and the entire treaty became a possibility when the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma asked the federal government to "intervene" on their behalf regarding the 1866 Treaty, in the Cherokee Nation v Delaware case. All other articles became "fair game." Really no need to remind Diane Watson of that fact.
You still don't get the human rights part about not committing discrimination when exercising your indigenous rights of self determination, that's also a point of law, I think I've documented it enough that I have to avoid becoming redundant. Indigenous as a political body, not as a racial preservation, it's in there.
While you're instructing others to do worthy deeds in this struggle, you may want to do a few yourself, like helping out the California dis-enrollees with your years of human rights study that you claim expertise in instead of continously responding with " I just don't know enough to help." Maybe it's time you learn enough to help, since you have expressed such a sincere care for their plight. It wasn't that hard for me, and I'm not even an Indian. It should be a cinch for you, no more excuses.

John Cornsilk said...

So well said Allen, this CNOT-suckin fool don't got a dam clue, she simply regurgitates the horseshyt Smith feeds her, or what she might glean from the pack of bullshyt he calls Cherokee History!! And demonstrated by the following pure bullshyt by NDNL/LTL that I will de-bunk!

Now NDNL/LTL probably posted by Julia Coates, couple of henchmen of the weezle Smith, or would that be henchos, because quite simply any person that sells, or even gives their services to a pimp LIKE SMITH, be it in body or actions, or such as this case incessant babbling about stuff of which they don‘t have a dam clue, simply slinging bullshyt hoping some will stick to a gullible reader!!

NDNL/LTL said:

Mr. Cornsilk, your continued assertion that the federal government has a right to intrude on the self-governance of Indian tribal nations means you are a sell-out.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Well NDNL/LTL, So happens I sell out nothing, I am a pure patriot of the Cherokee peoples sovereign rights as an indigenous body politic, plain and simple!! BUT as such, I am pragmatic in any claim and or assertions I may make.

As for the right of the federal Government to intrude upon what they damwell desire in regards to Indian rights, “IS A SIMPLE TRUTH“, due mainly to the fact of the power of the Republic (U.S.A.), and we are a conquered Nation subject the whims of the Republic, and regulated as all citizens of the U.S. by the Legislature/Congress of said republic, allowed these indigenous sovereign rights by Treaty an controlled by the fact of the Congressional action called the Plenary Control over Indian commerce, which has morphed in to TOTAL undaunted Control over ALL Indian affairs.

NDNL/LTL said:

Your continued assertion that the current government of the Cherokee Nation somehow operates at a deficit compared to other tribes as a result of past infringements of the federal government means you are a liar.
If you would lie about something so essential as the right to self-determination for the Cherokee people, you would obviously lie about anything.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Well NDNL/LTL, if with this incoherent babble you mean I have asserted CNO, better known as CNOT is BOGUS, then you are absolutely right I have asserted this over and over, also I have outright proclaimed it is a fact of the matter, proven by the instigators own words that the CNO document called a Constitution is nothing more than a State of Oklahoma Corporate Charter, as you can see in THIS EXCERPT from a paper by Lawyer, Professor, Author, Eric Lamont, and then to further validation of the claim, Swimmer knew he had created a sovereign-less entity, and he wanted to know what he could do with such an entity, he commissioned a Study headed up by the CROOK Gene Stipe of Oklahoma corruption fame, to do a Study, THIS PAGE from the Study is all telling of what CNO, CNOT is!!

NDNL/LTL said:

If you really want to be any kind of purveyor of truth, here is the relevant law. Post it on that cesspool you call a website.

Whitmire v. Cherokee Nation, Court of Claims 1911, rev’d on other grounds by Cherokee Nation v. Whitmire, 1912

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

Or maybe I should ask what the hell does rev’d means, I am sure some crap trying to bullshyt the reader! Though I agree this is a very good case for reference in that the dicta points out all the relevant issues in regards to law in the matter of Cherokee Freedmen Citizenship…BTW if you will look at the site of Documents you want the people to believe is a cesspool you will find the Whitmire case listed among the Cherokee Documents, HERE ON THIS PAGE among many others…And people remember the ONLY part of this case that can be cited as case law is the very last line of the document, that is the court order, all above is Dicta depicting reasoning of the jurist arrival at the conclusion; It says: ”Decree reversed and case remanded, with directions to dismiss the supplemental petition.

Which simply means the lower court order was reversed, and ordered to dismiss the action…So simple Folks this shythead tries to make a mountain of bullshyt from the Dicta, from what is actually a simple molehill!!


NDNL/LTL said:

The 1906 Five Tribes Act, in Sec 3,

The roll of Cherokee freedmen shall include only such persons of African descent, either free colored or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual personal bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation on or before February eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; but this provision shall not prevent the enrollment of any person who has heretofore made application to the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes or its successor and has been adjudged entitled to enrollment by the Secretary of Interior.

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!
Very Good NDNL/LTL, though this is not your previous claim which was this section 3 supersedes or negates article 9 of the 1866 Treaty, No way, No how, Nada, zit!!

NDNL/LTL said:

Garfield v. United States ex rel. Lowe, D. C. Appeals Court 1909, affm’d. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 1912
If any doubt theretofore existed as to the proper construction to be given article 9 of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, that doubt was dissipated by the language of sec. 3 of the above act of April 26th, 1906, for that language constitutes a legislative interpretation of, and supersedes pro tanto, the prior treaty. Cherokee Tobacco (Boudinot v. United States) 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. ed. 227. In other words, we think that, under the true construction of the language of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, the benefits of citizenship were conferred only upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

I think my first assumption on the Garfield CRAP was Correct, this is the item in question, I can only find the referenced bullshyt on the website of CNOT: Garfield v. United States ex rel. Lowe, D. C. Appeals Court 1909, affm’d. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 1912
I think it is some made up CRAP to give appearance of credibility to the bullshyt posted there on CNOT!!

NDNL/LTL said:

Wheeler vs Swimmer 10th Circuit Appeals 1987

In a companion case to this, appellants sought a determination that the BIA had authority to interfere in a tribal election even where the tribe provided administrative and judicial procedures for contesting elections. Wheeler v. United States Dept. of Interior, 811 F.2d 549 (10th Cir.1987). We held in that case that the Department of Interior, and thus the BIA, had no authority to take action contrary to the tribal resolution of the disputes, and therefore the courts have no authority to order the Department to grant the relief sought. This court also held that the Cherokee Nation possesses an inherent right to self-government that is not diminished by its failure to reorganize under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 503. We reaffirmed that the Cherokee Nation is a distinct organization capable of governing itself and that it is entitled to pursue this right without federal government intrusion.

Wheeler vs US 10th Circuit Appeals 1987

"the Cherokee Nation has a system for interpreting tribal law, and, when a tribal forum is available ... the aggrieved party must seek relief in that forum."

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Did you pay any dang tention at all to what I said about case law? Well the same thang applies here, you gotta get to the crux of what the document says in regards to law, and whether it can be cited as case law...

Evidently you have paid no dang tention if you had you learned this appeal to the 10th circuit, was on a dismissal by a lower court base on the fact the suit was not set out in the proper venue and adjudicated, warranting redress in the federal district court, they skipped the process: So the bullshyt you wasted your time posting is simply dicta, has nothing to do with fact of Law, as in a order of this court:

Following will be the only part of the words in the Document of the Case that has relevance to the issue of Case law... BTW, which has nothing to do what so-ever with what you are trying to imply, that being, CNOT is legit or is the Cherokee Nation, this case Changes absolutely nothing...

So NDNL/LTL The CRUX of the 10th Ckt court order of Wheeler V. Swimmer says:

Appellants must seek their remedy through the available tribal forum. The identity of the defendants does not change the resolution of the jurisdictional issue. As we said in Wheeler, "the Cherokee Nation has a system for interpreting tribal law, and, when a tribal forum is available ... the aggrieved party must seek relief in that forum." 811 F.2d at 553.

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED and the appeal is dismissed.


NDNL/LTL said:

Nero v. Cherokee Nation, 10th Cir. 1989

We thus hold that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under sections 1981 and 2000d.


I the elder cornsilk sez!

In all the CRAP laid out in regards to Nero was nothing but Dicta the meat of the Court order is the last line, highlighted in bold, resulting in a dismissal of the case!

and even further let me finish with these few words, while the Court did address the inherent rights of the Cherokee Nation, the question of whether CNOT and the Cherokee Nation are one and the same thing has never been addressed. Both of those cases have stated the obvious and something we have never disagreed with. Cherokee Nation, as constituted by its original and lawful constitution of 1839, has had and continues to have the right to govern itself. The question that remains is whether or not that is taking place under the authority of the 1976 and 2003 constitutions. Me thinks not.

One day that question will arise before a court of competent jurisdiction. Until that day, what I say, you say and any other CNOT-SUCKER says does not amount to much, except to make for some lively discourse. The likes of Chad Smith and whatever scummy successor he may choose to follow him (assuming he isn't chief for life) will one day precipitate the necessary conflict to bring this issue to a head and proper conclusion. We are extremely close with the Freedmen cases, I think it is just a matter of time.

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

John Cornsilk said...

Well Dang the mainest link didn work, it do here, MAINEST LINK be sure and read the footnotes too folks.

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, Article 15 was not "reinstated". As I pointed out before, it was never superceded. Article 9 was. So the Delaware decision citing it in no way opened any legal "possibilities" regarding the treaty articles that have been abrogated and superseded. You continually demonstrate that you are completely unaware of how the law actually works, which is certainly OK; many people aren't that aware. It ceases to be OK when you distort the law in a public forum to advance a personal agenda. As far as the things Diane Watson needs to be reminded of? Well, the list is long and growing. But I knew you weren't really interested in being the one to remind her of anything. That was just more meaningless talk. Why am I not surprised.

And you still don't get that enrolling only those with the required proof of Indian ancestry is not "racial discrimination." Under either US law or international human rights law. Read the UNDRIP. Read the Nero decision. You seem to think that because somebody denies you something you are NOT entitled to and you happen to be black, then you are being "racially discriminated" against. If we accepted the required proof from mixed Cherokees with white ancestry, but turned around and denied a black Cherokee with the SAME required proof, that would be "racial discrimination in exercising our right of self-determination". Under both US and international human rights law. That's what you either refuse to get or refuse to admit you get. That is, in fact, what you have "documented" with all the cutting and pasting you do. You just lack the ability to recognize it when you cut and paste it! You have not posted anything that says "Indigenous as a political body not racial preservation" because it doesn't exist. What does exist is the protection of an indigenous people to be a "distinct people" and the sole right of an indigenous people to determine what that means, to define their own "identity". No indigenous people I know define their identity solely in terms of their political structures. Though of course they also have the right to autonomy in creating and maintaining those political structures. Including their citizenship laws.

No, Mr. Lee, it's not that hard for anyone of any race to cut and paste, to lie, to pretend to interpret law without any expertise or understanding, in short to create propaganda. Anyone can do it who has a vested interest in that propaganda achieving its desire effect. What's hard is to really learn how to work for human rights advances in any arena, to read the works of experts like Thornberry or Anaya, to keep up with the Concluding Observations of different monitoring bodies because those are like court decisions that define and refine the meaning and application of international human rights law. Then there is the whole effort to educate people about what human rights really are in order to create a "political will" in the population to pressure State governments to live up to their human rights obligations.

As I have said, I've been learning for two years and I have a long way to go. Fortunately, I do have access to many people who have been at it for decades and I don't pretend to depend on what little I know when I can turn to them for my education. And that's the difference between you and me. I have asked people about the California disenrollees and I have reported here what I have been told, that their case is complicated for the very reasons I have elaborated on here.

Every single person I have been able to talk to is involved with an intense issue of their own. There are many good people working in many different fronts to protect land, lives, resources and sacred sites that are being destroyed every day due to the US governments failure to live up to their human rights obligations. I have mentioned some of those people and issues here. You seem to think I should be doing more. Well, perhaps, I would have more time to devote to learning about that issue if I were not busy defending my own people's human rights against attacks from people like you and Diane Watson. You also seem to have a problem with the fact that I will be honest with the people here about what I do and don't know. Why am I not surprised.

Allen L. Lee said...

I find it equally amazing that someone who has professed only two years of studying international law has become such an expert. Ironically the same two year time span that is coming up one the Cherokee vote to dis-enroll the Freedmen Descendants. It tells me that you didn't know anything about international law before this issue and it shows. I doubt you even understand what an international law is. You can't argue that the treaty was disabled and abrogated by the U.S. and still say that one article remained valid, doesn't work.
If you were paying attention to this site you would no that there is already an inter-tribal organization that has made a decision about a dis-enrollment case in California instead of suggesting it as a new and original idea. Take the time to do more and talk less. You miight try to ease up on some of your racist penchant as well.

John Cornsilk said...

Well Allen if being Indian was a cinch for these babbling jerkwads, they are quite simply SOL!! as the ole saying goes, if this supposed NDNL is an Indian I'll kiss an ass on the town square an give a couple hours to draw crowd... if it is Linda T Lewis, Julia Coates, or the other Coats a sorryassed lawyer, or any one of the CNOTsuckin members of the CNOT groups out there in Cali, they are nothing but white people with blue CNOT Cards that they kissed the weezles ass for...Don't know shyt about Cherokee! Thats just a cold hard simple Truth!! I got the same amount respect for their sorry asses as I do the Weezle Smith, and ANY other CNOT suckin fool that hawks his bullshyt!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

Outlander said...

To IND Lady and others who are thinking the same way. If the Freedmen lose the right to be a Cherokee citizen, same as you and I, it will be a sad day. That will set a prededent that could result in very shaky ground for the Cherokees that live outside of the 14 counties. Once a Tribe knows it can change membership, all kinds of things could happen, the main goal being a smaller Tribe. At some point, some of you may regret not supporting your CA Indian brothers and sisters, Indian way.

And keep in mind, our Constitution does not say "by blood", it says descendants of those enrolled on the Dawes.

Outlander

Anonymous said...

But it SHOULD be by blood...to Hell with the white man Constitution.

John Cornsilk said...

Well Anon if you are talking about Cherokee, I guess you are in the class with the dumazz CNOTsuckers, the Cherokee have never had a blood quantum, back to time immemorial and don't now, UNLESS Smith is successful with this racist bullahyt with the freedmen. and the BOGUS amendment to the BOGUS CNOT Constitution.

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Ha ha ha, Mr. Lee. Which is it? First you tell me to stop saying “I don’t know enough to help”, and now it’s “Quit pretending to be an expert”. Doesn’t your tongue get tangled talking out of both sides of your mouth that way? I may have been learning for only two years, but I know the difference between a member-state and an indigenous people. I know it’s ignorant beyond belief to claim that you can apply international law regarding withdrawal from ratified instruments retroactively to an internal treaty the US broke a hundred years ago. I know when the Universal Declaration says everyone is entitled to a nationality; it doesn’t mean citizenship in an Indian tribe. I know the difference between Cherokee, federal and international human rights law. Hell, I even know that no one who is knowledgeable about human rights law would toss the word “expert” around. It happens to be a term that is only applied to certain key positions within the UN framework, including members of monitoring bodies. I could go on making a list of things from your prior posts that have made me fall down laughing, but I’d only be amusing myself. You keep trying to pretend to the people here that you know more than how to cut and paste, but you haven’t even learned kindergarten stuff like the beginning vocabulary of the customary language.

And yes, I began learning when someone from an indigenous human rights organization contacted me specifically about our case because they were so appalled at the blatant disregard for our rights. That organization has worked on countless issues over the last several years, including the passage of the Declaration. Working with them, I have met an amazing array of people, all dedicated to bettering the lives of indigenous peoples through the implementation of human rights norms. And once you start working in this arena, you discover why it is so important. Why people have dedicated themselves to this work since 1923 when an Iroquois man first traveled to the League of Nations to be heard and wasn’t. It isn’t just about working for Cherokee rights. It’s working for the rights of all indigenous peoples. You disrespect decades of work by some really amazing people when you shoot off your mouth without taking responsibility to really learn what you’re talking about.

Oh, and who said the US doesn’t dismantle a treaty article by article? You? The Supreme Court says different. Read the Cherokee Tobacco Case 1871. Is it “right”? Hell no, but when did “right” ever guide federal Indian policy? This is why the work of those in the human rights arena is critical to the future of indigenous peoples. I could care less if you respect nothing else, but you should respect that.

NDNLady said...

Outlander, it isn't about you. Or me. It's about the right of the Cherokee people to their own constitutional process. If the majority voted to institute a blood quantum I couldn't meet, I would hope I would respect my nation enough to remember it isn't about me. I would go on being a member of my family and my community but without enrollment if the majority of Cherokees voted for such a law. That's why the California disenrollment cases are different. They are not the result of due process but are arbitrary decisions made outside that process.

Allen L. Lee said...

If every Cherokee Nation citizen is not entitled to a nationality as a Cherokee citizen, then technically your are not a "Nation". Stop claiming national status if you refuse to accept the responsibilties of a "Nation." You should not be recognized as a "nation" by the U.S. or any other "nation" if you refuse to take the responsibilities of a "Nation." stop calling yourself the Cherokee "Nation" of Oklahahoma if you can't live up to the title. As I have said before, you continue to switch between "ethnic tribal" and "nation/state" as your argument requires, as in
" I know when the Universal Declaration says everyone is entitled to a nationality; it doesn’t mean citizenship in an Indian tribe.. "
Now that's something to laugh at.

Your advisors perhaps should be made aware of the dis-enrollments in Human Rights terms rather than the U.S. against Indians, or Blacks against Indians, which is most likely how they have heard the issue from the Cherokee "Nation" of Oklahoma.
Our main difference can be summed up in one paragragh.
You believe the right to tribal distinction includes a right of racial definition.
I believe that human rights law frowns on racial discrimination of any kind, even if it is done by "peoples" aka, tribes.
Perhaps it's time that indigenous people globally have a conference on the topic,
leading to my exceprt for the day:
Whakapapa Maori
(Maori Genealogy)
Sponsored by Kingston Strategic (NZ) Ltd
Maori culture, history, myth and legend
encapsulated in whakapapa / genealogy


Question: Are there any full-blooded Maori left?
Answer: All Maori are full blooded. In common with all of humanity, Maori are full of blood (and other bodily fluids). The concept of a human person with less than the usual volume of blood is quite ridiculous, unless dead of course.
The question itself involves the perpetuation of a racist myth. And I am personally sick and tired of this question, and of people insinuating that we are somehow less Maori because of an infusion of other genetic inheritances.
However, I acknowledge that the question is often asked in innocence.
"Maori-ness" is a cultural and familial state of being, regardless of the total genetic inheritance of a particlular person, and regardless of the degree of brownness of the skin. For instance many tribal peoples in Aotearoa / New Zealand today are quite fair-skinned after long contact with the Pakeha (non-Maori). But they may be nevertheless fiercely staunch members of a "Maori" family / tribe.
Furthermore, we who are called "Maori" only consider ourselves "Maori" in relation to those who have no "Maori" descent. "Maori" actually means "normal".
We do of course refer to ourselves as "Maori" when operating within or alongside other cultures in order to make it understood who we are. Amongst ourselves we describe ourselves according to our dominant genealogical line, i.e tribe or hapu or family.
The tribe or hapu is of course kin based (i.e descent-based as opposed to blood-based), so we actually describe ourselves according to our dominant extended family. I am for instance, among others, Ngati Ira, Ngati Rangitane, Ngai Te Whatuiapiti and Ngati Kahungunu. I personally operate across a number of my familial groups, given the fact that I actively maintain those wider links. However most of my extended family operate within only one of their familial groups (tribe or hapu).
What I'm saying, I suppose, is that being "Maori" is being a member of a family of "Maori" descent that operates within "Maori" cultural values, norms and beliefs, regardless of the degree of genetic infusion from outside that "Maori" line of descent.
"Blood" or "bloodedness" is a totally spurious notion used only by white people, very often to denigrate those who choose to live within non-white cultural frameworks. In Aotearoa / New Zealand at least, it is a tired old racist notion that refuses to lie down and die.
To answer the question; yes, all "Maori" are full blooded, although my fourth-cousin definitely seemed to have more alcohol than blood in his veins for a time last night. Hopefully he has returned to full-bloodedness today.
Do you also have your full volume of blood?
http://maaori.com/whakapapa/fullblood.htm

http://maaori.com/whakapapa/index.htm

John Cornsilk said...

Allen Said:

If every Cherokee Nation citizen is not entitled to a nationality as a Cherokee citizen, then technically your are not a "Nation". Stop claiming national status if you refuse to accept the responsibilities of a "Nation." You should not be recognized as a "nation" by the U.S. or any other "nation" if you refuse to take the responsibilities of a "Nation." stop calling yourself the Cherokee "Nation" of Oklahoma if you can't live up to the title. As I have said before, you continue to switch between "ethnic tribal" and "nation/state" as your argument requires, as in
" I know when the Universal Declaration says everyone is entitled to a nationality; it doesn’t mean citizenship in an Indian tribe.. "
Now that's something to laugh at.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

You are so right Allen, Something to laugh at, quite simply because of what I have said these CNOT-suckin defuses don’t have a dam clue! They simply babble in regurgitation the equine manure Smith feeds them!! Absolutely, the term Nation is a qualifier for a Nationality of any given entity claiming to be such, or recognized by compeer nations as such!! And quite simply a Tribe is not a Nation, it is or can be a Group/Nationality of a given Nation, just as an individual can be a Citizen/National of a nation.

Now, the "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma" (CNO) with Traitors added for (CNOT) can NEVER live up to the title Nation, quite simply because it is NOT, due to the fact it is nothing but an Oklahoma Corporate entity formed in 1975 by Ross Swimmer, and as I pointed out in the post above simply read Swimmers own words highlighted in bold, quite well stating what he was creating was nothing but a corporate entity for the dispensing of federal funds, THIS EXCERPT from a paper by Eric Lamont, Lawyer, Professor of law at Harvard, and Author, quite plainly says what he was doing with this action, be sure and read the footnotes as well.

And Folks as I said read this page from a study Swimmer had done it depicts quite well he knew what he created, what it is, was, and what he could and could not do with it, and the study confirmed it THIS PAGE is all telling!!

And folks this is all from what the CNOT-SUCKERS call ole John C’s cesspool websitewww.cornsilks.com! So much to learn there folks!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Bless your heart, Mr. Lee. Just because you can't grasp the difference between an indigenous nation and a member-state or nation/state doesn't mean the rest of the world has that problem. As I said, it really is kindergarten stuff in the realm of international human rights law. An "indigenous people" can be referred to as an indigenous nation or community, a tribal nation, or (in the US) as an Indian tribe. They all have the same meaning, the same set of rights and protections, including a right to their own "ethnic identity". What they don't refer to is a member-state or Nation/State which is what the Universal Declaration means when they say everyone has a right to a "nationality". As I have said ad nauseum, these are laws. Words have specific meanings and if you don't even know what the words mean, you sure as hell will not understand what the laws mean.

My advisors should look at it in terms of human rights law? They are specialists in human rights law. They came to us. Being specialists in this arena, with decades of experience, they do know what the words mean. And the laws.

Of course human rights law forbids racial discrimination. The US has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. Again, it's a matter of very basic vocabulary. You seem to think that it is "racial discrimination" to deny you what you want. It's isn't. It's when something you have an EQUAL RIGHT right to is denied to you on the basis of your race. And international human rights law says that the only people who have a RIGHT to citizenship in an indigenous nation are those people determined to have that right by that indigenous nation. The Cherokee Nation has said that the right to citizenship is extended to those of Cherokee descent who can prove it by a specific roll. That is the right that must be applied EQUALLY. We do.

If the Cherokee Nation were to institute a blood quantum that my grandchildren could not meet, then they would have an ANCESTOR who had a right to citizenship, but it would not be THEIR right. And I can only pray that I have raised my children to raise their children with an understanding that the rightS of the Nation is more important than their desire to enroll.

You want to call a global conference of indigenous peoples to deal with this? Tell ya what you do. Show up in New York for the opening day of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. I believe it starts on May 18th this year. Clutch your copy of the Universal Declaration in one hand with "Everyone is entitled to a nationality" underlined. Carry a copy of the ICERD in the other. See how much support you drum up. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. It took over twenty years to draft and pass the Declaration and it is the only human rights instrument drafted with the participation of the rights holders themselves. Every single right and protection in it was paid for by the blood of countless ancestors and secured by the sweat and tears of their descendants,(black, white, red and yellow) who fought for those rights throughout that process. Go, you might learn something.

I love it when your daily cut and paste backs up what I say:

"Maori-ness" is a cultural and FAMILIAL state of being, regardless of the TOTAL genetic inheritance of a particlular person, and regardless of the degree of brownness of the skin."

"they may be nevertheless fiercely staunch members of a "Maori" FAMILY/tribe.

"Furthermore, we who are called "Maori" only consider ourselves "Maori" in relation to those who have NO "Maori" DESCENT."

"The tribe or hapu is of course KIN BASED (i.e DESCENT-BASED based as opposed to blood-based), so we actually describe ourselves according to our dominant extended FAMILY."

"What I'm saying, I suppose, is that being "Maori" is being a MEMBER OF A FAMILY OF "MAORI" DESCENT."

Gee, they sound just like us. Oh that's right, they are just like us! An indigenous people/tribal nation with the inherent right to continue to exist as the "distinct people" they are. Distinctly Maori. Distinctly Navaho. Distinctly Sami. Distinctly Cherokee. It is not a "racial distinction" and in fact, interfering with an indigenous people's right to determine that "distinct identity" is, under international human rights law, a form of RACIAL DISCRIMINATION prohibited by the ICERD. The ICERD's monitoring body, the Committee to End Racial Discrimination, is the one that created the link to the Declaration making it a part of the US obligations under the ICERD. That is why the leading CERD "expert" on indigenous rights called Diane Watson's bill alarming. You are the one who needs to curb your racist penchants, Mr. Lee. Not me.

John Cornsilk said...

Folks Speakin of "CERD" ya wanna see what I mean about this idiots babblings coming from none other than the Weezle Smith!! Go and read his absolute pure bullshyt on the subject on Stacy Leeds website, CLICKHERE And then read the Comment sections and see what Steve Russell a Retired Texas Judge and CNOT member said of the weezles abilities as a writing/Lawyer, and too another lawyer, calls himself The Local Crank has a good comment as well in the comment sction, CLICK HERE

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too!

John Cornsilk said...

Folks I had a call asking me if the Cherokee have the right to order action upon the federal Government, the answer is absolutely NOT, the question was in relation to the BOGUS removal ot the federal authrity over Cherokee matters Constitutions amendments etc.

CNOT likes to claim that was an a self imposed oversight right granted the feds in the 75 Constitution supposed Constitution by Swimmer, What a CROCK I must say... David Cornsilk has explaind that many times, that is a federal right by the 1906 Act:
The 1906 Five Civilized Tribes Act provides that oversight of the FCT will rest with the President of the United States or his designee. The President has designated the Sec. of the Interior to carry his oversight duties. The Sec. of Interior, through the infrastructure of the Department of Interior delegates that authority to the Asst. Sec. of Interior of Indian Affairs who has further delegated that authority to Artman. The problem with the Artman decision is that is only recognizes the removal of federal oversight from the 1976 Constitution and does not address the federal oversight TAKEN by Congress in the 1906 Act. The President, through his designees, has had federal oversight of Cherokee affairs, including the right of approval of all laws, constitutions and amendments since 1906 INDEPENDENT of the constitution of the Cherokee Nation. The 1970 Principal Chiefs Act reaffirms the authority of the President/designee to maintain oversight authority. Thus, adopting the amendment to the 1976 constitution was legally a nullity and of no affect whatsoever. Regardless of what the CNO constitution might say, federal law still says that the President/designee has oversight authority. It would take an ACT OF CONGRESS to change that.

Second posting:

The Cherokee Nation did not "GRANT" oversight of its constitution, laws and actions to the federal government. That authority was "TAKEN" by the United States Congress. It has been held by the United States Supreme Court that Congress has "PLENARY" or absolute authority over the commerce of tribes. This has been interpreted to mean authority over every aspect of tribe government. The only thing tribes can continue to do is what Congress has left them. We are a conquered people, and the United States is our conquerer. The only "NATIONHOOD" we have left is that which Congress has not extinguished. In 1866 the Cherokee Nation entered an agreement with the United States to reconcile itself with the Union following cessession, abrogation of our treaties and joining the unlawful Confederate States of America. When the Cherokee people adopted the socalled 1976 constitution, the provisions which are now in contention and seeming to delegate to the U.S. President or his designee, oversight of the Cherokee government, is in fact NOT a delegation of oversight authority, but an acknowledgement of oversight mandated by Congress in 1898 (Curtis Act), 1906 (Five Tribes Act) and 1970 (Principal Chiefs Act)! We can remove the provisions for federal oversight til the cows come home, but it makes no difference. The Cherokee people cannot tell Congress what it can and cannot do. Had there been no provision for federal oversight included in the original language of the 1976 constitution, it would not have mattered, because the language already existed in federal law. Congress had the power to delegate oversight before the 1976 constitution. It did it in spite of the 1839 Constitution that had no provisions for federal oversight. Think about it carefully. If we can delegate to the federal government some authority to act, then we would have the opposing ability to deny the federal government its authority to act. That is something we, the weaker in the relationship, are not able to do. Chad Smith has already gotten the Cherokee Nation's tit in a ringer and it sounds like he's planning on twisting it even further. And for what? So he can stay in office another four years!

David Cornsilk


Stacy Leeds dissent splains the law that CNOT ignores pretty well to Click Here

Here is an intersing read a report in 2002 on the staus on the 99 Crap called a Constitution and what the BIA saw wrong with it:

CHEROKEE NATION'S CONSTITUTION CONVENTION PROGRESS REPORT ON CONVENTION COMMISSION'S WORKS.

FEBRUARY 2000

Since our last report in September of 1999, the Constitution Convention Commission has been working diligently to secure approval of the revised constitution adopted by the delegates from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. After nine months of review by two separate field offices, the Solicitor’s office, and several internal levels in the Washington central office, the Commission was successful in receiving a preliminary response on December 7, 1999. Much to our disappointment, the Bureau granted no approval of the revised constitution as we had hoped, but instead furnished the Commission with a list of concerns which the Bureau feels need to be addressed before approval will be considered. The Bureau categorized its review of the document into two sections:

(1) Articles in need of change, and (2) Articles where changes are recommended. Listed below is a summary of the areas the Bureau feels need to be changed:

1. Article II - Territorial Jurisdiction: The Bureau is requiring a verification of the territorial jurisdiction boundaries articulated in Article II by the Field Solicitor’s office prior to final approval.

2. Article III - Bill of Rights: The Bureau feels that this section omits “important provisions” of 25 U.S.C. §1302 (the Indian Civil Rights Act) but does not articulate the elements it feels are missing.

3. Article IV - Section 1 - Citizenship: The Bureau feels that changing the term “member” to “citizen” causes confusion. In addition, with respect to the paragraph recognizing the sovereign rights of the Cherokee, Shawnee, and the Delaware Cherokees, the Bureau asserts the proviso in the second sentence of the provision is ambiguous and should be stricken.

4. Article VI - Legislative - Section 3: The Bureau is of the opinion that our constitution cannot preclude Freedmen Cherokee from voting or holding office. In addition, the Bureau feels the constitution does not adequately address:

(a) When the first election of the 17 Council members is to take place;

(b) How staggered terms will be implemented; and,

(c) How the increase of new Council members from 15 to 17 will be handled.

5. Article VI - Legislative - Section 7: Relying on language found in Section 28 of the Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, ( the Five Civilized Tribes Act), the Bureau has taken the position that Secretarial approval of all acts, ordinances, or resolutions of the Tribal Council (except resolutions of adjournment) must be required and offered the following substitution language:

“The Council shall have the power to establish laws which it shall deem necessary and proper for the good of the Nation, which shall not be contrary to the provisions of this Constitution or Federal law and shall be approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by Federal law.”

In addition to these requirements, the Bureau also set forth a number of articles where it felt changes would be recommended:

1. Article VI - Legislature - Section 10: The Bureau feels that the original language of “No enactment shall become a law after final adjournment of Council unless approved by the Principal Chief within 15 days after such adjournment” should be reinserted.

2. Article VII - Executive - Section 14: The Bureau recommends this Section be changed to incorporate requirements of qualification background checks for tribal law enforcement officers and recommended the following language: “subject to a favorable background and criminal history report processed by a properly designated adjudicating official of the Cherokee Nation” to be added to the second sentence.

The Bureau also recommended inserting “properly trained and commissioned law enforcement” before “officers” in the second sentence.

3. Article IX - Election - Section 3: The Bureau recommends inserting the following language: “All adult citizens of the Cherokee citizens of the Cherokee Nation, eighteen years of age or older on election day, shall have the right to vote in general and special elections in accordance with voting registration requirements and procedures as may be enacted by the legislation.“

4. Article XV - Initiative, Referendum, and Amendment: The Bureau recommends that language be reinserted in Section 10 of Article XV, requiring approval by the President of the United States or his authorized representative for future amendments or new constitutions to become effective.

On December 14, the Principal Chief’s office received an official copy of the Bureau’s response, issued through the Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office (Muskogee Area Office), which included the technical reviews conducted by the various field offices involved. The content of the official letter was unchanged from the preliminary response outlined above.

Meeting with BIA. In response to these recommendations and requirements Principal Chief Chad Smith arranged a meeting with Assistant Secretary Kevin Gover in Washington D.C. to seek clarification and discussion of these issues. On December 17, 1999, a meeting was conducted in Washington D.C. with Assistant Secretary Gover and staff members, Commission Officers, the Principal Chief and other interested tribal officials and invitees attending. Discussions principally focused on the Bureau’s requirements involving the Freedmen issue and Secretarial approval of tribal legislative enactments. Chief Smith requested that these two requirements be reconsidered and withdrawn by the Assistant Secretary, which he agreed to review within two weeks. To date no official action has been taken to either modify or withdraw the Bureau’s requirements.

Next Course of Action. With the BIA’s unwillingness to approve of our document as presented, and given its extreme mandates which have a direct impact on our tribal sovereignty, we must now carefully weigh our options. It must be emphasized that the objections raised by the BIA can be categorized into three areas: suggested language changes, mandated language changes, and mandates for the ratification process. Both suggested and mandated language changes must be addressed by our convention. The mandate regarding the ratification process is a more global issue that involves every branch of our Government. This issue must be addressed first and may require cooperation from all branches of government.

The Commission took up this question at its regular meeting on February 11, 2000. A number of options were discussed, including: seeking approval from a higher authority (e.g. President of the United States or Congress); submitting the revised constitution for referendum vote without BIA approval; and initiating action to repeal the approval requirement contained in the 1976 Constitution. After careful deliberation the Commission voted to take advantage of the Bureau’s current policy of “getting out of the amendment approval business” and seek repeal of the approval requirement contained in the 1976 constitution. To carry this out the Commission intends to approach the Tribal Council and propose it enter into a cooperative effort with the Commission to exercise the Council’s independent constitutional authority and sponsor a single amendment to the 1976 Constitution which would remove the necessity of approval by “the President of the United States or his authorized representative” (Article XV Section 10). Such an amendment, if ratified at a special election, would lift our self-imposed requirement of BIA approval and render its requirements for the ratification process moot. The convention process would then be free to move forward to complete the work of the people without BIA involvement.

The Commission feels that this course of action is the most judicious and pragmatic under the circumstances and would minimize the long-term risk of political and legal challenges to our constitution in the future. Despite the setbacks caused by the Bureau, our continuing pledge is to bring the convention process to a successful conclusion and place the revised constitution before the Cherokee people for their ratification.

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member, UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

David Cornsilk says "The Cherokee Nation did not "GRANT" oversight of its constitution, laws and actions to the federal government. That authority was "TAKEN" by the United States Congress. It has been held by the United States Supreme Court that Congress has "PLENARY" or absolute authority over the commerce of tribes. This has been interpreted to mean authority over every aspect of tribe government. The only thing tribes can continue to do is what Congress has left them. We are a conquered people, and the United States is our conquerer."

David Cornsilk is free to accept the "master's yoke". But he does not speak for me. Or the majority of Cherokee people. It is this exact policy that international human rights law experts have deemed "racist to the core". You are welcome to embrace it John. That's why you are a sell-out, an apple.

kurux said...

Ndn Lady, or should I say THINBLOOD lady, u are a nimrod. U and your ilk have fallen back into your old pastime of trying to kill the messenger, wiht no real argument against freedmen inclusion.

You go right on ahead and get the US to follow the U.N resolution. If you can pull that off Im sure you can get a top position in the presidents cabnet! As for me i will base my arguements on FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, and I believe that the CNO will fail, as they already have in the appeals court.

You still have that treaty written in Lincolns blood that gets rid of the Freedmen? what an idiot you are!

Anyway, the CNO is under FEDERAL LAW, not INTERNATIONAL LAW, any other argument to this fact is just plain ignert!

Outlander said...

IND Lady,
I was thinking similar to what Kurux just wrote. I read the link John posted, you know the letter Chad wrote to the United Nation in 2008 and to borrow your words "he does not speak for me." (Chad, that is) That was back when he was whining to the Canadian govt, the UN people, I think even the NCAI, he wanted a resolution from them. Not one of those groups asked him why he refused to follow his own court of law, at that time, the JAT?

You and I might not see eye to eye and that is ok, but the only person Chad Smith answers to is you or I and the membership and he took an oath to uphold OUR 3 branches of OUR govt, remember?

As far as being conquered people, that is not quite true. We signed treaties which are really contracts. Do you think the USA would fund 1 dollar if they didn't have to abide by those treaties/contracts? I don't think so.

The ground that Chad is walking on is shakey. Would he turn our control over to the United Nations or worse, the State? Nope, we are governed by federal law. As a Chief, he is to answer to the membership, as a Tribe, we have to answer to the feds.

As far as the CA Indian Tribes that are disenrolling, they too will ultimately have to face federal law. They did not get due process, they were not allowed to vote on an issue that directly affected them. We, the CNO have more in common than it looks like on the surface.

Outlander

NDNLady said...

Kurux, of course the human rights of the Cherokee Nation are protected under international human rights law. Everybody's are. And the Declaration has already been tied to the United States legal obligations under the ICERD. But I can see why you wouldn't be interested. They are not the kind of rights you can sell out! And no, of course, I don't have a treaty with Lincoln's blood on it. Whoever heard of such a thing? I'm sure I remember reading that he was holding a theater program when he was shot. Our American Cousin, if I remember correctly.

Outlander, bless your heart, dear. That wasn't a letter you read, it's called a shadow report. And I'm sure that if you can't read a simple JAT decision, you would have absolutely no chance at understanding it. Especially if you think it had anything to do with turning over "control" to the UN! Did you ever really read the Allen decision? Remember the part about determining citizenship being the right of the Cherokee people? How they were free to amend their constitution? And the Chief did not follow his own court how? And on which issue that directly affected you were you NOT allowed to vote?

You may be willing to join your buds at the federal altar and play "conquered people", but luckily you are no one's leaders.

The following are excerpts from the call of thirty-two distinguished Native leaders to President Obama for “a New Day when America honors Native American human rights”.

“Now President Obama has the challenge to take the next great stride forward. This president, who so personifies the spirit of democracy and the transcendence of human rights, has the opportunity to lead America’s Native nations into a new era of equality, self-determination and full participation in the American family of governments.”

Now it is time for America, which aspires to stand for justice, freedom and human rights for all nations around the world, to apply those principles to the Native Americans here at home.

For President Obama, the great stride forward begins with some important initial steps. The first step will be a White House meeting between the president and the elected leaders of our Native nations.

At that time, Obama should issue a new executive order explaining the constitutional nature of our nation-to-nation relationship as a relationship between equal sovereigns. To use his term, “a relationship of equals” means cooperation based on mutual consent, respecting the fundamental human right of Native Americans to our original democracies."

Allen L. Lee said...

Today I will submit excerpts from three very relevant documents, one a paper, the other two are immigration cases. I will explain the relevance of each excerpt at my conclusion.

1. "Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law
Winter 2007
The Center for Children, Families, and the Law Interdisciplinary Conference “Welcome to America: Immigration,
Families, and the Law”
*119 PROTECTING VICTIMS OF GENDERED PERSECUTION: FEAR OF FLOODGATES OR CALL TO
(PRINCIPLED) ACTION?
Karen Musalo

...*122 These bases for excluding women from protection have been addressed and rejected by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), [FN8] which plays an important role in interpreting the Refugee
Convention and its Protocol, and in supervising its application by States that are signatories to these instruments.
[FN9] The UNHCR's position generally has been affirmed by other relevant U.N. bodies [FN10] and has been adopted
by various States in the form of national guidelines. UNHCR has made clear its position that women who suffer
gender-related harms can be recognized as refugees. Although a detailed discussion of its analysis is outside the scope
of this article, suffice it to say that UNHCR takes the position that: 1) human rights norms - rather than culture - should
guide the determination of whether a harm is persecution; 2) persecution by non-State actors, such as family or
community members, can qualify one as a refugee; and, perhaps most importantly; 3) under appropriate circumstances
women may constitute a *123 “particular social group,” within the meaning of the Refugee Convention, and may be
able to demonstrate a nexus between the harm they fear and their social group membership."
http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files/facultywebs/musalo/ProtectingVictimsGenderedProsecution.pdf

2. "Michelle THOMAS; David George Thomas; Tyneal Michelle Thomas; Shaldon Waide Thomas, Petitioners,
v.
Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71656.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted En Banc December 14, 2004.
Filed June 3, 2005.
...Quoting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the BIA

explained that "a `particular social group' connotes persons of similar background, habits, or social status and that a claim to fear persecution on this ground may frequently overlap with persecution on other grounds such as race, religion, or nationality." Id. at 233 (citing Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 19 (Geneva, 1979)).
The other grounds of persecution in the Act and the Protocol listed in association with `membership in a particular social group' ... describe[] persecution aimed at an immutable characteristic: a characteristic that either is beyond the power of an individual to change or is so fundamental to individual identity or conscience that it ought not be required to be changed."
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/409/409.F3d.1177.02-71656.html
"United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
Interim Decision 3278 (BIA); 21 I. & N. Dec. 357, 1996 BIA LEXIS 15
In Re Fauziya Kasinga, Applicant
File A73 476 695-Elizabeth
Decided June 13, 1996
...III. SOCIAL GROUP
To be a basis for a grant of asylum, persecution must relate to one of five categories described in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Act. The parties agree that the relevant category in this case is “particular social group.” Each party has advanced several formulations of the "particular social group" at issue in this case. However, each party urges the Board to adopt only that definition of social group necessary to decide this individual case.
In the context of this case, we find the particular social group to be the following: young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe who have not had FGM, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice. This is very similar to the formulations suggested by the parties.
In accordance with Acosta, the particular social group is defined by common characteristics that members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because such characteristics are fundamental to their individual identities. The characteristics of being a “young woman” and a “member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe” cannot be changed. The characteristic of having intact genitalia is one that is so fundamental to the individual identity of a young woman that she should not be required to change it.
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the form of FGM if returned to Togo. The persecution she fears is on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe who have not had FGM, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice. Her fear of persecution is country-wide. We exercise our discretion in her favor, and we grant her asylum.
Therefore, we sustain the applicant's appeal, grant her asylum, and order her admitted to the United States. The following orders are entered.
ORDER: The applicant’s appeal is sustained. The applicant is granted asylum and admitted to the United States as an asylee.
FURTHER ORDER: The INS's motion to remand is denied
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/21INDec357.htm

The first document establishes the U.N. position regarding human rights and persecution when it states:
"1) human rights norms - rather than culture - should
guide the determination of whether a harm is persecution;"
The second document establishes that social groups can be families and clans and said groups may have overlapping grounds of persecution based on race, religion or nationality"
""a `particular social group' connotes persons of similar background, habits, or social status and that a claim to fear persecution on this ground may frequently overlap with persecution on other grounds such as race, religion, or nationality."
The third document is extremely relevant because it is argued on how the U.S. determined group persecution with-in a tribe:
" The persecution she fears is on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of young women of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe"

It's is interesting that the U.S. has considered a case of persecution with-in an indigenous tribe of people in Africa, a place were they have no jurisdiction at all, but refuse to examine cases of racial and genetic persecution with-in tribes which they claim jurisdiction over. The fact is that this asylum case holds the indigenous tribe accountable for the persecution as well as the state (Togo)for it's lack of action to prevent the persecution.

Persecution of Indian tribal members based on their immutable traits or traits "that the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences." is recognized as a human rights violation both by the U.S. and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Dis-enrolling Indian tribal members because of race, genetic ancestry or gender fills the definition of persecution as per the previous documents. All parties of interest should take a closer look at the dis-enrollments and act accordingly.
Is the U.S. as accountable as Togo may have been for failing to act regarding persecution of tribal members by tribes? Take time to visit the documents, they are much more revealing than the excerpts.
Allen L. Lee

Anonymous said...

Hey Everyone, Kurux is Taylor Keen and he is another sour grape contestant of the decade.

Bottom line here, people without indian blood cannnot be indians, whether Moses wrote it on the Ten Commandments.

Jeez, that's the bottom line.

John Cornsilk said...

Well Allen The CNOT-suckin fools are not interested if it is not something they can twist up to suit the horse shyt they wanna spread they have no concern!!

Well NDNL/LTL what a condescending crock of pure male bovine excrement!!

You said to outlander:
Outlander, bless your heart, dear. That wasn't a letter you read, it's called a shadow report.

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

No NDNL/LTL that was called pages of absolute pure BULLSHYT! Did you read the comment section? Ole Steve Russells comment is so telling of the ignertness of the weezle Smith, the whole thang was good the first part said "Where did that guy get his law license? Was it found in a Crackerjack box? This is truly embarrassing."

The Local Crank had an awesome comment as well:
"Wow! That is just...staggering. The Smith Administration is essentially willing to argue with a straight face that the Cherokee Nation was legally abolished in 1902 just to keep out the Freedmen? Talk about suicidal tactics! In other words, it became necessary to destroy the Cherokee Nation in order to save it?"

NDNL/LTL Said:

And I'm sure that if you can't read a simple JAT decision, you would have absolutely no chance at understanding it. Especially if you think it had anything to do with turning over "control" to the UN!

Remember the part about determining citizenship being the right of the Cherokee people? How they were free to amend their constitution? And the Chief did not follow his own court how? And on which issue that directly affected you were you NOT allowed to vote?

I the Eder Cornsilk sez!

The issue where many outland voters were screwed over and around WAS, where if they even got their ballot in, it was too late in the election for the vote to count CNOT knew who were for and against the bullshyt: Thus many not allowed to vote, and we were ALL affected by the bullshyt vote!!

What a person may get from reading the CRAP is inconsequential to the fact of the matter, "it is Bullshyt", as espouse by the two Lawyers and other posters, I even had a comment on the dam thang!!

Dang NDNL/LTK you continue with the evident condescending bullshyt, now let me ask you a question!
Did you ever really read the Allen decision?

What People may understand when they read the document of the Allen decision, is immaterial to the topic, BUT as you said it is quite simple to grasp, the part you are harping on and the part that Smith made his case on for the BOGUS petition and BOGUS amendment, is simply part of the Dicta, and it is even stretched to the max of the desired conclusion Smith and you shytheads babble as law, it says "The Power of the Cherokee People
The Cherokee citizenry has the ultimate authority to define tribal citizenship.
When they adopted the 1975 Constitution, they did not limit membership to people who
possess Cherokee blood. Instead, they extended membership to all the people who were
"citizens" of the Cherokee Nation as listed on the Dawes Commission Rolls.
The Constitution could be amended to require that all tribal members possess
Cherokee blood. The people could also choose to set a minimum Cherokee blood
quantum. However, if the Cherokee people wish to limit tribal citizenship, and such
limitation would terminate the pre-existing citizenship of even one Cherokee citizen, then
it must be done in the open. It cannot be accomplished through silence.
"


Now NDNL/LTL if a person is going to claim the Dicta is case law, the This part would be the Best, and forever rights any attempted wrongs against ANY Cherokee it says: "In the dissenting opinion. Chief Justice Matlock agrees with the majority on one
very crucial point: The Cherokee Freedmen. Delaware Cherokee and Shawnee
Cherokees were citizens of the Cherokee Nation prior to the adoption of the 1975
Constitution of the Cherokee Nation. If the Cherokee Freedmen were "citizens" in 1975, as all three justices unanimously agree, then they must have been "citizens" at the time the Dawes Rolls were completed.
"


and with all that you babble about in/as case LAW, is NOT case law but simply Dicta, and as I keep splaining to you dumazzes, Dicta is the reasoning of the Jurist in reaching the Conclusion of the Court order... And in this document what the Dicta is mainly about is the BEST account of what the BOGUS 75 Constitution is and means, I have ever read, read it people and rest assured you know what the CNOT constitution is all about, even though it is BOGUS; BUT for now it’s the only game in town!!

Now for the Case law of the Allen Decission is so simple one line It says:“This Court's decision in Riggs v. Ummerteske is hereby reversed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2006.
____________________
Justice Stacy L. Leeds

Now to understand the Law generated in this case is to know the Riggs Case and that is a whole other very sad story, on the corruption and blatant disregard for LAW by CNOT!! And the concurring Justice with Leeds in this Allen case was one of the majority rulers in the Riggs Bullshyt!!

NOW, I am unable to find the case of Riggs to show the Court order, suffice it to say she lost, that is apparently the words of the crooked Chief justice at the time, Wiley coyote Flip Viles, Now as I under stand it was rulled that Riggs having Cherokee Blood was inconsequential she was BLACK and NOT a Cherokee, any way what ever the court order was, and its fairly evident it was “Bernice Riggs is Not a Cherokee“, and the Allen Decision reversed that”… I am sure details can be ferreted out if one desired to read them I‘m just not a good enough researcher I guess,…

Anyway here is an Article written By David Cornsilk in 2005 in response to a question on the Riggs Case and CKW , good read, and gives you an indication of the corruption involved:

“Kathy Carter-White's involvement in the Freedmen case came after the case was already moving through the District Court. Bernice Riggs, the plaintiff, had applied for membership in the Cherokee Nation, but was unable to obtain a CDIB card.

Her membership application was turned down because of that fact. She appealed through the process set up by the Council, naming me as her representative. However, the District Court rules do not provide for lay advocacy and I was removed from the case.

Immediately following my removal, CNO council attempted to have the case dismissed, however, the Council had provided that the appeal to the District Court would be brought by the Cherokee Nation on behalf of the petitioner. CNO lawyers thought that was an opportunity to prevent the Freedmen from appealing. All they had to do was file the case for the Freedmen, then turn around and dismiss it. After all, the CNO had brought the suit, they could dismiss it.

The court ruled against them as their construction would not have been fair to the petitioner. Tina Glory Jordan refused to rule on the case, bouncing it up to the Judicial Appeals Tribunal. Her words to the CNO lawyers were, "You don't want me to rule on this and I don't want to rule on this, so lets let the JAT do it." During the time the case was before the District Court, I recruited KCW to take on the case pro bono. She agreed and took over the case. She did a wonderful job of presenting the fact, even providing historic documentation and irrefutable witnesses specializing in enrollment, anthropology and Cherokee history.

During this same time, she took on another Freedmen case for a man named Ronnie Denson. Unfortunately for both Mrs. Riggs and Mr. Denson, the Cherokee Nation government began to implode under the administration of Joe Byrd. The Judicial Appeals Tribunal found itself in a fight for its very existence. Cases that had been heard and finalized were never ruled on. And not by the judges who heard them.

KCW was asked numerous time to file a motion for a decision in the Riggs case, but she would not. She was asked to dismiss herself from the case, but she did nothing. The only thing she did during this time was campaign for Chad Smith and get herself a job at CNO after he won.

The Riggs case was finally ruled on, yet Mrs. Riggs was never informed of the ruling, not by the court and not by her attorney of record, KCW. Further, the Denson case languished in the JAT. KCW dropped the ball, but did not drop the case. Mr. Denson, convinced that KCW was still working on the case, continued to have faith in her. His case was dismissed for lack of activity around 2003.

So to make a long story even longer and answer your question: Kathy Carter-White had nothing to do with the initial drive of the Freedmen to find justice in the Cherokee courts. She got in on the middle of the case and dropped the ball by abandoning her clients before the cases were completed. Her only contribution, and yes its an important one, is the mass of historical and legal research she gathered while the Riggs case was still alive.

David Cornsilk


Dan NDNL/LTL, Go to www.cornsilks.com read and shuck this suit of STUPID from whence you post forever!!

NdNL/LTL said:

You may be willing to join your buds at the federal altar and play "conquered people", but luckily you are no one's leaders.

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

This last paragraph of asinine bullshyt requires no response: Therefore it gets none!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Pirveyor of simple Truth!!

John Cornsilk said...

Well Dang ole dumazz ANON sure does insist on blatherin stoopid Shyt!! I am not allowed to tell you who kurux is, but I can dam well you he/she, it aint Taylor Keen! not that it would change the fact NDNL/LTL is a CNOTsuckin fool that don't know shyt, nor does ANY of the shytheads!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

NDNLady said...

Mr. Cornsilk, the Cherokee people didn't need Stacy Leeds' permission to know that the right of referendum and the right to their own constitutional process belong to them. She could hardly deny it, much as I'm sure she would like to. Since I doubt either Stacy or Steve Russell is any more proficient at reading international law than you are, their opinion of the shadow report is also meaningless. Ditto for Mr. Barkman's comments. There is nothing in the shadow report that claimed the Cherokee Nation was "legally abolished". The people who do know international law are the members of CERD, and as I said, the leading expert on indigenous rights on that Committee said the report was perfectly clear and grounded completely in the ICERD. Russell and Leeds and Barkman's comments are the equivalent of a fifth grader trying to review "War and Peace"!! LOL Or you trying to make your way through "The Velveteen Rabbit"!

Outlander said...

IND Lady,
You are completely out of line! There are many Cherokees that voted for Stacy Leeds and you have no right to sling insults her way.

You are acting as though you are the personal representative for Chad Smith and his Tribe, well Lady, it's my Tribe as well. You, nor Chad Smith have exclusive rights on behalf of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma!

Chad Smith has jumped and whimpered all over the USA and if you think this shadow report makes you or him Mr/Ms BIG, then you need to think again. There is a membership to answer to and I wish every voting member could read the things you are writing, it might just gather the masses and I don't mean in your favor.

Outlander

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, neither the California disenrollees nor the freedmen descandants could in any way meet the threshold of being "refugees" as defined by international law. Nor does their situation meet the definition of "persecution". Female genital mutilation is one of the most brutal customs on the planet and of course, it is a violation of human rights norms. The right of an indigenous people to determine their membership,on the other hand, is a right PROTECTED by law and therefore it IS a human rights "norm". And any attempt to interfere with that right is a violation of that "norm".

It absolutely astonishes me (and I really had come to believe that nothing you could say would surprise me) the depths to which you are willing to sink. Are you really trying to draw a parallel between the agony and suffering of young black women who face this devastating situation with being denied enrollment in an Indian tribal nation? You are willing to demean and belittle, appropriate and exploit their pain to indulge your "pity-party" sense of phony "persecution". That's really pathetic.

John Cornsilk said...

Her higness the Ignert NDNL said:

Mr. Cornsilk, the Cherokee people didn't need Stacy Leeds' permission to know that the right of referendum and the right to their own constitutional process belong to them. She could hardly deny it, much as I'm sure she would like to.

The Elder Cornsilk sez!

Well you pitiful-piece-a pure dumazz equine feces!! Here are Leeds words verbatim where she posted the weezles bullshyt…you three hench-hos LTL, J Coates, Gayle “one who blows” Ross, of Smith and his pure bullshyt are pitiful!! You make up shyt and fling it implying the readers are too stupid to catch on to the lying bullshyt!!

Stacy Leeds’s Words:
Although I oppose federal legislation on the freedmen issue, and have continued faith that we can resolve this issue internally (or at least in the courts), I am speechless over the intellectual dishonesty of this report. The federal government has no business interfering with Cherokee self-determination. The Cherokee Nation, and the Cherokee people, however, are so much better than this.


Her ignert highness said:

Since I doubt either Stacy or Steve Russell is any more proficient at reading international law than you are, their opinion of the shadow report is also meaningless.


Ditto for Mr. Barkman's comments. There is nothing in the shadow report that claimed the Cherokee Nation was "legally abolished".

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

And she said it so dam inertly it is plum da pathetic folks!!

Simply Google “Stacy Leeds” folks and learn of the education, integrity and knowledge of law by this person…Then understand this moronic CNOT-suckin piece-a-crap wants you to believe Leeds is not qualified to ascertain Smith wrote lying bullshyt…

Then Google Steve Russell and learn the same of him, a retired judge and they are both Cherokee, and professors of law at major universities…

Then Google Patrick Barkman, he too is a Lawyer of esteem in the state of Texas, site says a simple Cherokee trial lawyer licensed to practice in court of CNOT, and I would say very capable of determining what is said in a document of babblings by another REALLY dumazz barrister!!

NOW folks for the proof of the lying bullshyt of her ignert higness simply read the Bullshyt by Smith if you haven’t, and if you have, read it again and note page 3 it is all bout the bullshyt claim of the crap by Smith and the 1902 crap, and abolishment of the Cherokee Nation is dang well mentioned!!

Her ignert highness said:

The people who do know international law are the members of CERD, and as I said, the leading expert on indigenous rights on that Committee said the report was perfectly clear and grounded completely in the ICERD. Russell and Leeds and Barkman's comments are the equivalent of a fifth grader trying to review "War and Peace"!! LOL Or you trying to make your way through "The Velveteen Rabbit"!

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

And once again she said it ever so stupidly!! First is the Weezle a CERD Member, if he is, then he is the most dam ignert of the lot!!

As for the Velveteen Rabbit only shytheads like the one who blows Gayle Ross is into that kind of whiteman bullshyt, for plagiarizing purposes, for the crap she publishes of her supposed grannies Cherokee children tales, when in reality, nothing but plagiarisms of ole Uncle Remus children’s stories, with a sad feature, the bullshyt is illustrated by a full-blooded white wannbee posing as a Cherokee one Murv Jacob!!

You are so Right Outlander this dumazz is completely out of line!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

shameonthegreed said...

Hey I have an idea....doesn't our United States Declaration of Independence say that "all men are created equal"?..so lets take away the "special" rights for Indians.
Then you wouldn't have the Casinos and the new money problems that are tearing your tribes apart...and most of the people arguing are so watered down in the blood lines that it is almost laughable that they are actually kicking out members for not being Indian....there aren't many true full blood Indians around.

Allen L. Lee said...

NDNLADY said,
" You are willing to demean and belittle, appropriate and exploit their pain to indulge your "pity-party" sense of phony "persecution". That's really pathetic."

Denigrating Steve Russell and Stacy Leeds just makes you funny. Anyhow, knowing that you won't believe anything I say, I submit the following to demonstrate that the dis-enrollments are more than "phony" persecution to those who have been subject to it and they are not making these statements for propaganda or indulge in a “pity party :
"Snoqualmie.
Asked how banishment had affected him, former chairman Bill Sweet likened it to leprosy. Linda Sweet-Baxter, a tribal spiritual leader, testified that, "It's just like death."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008765115_snoqtrial20m0.html
Redding Rancheria
…For all practical purposes these tribal officials believe they are above the law, both tribal and federal. This loss of tribal citizenship has had dire consequences on my family, both young and old. We lost our jobs, homes, medical and educational benefits, but most importantly it has had a devastating impact on my family’s mental well being.

…Enrollment Committee member Betty Benner, the *grandmother of Tribal Chairwoman Tracy Edwards’, told my sister Lorena “just dig her up she is just a bag of bones!”
…On November 13, 2003 my mother Lorena Foreman-Butler was brought up from her place of rest. Two independent DNA labs conducted genomic DNA testing on samples from my mother and grandmother proving 99.978% and 99.890% that they were mother and daughter. On January 27, 2004, after *seven generations of my family having lived on the Redding Rancheria, all 76 members of my family were stripped of our tribal citizenship.
http://tribalcorruption.com/Chapter5.htm
Pechanga
My daughter who is five, and my son who is eight, they escorted them out (removed from tribal school) and they told us that we were never to come back here ( mother in tears)
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/Pechanga_Membership_Battle_Los_Angeles.html
Creek
The citizenship office told him his father was on the freedmen roll, so he wasn't Indian. His father, Blue Graham, who was 62 when Graham was born, was an original enrollee who spoke Creek fluently, was a tribal traditionalist and participated in ceremonial stomp dances.
"She said 'Well, he's a freedmen, and freedmen are no longer with us,' " Graham told The Tulsa World. "That drive home was something else. It hurt me."
http://www.indianz.com/News/2009/013333.asp
Paiute
"When I got the letter stating I was disenrolled, I couldn't believe it," says Debra Faria, a 45-year-old mother of three and sister of former Paiute chairman Billy J. Frye. "I've been a Paiute all my life. It was the worst day of my life. It was like they took part of my heart and ripped it out."
http://bellevuecollege.edu/diversitycaucus/AIFF/CBE.htm
Cherokee
Leslie Ross has been denied citizenship in the tribe on the grounds that he is not truly Indian. “They said I don’t have any Indian blood. They say blacks have never had a part in the Cherokee Nation,” says Ross, his usually calm voice swelling with anger. “The thing is, there wouldn’t be a Cherokee Nation if it weren’t for my great-grandfather. Jesus, he was more Indian than the Indians!”
http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/the-freedmenwomen-and-the-cherokee-nation-part-2/

"My ancestors helped build this tribe," Vann said. "My father and my grandfather enjoyed Cherokee citizenship. I've been kicked out, with no say-so in the matter."
Vann has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce her tribal voting rights.
She remains hurt and indignant that the Cherokee Nation will not acknowledge her roots.
On a recent visit to Tahlequah, she stopped by tribal headquarters, a concrete building emblazoned with the words "Welcome to Your Cherokee Nation" in English and Tsalagi. Although it was closed, she was wary.
"I don't want to get spotted by the security camera," she said, shooting glances over her shoulder — still an outsider in a world she has known all her life.
http://afgen.com/indian_ancestry.html
In April of 2003, Eddie Vedolla got the letter telling him he'd been kicked out of the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians. The tribal council informed him it was revoking his membership, and that of his 86-year-old mother, two sisters, and niece. The family was no longer eligible to vote in tribal elections, and Vedolla's niece lost her tribal scholarship to San Francisco State University. Most notably, they each would no longer receive the $2,455 quarterly dividend checks that tribe members get from California's Indian casinos.
Vedolla missed the benefits, but said he was more bewildered by having his identity denied by former friends and neighbors. "I got over the anger, but I never got over this feeling that I have in my gut," he said. "You know how you feel helpless when someone takes something from you and you can't do anything about it? It's that kind of feeling
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=290489

None of those words are mine. If you want to accuse all of those people of being "phony" start sending letters.
We don't get to have degrees of persecution and determine which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't. It is especially spurious if we leave it up to the persecutor to determine the degree of harm. There is no such thing as an acceptable rape, there is also no such thing as an acceptable eugenics persecution.
Allen L. Lee

Outlander said...

Thank you Mr. Allen L. Lee for a calm and informative post, I think you are a gentleman and respectfull. IND Lady should strive to be a real Indian Lady, and I've known many, some of the best people I have ever met and blessed to know. Running down Stacy Leeds, Steve Russell and Patrick aka Local Crank does not endear me to listen to IND Lady, like I said.. way, out of line!

John refers to "her highness" and I tend to agree. I'm not dumb and I don't appreciate being talked down to.

I am still kind of hung up on this shadow report, which I called a letter (shame on me). Like I said, Chad has whined, whimpered and cornered anyone that would listen to the predictiment he caused. Come on, he caused the problems and now he whines. Then here comes the guerilla troops aka Chad lovers. Half truths, half lies, anything to cause mass confusion, all in the name of Chad. WOW. I am a real Indian Lady, but you have gone too far with me.

Like I say, Mr. Allen Lee is a gentleman with manners, no need to attack him. He gives a kind response.

Outlander

stand your ground said...

The very first comment above is still my believe.No matter how you interpret or tweak it.
The Freedmen should be acknowledged by the CHEROKEE as descendants with equal rights to vote and be members.

John Cornsilk said...

stand your ground said...
The black Slaves who where owned and then NOT owned by the
Cherokee Nation, suffered with them
traveled with them, learned their languages, inter-married with them, had children by them, all these people ARE DESCENDANTS OF THE Cherokee Tribe.

If they are not AND IF YOU FOLLOW THAT LOGIC, then all the other Indians who married White folks, Mexicans or Asians, and had children, well it stands to reason that their Offspring are also
NOT INDIAN.
So now who are the realI indians?
those who never married out of their race or their tribe, THOSE WHO NEVER"THINNED THEIR BLOODLINE"?
Well then, you've got about
ONE THOUSAND REAL INDIANS left in the good old U.S of A.
FREEDMEN ARE CHEROKEE,
if they are not, then neither is Chief Chad Smith of the Cherokees.

stand your ground said...
The very first comment above is still my believe. No matter how you interpret or tweak it.
The Freedmen should be acknowledged by the CHEROKEE as descendants with equal rights to vote and be members.

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!

Well Stand your ground, most of your posting is right on, with some slight exceptions due to historical facts!! Your very last statement in the last post is 100 percent correct by fact of simple Logic and LAW!! The Freedmen are Cherokee and that is simply all there is to it.

I will try to give you my understanding of the logic and law, Yes it is true though enslaved by the Cherokee that was the only life they new their only choice was go with their masters or remain for a new white master!! Even before the death march there was intermixing, many Cherokee owned their own Children as slaves, no different than many, many white people…All eventually enumerated on the 1880 Cherokee Census, and later on the Dawes rolls, was absolutely no different or no less Cherokee than their Cherokee family…We are ALL descendants of the Cherokee Citizens of the era, plain and simple!!

And you are correct, if by the idiotic logic the black blood means they are not Cherokee than how can the white blood be different or the Delaware, Shawnee, etc.
Stupid LOGIC absolutely!!

Your number is a little low on REAL INDIANS were the logic actually followed! And it could have been with other tribes, but NOT with the Cherokee, quite simply the Cherokee Have NEVER had a blood quantum for citizenship, pre Euro contact the Clan system was the law with the clan mother determining who was a Cherokee Citizen/Member of her clan: Therefore only conclusion could be, they were a citizen of the Cherokee Nation , mainly prisoners of war of other tribes, after contact some white folks, and runaway black folk. If the Clan said they were Cherokee then quite simply they were Cherokee…

In 1827 with the first centralized Government of The Cherokee was formed, the ONLY blood requirement was for elected officials, and the Cherokee had already adopted the white racist ways the 1827 Constitution you will see blood was set for elected officials except for the Negro, they were excluded…John Ross, for all practical purposes a white man, BUT he was a Cherokee by blood a degree of 1/8th was Elected Chief and Serve his total Lifetime, 1827 to1866 and his death…

After Removal and the Act of Union that brought The Cherokee already here from self removal, resulting in the 1839 Constitution of the Cherokee you will see the same BLOOD requirement for the Cherokee and the Negro still excluded even though there was much evidence many were blood relation to the Cherokee…Then Came the Civil War, the emancipation of the Slaves, the Cherokee actually beat the white folks to it, and freed their slaves in 1863, Then the 1866 Reconstruction Treaty with the U.S. the Cherokee agreed to accept their slaves as Citizens, they were not forced on them as many CNOT-SUCKERS babble, and the amendment to the Cherokee Peoples 1839 Constitution in 1866 after the TREATY signing is absolute proof of that, see article 5 of the Amended 1839 Constitution The Cherokee Freedmen were Cherokee citizens absolutely no different than any other Cherokee of the era, Several went on to be elected and serve in the Cherokee Government as Councilors representing Cherokee in their district where they lived, right up to the Curtis Act and the Abolishment of the Cherokee Government along with all of the other of the Five Civilized Tribes…

Then even with the BOGUS formation of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma by Ross Swimmer in 1975 the Freedmen Voted in the supposed ratification of the Bullshyt called a Constitution, then in the CNOT election of 1979 in the election of Swimmer where he won with less than 20% of the total vote, then in 1983 he proceeded to illegally kick out the Freedmen so they could not vote against him coz he knew they has his number, and he was a cooked goose as a Cherokee Chief…and that is another whole Story!! Hey, you could read my history on the Cherokee 1863-1995 part 2 and part 3 as well, and know the whole thang.

Yes you are right if they aint neither is the Weezle Smith, but then neither am I, and I know dam well I am!! There is a serious rumor Smith is adopted and does not meet the blood requirement for elected office, and his file at CNOT is empty, as is Swimmers, who is also rumored to be adopted as is Phillip Viles the long time rubber stamp crookedass judge on the CNOT high court for corruption, maybe adopted!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of simple Truth!
_____________
PS: NDNL as you see I back up what I say!!

The Local Crank said...

Regarding the fraudulent disenrollment petition, yes the majority upheld it. And the majority was dead wrong. Courts and Judges are sometimes wrong. Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Bush v. Gore--all court decisions and all dead wrong. And besides, my question was NOT whether the majority upheld it or not. My question was, are you comfortable basing such an important decision on a blatant fraud? As my old property professor used to say, you have to answer the question I asked, not the question you want to answer.

Allen L. Lee said...

NDNLADT said:

"...The right of an indigenous people to determine their membership,on the other hand, is a right PROTECTED by law and therefore it IS a human rights "norm". And any attempt to interfere with that right is a violation of that "norm"."

I'm willing to venture that the Committee to Eliminate Racial DSiscrimination will not endorse a right for Indigenous peoples to model Nuremburg Laws simply because you are an Indigenous peoples once they have all the information available.
The title says
"International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination"
It doesn't say "International Convention on the Elimination of "Some" Forms of Racial Discrimination.

"International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
...Considering that the United Nations has condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist, and that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960 (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)) has affirmed and solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing them to a speedy and unconditional end,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

Pratices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith would be Blood Quantum, genetic qualifiers, or in the case of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as of 2007, "One drop of Indian blood.

"International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
...Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

"any human society" would include Indigenous peoples.

Allen L. Lee

ps. Visit the following link regarding Nuremburg Laws for reference.
The Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race:
September 15, 1935

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/nurmlaw2.html

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, when I said "pity party", I was talking to you, to your deliberate distortions of reality. But if you want to address the remarks in these articles, I’ll be glad to speak to that too, but first: A refugee is a person or group of people forced by circumstances like war or fear of persecution to flee the protection of the country of his or their nationality and due to fear for their safety, are unable to return. Until you can show that California disenrollees and freedmen descendants have been forced out of the US, when you call them “refugees”, you are a liar. While I am sure the emotional distress Mrs. Sweet-Baxter describes as “feels like death” is very real, it is in no way comparable to the actual deaths that occur by the thousands in refugee camps around the world.


When Mr. Sweet says it feels like “leprosy”, I would love to introduce him to a friend of mine who is a Native Hawaiian and was exiled to Father Damien’s colony when he was diagnosed with Hansen’s disease at the age of ten. Today he has stumps for hands and feet, not much left of a face and is completely blind. But he is one of the finest and bravest people I know and he travels the world talking to people and trying to promote awareness and understanding of the difference between being a person with a disease as opposed to the callous and uncaring stereotype of “leper”. Makia knows what "leprosy" actually "feels like".


The history of the California disenrollees and freedmen descendants is very different. The people of Redding and Pechanga did experience significant harm and disruptions to their lives. As members of communities they were living in and involved with. And I certainly can respect and empathize with the very real emotional damage they have experienced. But, no matter how significant these situations may be, for you to suggest it is the actual equivalent to the physical death, mutilation, torture and forced relocation suffered by others around the world demeans and belittles that suffering.


For the record:

Persecution is systematic mistreatment of individuals or groups. Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property.

Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect. In English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of any given cause. During the 20th century, however, the term acquired a thoroughly negative meaning in western countries, representing the intentional dissemination of often false, but "compelling" claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies. How can you claim to be seeking ‘truth and justice’ when you are not telling the truth yourself?


For instance, the ICERD. Yes, ALL FORMS of Racial Discrimination, including discrimination against indigenous peoples! Who do you think told the US to use the UNDRIP as a guide to their LEGAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ICERD! Who do you think told the US that the legacy of slavery and the effects of the historic injustices perpetrated against indigenous peoples were the two greatest challenges the US faces with regard to its compliance with the ICERD? Who do you think told the US they could go back and unilaterally abrogate any treaty provision that was a violation of the right to self-determination? The leading expert on indigenous rights on the monitoring body for ICERD! The same man who termed Watson's bill "alarming". The same man who said human rights are not about laying blame for history.


The experts in the UN human rights monitoring bodies have seen human rights abuses committed by people of every possible color all around the world. They do not concern themselves with color, but with the content of the law. Interfering with the right of an indigenous nation to determine their membership is an act of racial discrimination under the law. No matter what color they are. No matter what color you are.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Cornsilk, you are the one who posted the link to the critical comments of Prof Leeds, Prof Russell and Mr. Barkman concerning the shadow report. So their qualifications to evaluate the report should certainly be in question. I invite everyone to google all three. Impressive as their resumes may be in their own fields, you will not find anything that remotely resembles an authoritative or substantive body of work in the arena of international human rights law. Now google Patrick Thornberry. Which of the four do you suppose is actually qualified to evaluate the report? His conclusions on the report were very different from theirs.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Barkman, of course there are court decisions you might feel are wrong. Obviously you agree with the majority in Allen and the dissent in the case of the petition. I agree with Mr. Matlock's dissent in Allen and the majority in the petition case. My point being that the administration is not entitled to to choose which decisions are to be treated as law. That's Joe Byrd country if you will recall. When the Allen decision was made, the administration followed it. When the court ruled the petiton valid, the administration followed it. You don't like the result of the election, so you want to say it was based on "fraud". That is not what the court said.

Every single voting Cherokee has the right to their personal opinion on whether or not to enroll non-Indian freedmen descendants. No one Cherokee had the right to put their personal opinion above the collective voice of the Cherokee people.

Now who said this do you suppose?


"Being a Cherokee is a nationality, emphasis on "NATION." NO ONE, not me, not the Freedmen, not (personal name removed) can rise above the voice of the Cherokee people and OUR right to determine who is and who IS NOT a Cherokee. If we relinquish that right to the states, wannabes, groups claiming to be tribes, nations, bands or confederacies, the we have become an enemy of our Nation by giving succor to those who seek to steal our culture, heritage, language and in so doing, weaken our National Identity and leave us open to attack by our enemies."



Pssst, Outlander, you say you are not dumb and don't want to be talked down to? But in the same post, you say "Chad caused this"? Read the above and you'll see why I am not convinced you have both oars in the water. The Chief is standing up for the right of the Cherokees to their own constitutional process. That's his job. Ms. Leeds deplores the fact that he is willing to press for the human rights of the people he is elected to serve? Sorry, that's not something I think deserves respect

John Cornsilk said...

NDNLady ever so stupidly said...

Mr. Cornsilk, you are the one who posted the link to the critical comments of Prof Leeds, Prof Russell and Mr. Barkman concerning the shadow report. So their qualifications to evaluate the report should certainly be in question. I invite everyone to google all three. Impressive as their resumes may be in their own fields, you will not find anything that remotely resembles an authoritative or substantive body of work in the arena of international human rights law. Now google Patrick Thornberry. Which of the four do you suppose is actually qualified to evaluate the report? His conclusions on the report were very different from theirs.

The Elder Cornsilks sez!!

In consequential absolute pure horeshyt NDNL, who ever the hell you may be, for sure it is a party that don't know shyt from shinola!!

Now as for googlin Thornberry, I did but I could find no material where he had anything to say about the ignertass weezles babblins!! he may well have made some comment on some item-report or the other that is lots of material, I am dumbfounded they would even accept bullshyt from an idiot like Smith...A Jerkwad that when his boss lost an election when he was assistant prosocutor in Creek County he was said to have barricaded himself inside his office Reports said Chad was tearfully screaming, I didn't lose! It was him that lost! They had to drag him out and throw him out of the building. In another incident, Cherokee Marshals had to pick Smith up by the hands and feet and carry him out of a Full Council Meeting kicking and screaming, disrupting Official Council business.

Then there is the Story from the Muskogee Phhoenix:

By Donna Hales Phoenix staff writer.

Smith also may face an uphill hurtle in the court of public opinion. In addition to his wife and three Children, ages 5, 11, and 18, Smith confirmed Wednesday he has a second family of three
children, ages 6, 10 and 11. He said he loves all his children and financially supports all of them.

‘I’ve made every body aware and visited with a number of Cherokee elders,’ Smith said.

He said most of the elders told him they are interested in what he could do for the tribe rather than

in “this personal situation.’ Smith said he would not give any more details because he doesn’t want

to bring embarrassment to any of his children. He added if the tribe wasn’t in such disarray, he

wouldn’t be opening himself up to criticism over his personal life by becoming a candidate. He

said, he had hoped the subject wouldn’t come up until later in his campaign.


SO NDNL/LTL or Coates, maybe "the one who blows" Gayle Ross! can you actually feature a person of Thornberry's status actually commenting on pure Horseshyt like smith wrote, The Three Lawyers mentioned did it perfectly!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

John Cornsilk said...

The Local Crank said...
Regarding the fraudulent disenrollment petition, yes the majority upheld it. And the majority was dead wrong. Courts and Judges are sometimes wrong. Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Bush v. Gore--all court decisions and all dead wrong. And besides, my question was NOT whether the majority upheld it or not. My question was, are you comfortable basing such an important decision on a blatant fraud? As my old property professor used to say, you have to answer the question I asked, not the question you want to answer.

I The Elder Cornsilk sez!

Well Said Patrick, and all the dumazz has to do is read the dissent of Leeds in the case, and see it points to the blatant disregard for law and the actuall sanctioning of CRIME, sick supposed judges I must say!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

John Cornsilk said...

First let me say I am NOT speaking for Mr Barkman or Outlander, I do believe the post is STUPID enough to warrant an extra opine on the babble!!

NDNLady said...
Mr. Barkman, of course there are court decisions you might feel are wrong. Obviously you agree with the majority in Allen and the dissent in the case of the petition. I agree with Mr. Matlock's dissent in Allen and the majority in the petition case.

The Elder Cornsilk Sez!

Of course you would have to say that, which ever one of the hench-hos you are!! that’s what your boss insists you say! When this rulling and the ignertass dissent came out I posted it on Indianz.com and Old Steve Russell right off blasted the Idiot Matlock with the same thing he said of Smith where did this jackass get his law liscense, from a crackerjax box!! I guess there just isn’t much to say about a jerkwad lawyer!!

The hench-ho said:

My point being that the administration is not entitled to to choose which decisions are to be treated as law. That's Joe Byrd country if you will recall. When the Allen decision was made, the administration followed it. When the court ruled the petiton valid, the administration followed it. You don't like the result of the election, so you want to say it was based on "fraud". That is not what the court said.

I the Elder cornsilk sez!

If you got a dam point that would surprise the hell outa me, Yes the weezle as the admin damwell choose what it wanted to see in the ruling, just like you, DICTA twisted into bullshyt…Of course that’s what the Courts said and the LEEDS dissent points the fraud implied by Mr. Barkman quite well!

The hench-ho said:

Every single voting Cherokee has the right to their personal opinion on whether or not to enroll non-Indian freedmen descendants. No one Cherokee had the right to put their personal opinion above the collective voice of the Cherokee people.

Now who said this do you suppose?

I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Actually don’t make a rats ass who said it, it is a trueism, Smith and you dumazz CNOTsuckin fools would be wise to listen and adhere too to the saying! BUT the thing to remember is the Collective voice has to have spoken on something legal and binding, the Petition was BOGUS, as is/was the amendment David Cornsilk has explained how and why several times! It will never stand a test of Law in a real Court!!

Hench-ho said:

"Being a Cherokee is a nationality, emphasis on "NATION." NO ONE, not me, not the Freedmen, not (personal name removed) can rise above the voice of the Cherokee people and OUR right to determine who is and who IS NOT a Cherokee.
If we relinquish that right to the states, wannabes, groups claiming to be tribes, nations, bands or confederacies, the we have become an enemy of our Nation by giving succor to those who seek to steal our culture, heritage, language and in so doing, weaken our National Identity and leave us open to attack by our enemies."

I the Elder Cornsilks sez!!

Well Dang this is what we been saying and it is a fact of the matter of legal rights of the Cherokee people! Except for the Freedmen, their Citzenship rights are set and protected by federal Law by Treaty of 1866, and for Smith to attempt to have his way and kick them out is a violation of that law plain and simple. We relinquish nothing if Smith and cohorts are forced to abide by law. If they stupidly give sucor to bonified bogus groups then they need their dumazzes kicked!!

The hench ho-said:

Pssst, Outlander, you say you are not dumb and don't want to be talked down to? But in the same post, you say "Chad caused this"? Read the above and you'll see why I am not convinced you have both oars in the water. The Chief is standing up for the right of the Cherokees to their own constitutional process. That's his job. Ms. Leeds deplores the fact that he is willing to press for the human rights of the people he is elected to serve? Sorry, that's not something I think deserves respect

And I the Elder Cornsilk sez!

Mz hench-ho, read all that I have said, pay sum dang tention and know you are fulla-shyt, the dumazz Smith is standing up for Smith nothing more nothing less, and you pathetic CNOT-suckin fools support the pure horseshyt, and that is pitiful, plum dam pitiful!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

Anonymous said...

Is it just me or is NDNLADY sound like a pompous-ass know it all?..

John Cornsilk said...

Pompous-dumass fer sho, that quite frankly don't know shyt!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

Outlander said...

Pssst IND Lady,
Chad Smith did cause all this aftermath when he failed to uphold our very own court decision, which by the way upheld our very own constitution.

Within a few days of that JAT ruling, he came out with "let the members decide." Next was the petition, which was fraudulently obtained, but declared valid none the less. I'm sure you have seen and read all the complaints re: that petition and I'm sure you have read the racial letter that D. Buzzard wrote just to inflame emotions. At this point, the CA disenrolled Indians and the Cherokee members have something in common and that is lies and prejudiced press, from the very leaders we are supposed to look up to. There is not a court of law within this US that would have ruled that petition valid, but we had a Cherokee Judge that had no problem.

Next came the shameful actions of the Election Commission, they couldn't get it right. I have a cousin who lives in Tahlequah, has voted in each election and come to find out, he was not registered! He had gone from a PO Box to a street address, turned all that in and still failed to be registered by the Election Committee! Was told he had an invalid address!

Then comes the special election, first the newly enrolled Freedmen could not vote, but wait... a letter from the BIA said they could, so it all had to be done over again, register to vote and get a new ballot, mind you this was done in about a 2 week time frame.

My two feet are planted quite firmly on this earth and you can shadow report all you want, I have been with all of this since day 1, the day the JAT made their ruling. I have read everything I can just to keep up and I say again, Chad Smith is the cause of all this!

You can keep speaking as though everyone is a blithering idiot except yourself, you can cite idealistic thoughts, but bottom line, Chad is not acting on my behalf.

Outlander

Allen L. Lee said...

NDNLADY said:
A refugee is a person or group of people forced by circumstances like war or fear of persecution to flee the protection of the country of his or their nationality and due to fear for their safety, are unable to return. Until you can show that California disenrollees and freedmen descendants have been forced out of the US, when you call them “refugees”, you are a liar."

I don't want to use emotional propaganda so I'll just cut and paste this answer:

"Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

Article 1
definition of the term “refugee”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:
(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;
Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization
during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status
of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph
2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the
country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he
is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection
of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based
on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one
of the countries of which he is a national."
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf
Lest I be a liar, let me re-paste this significant phrase
"wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,"


Since the citizens of the Indigenous Nations are not losing their U.S. citizenship, but their Indigenous Nation citizenship, the issue of not being forced from the U.S. is one of default, rather they are being forced to assimilate in the dominant culture. If we give creedence to your statement that," "Being a Cherokee is a nationality, emphasis on "NATION." , then those people dis-enrolled from your nation are now refugees from your nation as a result of racial persecution.
NDN Lady cites a quote:
"The same man who said human rights are not about laying blame for history."

I checked the narratives of the disenrollees again. As far as I can tell, none of them are blaming their dis-enrollments on history, they are blaming contemporary actors for their persecution.
You could take the dis-enrollee who said it felt like death into a morgue and remind them what death really was, or you could take the disenrollee who said the racial rejection hurt into a pediatrics ward to see a child with a broken arm and say this is what hurt really is. You can take a homeless garbage can food scavenger in America over to Sudan and show him/her what starvation is, but that really won't do much for his/her dignity in America. You fail to acknowledge a real pain associated with racial or genetic persecution. It is an obvious attempt to minimize any effect that the persecution has on the human psyche. What's important is that Makia knows what " callous and uncaring stereotype(s)" feels like and is trying to " promote awareness and understanding "
Back to refugees:
"The "durable solutions" to refugee populations, as defined by UNHCR and governments, are: voluntary repatriation to the country of origin; local integration into the country of asylum; and resettlement to a third country.[3]"
...UNHCR was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981. The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with the option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally or to resettle in a third country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
Racially/genetically persecuted citizens of Indigenous Nations forced from their nations without an option for voluntarily repatriation.
Are you sure your U.N. expert says this is OK under UNDRIP?

Allen L. Lee

The Local Crank said...

I am getting the distinct impression that NDN Lady, though kind enough to call me "impressive" in my own field, is not going to answer my question about whether or not she feels comfortable (or proud) basing a major constitutional change upon a thoroughly fraudulent and corrupt petition. My question has nothing to do with international human rights law, or tribal law for that matter, and was intended to invite a fairly simple yes or no response.

Outlander said...

Local Crank,
IND Lady can't give you a yes or no answer, she would have to admit there was a complaint filed and then that complaint would have to be made public. http://www.freedmen5tribes.com/petition%20challenge.pdf

Outlander

Allen L. Lee said...

“Indigenous sovereignty: a reassessment in light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
…What would an appropriate legal framework for the flourishing of indigenous identity be?
…4. The right to self-government ought to be granted with the express dedication to the survival of their culture, their cosmovision, and their respect for the Earth, including all living and nonliving things. The fact that, for some groups, religion is the law should be respected. While certain indigenous codes of criminal law may be restorative rather than retributive, those should be upheld as well. As long as the indigenous group meets the definition's objective criteria, it should be entitled to make determinations regarding its membership. Indigenous sovereigns, as any government, should, however, be bound by the minimum threshold of universal standards of human rights. “
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Indigenous+sovereignty%3a+a+reassessment+in+light+of+the+UN+Declaration...-a0189159316

"Indigenous sovereigns, as any government, should, however, be bound by the minimum threshold of universal standards of human rights. “

John Cornsilk said...

The Local Crank said...
I am getting the distinct impression that NDN Lady, though kind enough to call me "impressive" in my own field, is not going to answer my question about whether or not she feels comfortable (or proud) basing a major constitutional change upon a thoroughly fraudulent and corrupt petition. My question has nothing to do with international human rights law, or tribal law for that matter, and was intended to invite a fairly simple yes or no response.

The Elder Cornsilk sez!

She Can’t give the proper answer Patrick, the weezle would have her azz tanned and quartered! Actually the pure horse Crap by Smith in the report, NDNL brought up trying to belittle Outlanders ability to read, and trying to portray the dumazz weezle as a writer, has NOT a thing to do with the Freedmen being kicked out, which is Federal law being violated by smith, plain and simple…I gaurndamtee ya Smith didn’t write the Bullshyt he is incapable, I suspect Linda Turnbull Lewis wrote it for him he merely put his name on it…

Outlander made a statement that covers what the BS is all about to a T!! She Said:

Within a few days of that JAT ruling, he came out with "let the members decide." Next was the petition, which was fraudulently obtained, but declared valid none the less. I'm sure you have seen and read all the complaints re: that petition and I'm sure you have read the racial letter that D. Buzzard wrote just to inflame emotions. At this point, the CA disenrolled Indians and the Cherokee members have something in common and that is lies and prejudiced press, from the very leaders we are supposed to look up to. There is not a court of law within this US that would have ruled that petition valid, but we had a Cherokee Judge that had no problem.”


John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

'aamokat said...

I would say we are refugees to the point of we are not allowed to paritipate in our tribal government and as Luiseno has pointed out we and our children have been forced out of our tribal school and language classes that teach our native dialect and that is a forced assililation in being hindered from the opportuniity to participate in our culture.

By not being able to participate in our tribal government we were forced to watch as a valuable cultural asset was destroyed by the Pechanga tribe.

In 2001 and 2002 the tribe was lobbying congress and they had submitted an application to the Dept. of Interior to have the land known as the Great Oak Ranch added to the rerservation.

The tribe promised Congress and Interior that if the land was put into trust and made reservation land that no changes whatsoever would be made to the land because the tribe wanted to protect valuable cultural and natural resources such as cremation sites, old village sites, and sensitive plant and wildlife habitat.

Well the land to trust application was approved but by 2007 the tribe had torn up a significant portion of the land to put their brand new state of the art golf course on it and they were using part of the land for a staging area for new construction projects.

Well, the two large extended families that were disenrolled counted for about 25 percent of the tribe so maybe we would have had the votes to stop our culturally significant land from being destroyed.

The Pechanga tribe can talk all they want about how they didn't disturb the cremation sites and the old village sites but the fact they put the golf course on land they had promised not to change still changes the fabric of the land forever and destroyed ecologically sensitive land.

Outlander said...

You are exactly right and that is what Allen Lee has been trying to say all along.

Thanks for keeping up on this blog site and our Cherokee Nation dirty laundry, it shames me how much discredit is being given to members and individual thoughts, like we are stupid or something by a few that Chad dangles a carrot in front of! They buy his nonsense, lock, stock and barrel and proudly display their total lack of knowledge of real Cherokee people.

In the end, Chad's political aspirations and Mark M's aspirations will be exposed, they are the same cut of cloth. Personal power, control and greed does not make a person that can be trusted.

Outlander

'aamokat said...

This is taken directly from the United States Congressional Record from testimony taken in front of the Resources committee on April 17, 2002 and it shows that the Pechanga tribe did indeed promise the U.S. congress and the U.S. Dept. of Interior that no changes would be made if the Great Oak Ranch property was made part of the reservation.

Mr. Hayworth: "Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans
for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?"


Mr. Macarro: "No, we don't. As stated in our application to
Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change
of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to
preserve and protect the resources that are there.
The cultural resources in particular are also very
significant. Along the base of all the foothills there are
significant old village sites, dark midden soil area, cremation
areas and associated sacred sites."


Mr. Hayworth: "... Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record,
Mr. Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for
gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just
outlined?"

Mr. Macarro. "No, the tribe does not."

Below are comments by Mr. Macarro's brother John Macarro the Pechanga tribe's general council, directed towards critics of the tribe using the Great Oak Ranch for a golf course.

In response, Pechanga's General Counsel John Macarro, wrote, "Once the land is placed in trust, a tribe has complete zoning and planning authority over it and can change land uses just as a county or city can change or update its general plan or zoning designations."

SO IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE OF SOVEREIGNTY, THE TRIBE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH LAND ONCE IT IS MADE PART OF THE RESERVATION REGARDLESS OF WHAT PROMISES THE TRIBE MADE IN THE PAST.

IT USED TO BE THAT WITH INDIANS THEIR WORD WAS GOOD ENOUGH BUT, AS I SAID, REGARDLESS IF THE TRIBE SAYS THAT THEY DIDN'T DISTURB THE CREAMATION SITES AND THE OLD VILLAGE SITES, IT IS STILL WRONG TO TEAR UP THE LAND AND CHANGE THE FABRIC OF THE LAND FOREVER AFTER PROMISING NOT TO DO SO.

Outlander said...

'aamokat,
All you got to do is watch the video made by one of your local stations. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/Pechanga_Membership_Battle_Los_Angeles.html

I'm suprised his eyes don't twitch and marvel at the nerve to stand in front of a camera and tell lies.

Here is some things, we as Cherokee members have had to overcome. This was from a meeting in Jay Oklahoma back in 2006.
Cherokee chief Smith continues to Mislead Cherokee people to drive out Freedmen tribal members at Jay
Oklahoma
Cherokee nation officials, led by principal Chief Chad Smith continue their assaults, through misinformation
to tribal citizens, on the rights of the Cherokee freedmen citizens of the tribe who they believe will not
support them in the next tribal election. The Chief and his supporters were successful in getting the tribal
council to put the freedmen people’s citizenship rights on the June 2007 ballot to be voted on by Cherokee
citizens. The Chief and certain members of the Cherokee council continue to demand removal of the
Cherokee freedmen citizens through acts of the tribal council and through an initiative petition in an
expedited election, with the hope that the freedmen can be voted out prior to the 2007 elections.
On June 22, 2006 in Jay Oklahoma at the local community building, inflammatory and misleading
documents were provided to the local Cherokee people. The people present were told by Principal Chief
Smith (an attorney and member of the Oklahoma Bar association – and a board member of Bacone College))
that the Freedmen people did not possess Cherokee blood and that their ancestors were only black slaves– a
statement he knows to be incorrect since the JAT tribal court in the Bernice Riggs case in 2001 held that
although Bernice Riggs ancestors on the Dawes listed as Freedmen, they did possess Cherokee blood. (The
ruling can be read on the descendants of freedmen website www.freedmen5tribes.com and is also available
at the Cherokee nation website www.cherokee.org ). Smith also told the attendants that no treaties would be
broken by removing the freedmen from tribal membership – and that the treaty of 1866 did not have
anything to do with the freedmen people. (Note – The Cherokee treaty of 1866 can be read at the Oklahoma
State University website at: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/che0942.htm and clearly
has Cherokee nation leaders agreeing to citizenship rights including voting for the former slaves (who were
actually freed in 1863 through acts of the Cherokee council as well as those free blacks of the Cherokee
nation who were not already citizens of the tribe). The meeting attendants were also given handouts
prepared by the Principal Chief Smith referring to the treaty of 1866 as the “retribution treaty”.
John Ketcher, former Deputy Chief under Chief Mankiller (who told the Baltimore Sun in July 1984 that the
freedmen should not have Cherokee citizenship because they had no Cherokee blood) told the people that
they needed to keep the Cherokee nation Cherokee – that they didn’t need blacks, or white spouses and
needed to keep the tribe as a Cherokee by blood tribe. (Ketcher did not explain why if he believes this way
why the constitutional amendments he proposes on his petition continues to keep Delaware, Shawnee,
Creeks, and adopted whites in the tribe and only remove freedmen citizens (and descendants of
approximately 200 intermarried whites separately listed on the Dawes Rolls if their descendants were not
descended from the deceased Indian spouse) . His proposed constitutional amendment if passed will remove
tribal membership from those freedmen with and without Cherokee blood. Information on the
www.freedmen5tribes.com website shows some of the adopted whites who were listed on the Cherokee by
blood roll and who will retain their citizenship if the freedmen people are removed from the tribe by
proposed constitutional amendments in upcoming elections).
Cara Cowan Watts, an engineer, and a council woman from District 7 who also is a board member of INdn’s
list – a political action committee which was formed to increase the number of Democrats in public office
http://www.indnslist.org/ ) also stated that the Cherokee nation should be kept as a Cherokee by blood tribe.
(She also did not explain why she supports legislation to amend the tribal constitution which will retain
creeks, Shawnees, Delawares, and adopted whites on the Cherokee by blood roll in the tribe but wishes to
remove Freedmen citizens with Cherokee blood. As a tribal councilman, Mrs Cowan Watts has repeatedly
voted for legislation to stop Cherokee Freedmen from being able to use the courts to uphold their rights).
Cowan Watts told the Cherokee voters of Jay that retaining Cherokee freedmen in the tribe would cost much
more than the cost of a special election. She said that she had computed the cost of a special election as
$110,000 dollars which would cost less than the cost of treating 5 freedmen with heart attacks at the Indian
hospitals at a treatment cost of $33,000 per freedmen. She said that there were 800 freedmen in the tribe
right now but there eventually could be 40,000 freedmen “taking your dollars and your jobs”. (Note – the
tribal registrar Mrs Umertestee had reported the maximum potential number of freedmen enrolling in the
tribe in the near future as 25,000 people based on the percentages of freedmen who received Dawes
enrollment and election commissioner Jim Briggs had estimated a greater cost figure for a special election
than Cowan Watts at a subcommittee meeting of the rules committee on May 11, 2006 at the council house).
These words of Cowan were present on an informational handout given to the meeting attendants. (See
handout). The handout clearly gives the people the impression that the Cherokee nation might have to give
the Federal government back money used by freedmen tribal members if and when the freedmen are
removed from the tribe and implies to the uninformed that the freedmen should be removed from the tribe
asap in order to avoid problems with the federal government regarding the use of federal funds by Freedmen
tribal members. However, a visit to the Indian health services website makes it clear that Indian health
services are available to any tribal member and even to non tribal members under certain circumstances.
http://www.ihs.gov/GeneralWeb/HelpCenter/CustomerServices/elig.asp (We also point out that descendants
of Caucasian “captive” tribal members of the Comanche and Kiowa nations have used Indian health services
with no problems from the federal government ).
Cowan told the attendants that it only took 10 council members to call for a special election and that the
people should demand that the council put the freedmen rights on the ballot prior to the next election, but if
not, it would only take 2088 peoples signatures on the petition for the chief to call a special election on the
freedmen citizenship this year.
At the Jay meeting, the Caucasian husband of a freedmen citizen who is completely Caucasian looking
challenged the chief’s statements that freedmen have “no Cherokee blood” and identified his own wife as a
freedmen citizen. He also questioned the chief and other speakers regarding their own blood quantum’s.
Other members of the audience then challenged Smith and other speakers as to their statements that
freedmen were “just descended from black slaves” and were “just blacks” when it was clear from their own
eyes that at least some of the freedmen people did have Indian blood. Another citizen asked why Mexicans
were using the clinics, and Smith thought that the Mexicans were pregnant mothers of Cherokee children and
any Mexican men at the clinic were visiting these women. Another person asked why the freedmen were
getting registered so quickly and someone said that they heard that David Cornsilk was assisting with
genealogy assistance. (The chief did not explain to these attendants that the freedmen were being registered
under the same rules as everyone else (such as people over 65 years of age receiving expedited membership
processing) and that these 800 freedmen in question for the most part had already provided all information to
the registration department that proved that they had a Dawes enrolled freedmen ancestor and did not need
further genealogical research).
Attending the meeting were freedmen citizens of District 4 and District 7 and Mrs Ruckman of the Tulsa
World.

That is just one tiny bit of the propaganda. Local Crank was right, when he wanted a yes or no answer... the other side DOES NOT want this brought up again. As long as they can dazzle fancy words and lofty ideas, they think the Cherokee public and public in general will get fooled!

Remind you of anyone you know??

Outlander

NDNLady said...

Mr. Barkman, I did answer your question, just not the way you wanted me to. I said clearly that I supported the majority opinion in the petition decision so obviously I don't agree with you that the election was based on a fraud. You were just trying one of those lawyer tricks, ennit? Like "Are you glad you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No"

Outlander said...

Well, if the fancy words and lofty words don't work, just punch them in the gut. WOW, IND Lady, you are not a Lady!

No matter how you present it, that election to adopt the admendment that Freedmen could not be citizens was based on pure fraud. The ballot had two yes or no questions, remember? Yes or no.

Outlander

NDNLady said...

'aamokat, I believe I have made my position clear that CA disenrollees are entitled to due process and that no one should tolerate corrupt tribal officials. That is a difference between your case and ours. I've also expressed my opinion that supporting Congressional legislation to dictate a solution is wrong. There are alot of people who love to make alot of noise on the internet about this being about Chief Smith and making alot of hot air charges about "corruption" that they can never prove, but the fact is that the amendment to our Constitution was a definite reflection of the majority desire to only enroll those of Indian ancestry. Whether through the special election or at the next regular one, the Cherokee people would have voted the same. And that is their right.

Oh, and regardless of what Mr. Lee claims, nobody involved in any of these cases could in any way come under the United Nations definition of "refugee" because, regardless of what Mr. Lee is telling you, "nationality" in international human rights law does not mean indigenous nation. I do sympathize with your situation, but your case and ours are very different.

NDNLady said...

Outlander, punch who in the gut? Do you ever have any idea what you're talking about? Regardless of whether you believe the petition was a fraud, the court certified it and ordered the election and the election was most certainly not a fraud. And what does the fact that the petition was worded as a clear choice have to do with Mr. Barkman's trying to frame that question the way he did. It was exactly the same as that old saw I posted. As I keep saying, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on non-Indian enrollment, but no one's opinion means more than the expressed will of the Cherokee majority.

NDNLady said...

Mr. Lee, the CERD expert's remark on human rights and history was not directed to the remarks of disenrollees you quoted. It was made in direct response to Rep Watson's bill interfering in the Cherokee Nation's right to determine their citizenship based on the fact that the Cherokee Nation's laws once sanctioned slavery. Of course, the freedmen desdendants are about "laying blame for history". Their entire case rests on their insistence that the Cherokee Nation somehow does not have the same right as all other indigenous peoples to determine their citizenship by Indian descent. Just like the Maori, I might add. If the Cherokee Nation does not have the same rights protected by international human rights law that other indigenous peoples have because some Cherokees owned slaves, then what human rights do the United States and all Americans have?

You continue to misrepresent the truth of human rights law ignoring things even a total neophyte could get. The United Nations definition of refugees is what I paraphrased and shortened. It does not apply to disenrollees because "nationality" does not mean indigenous nation. It means nation/state or member/state. And the definition of "racial persecution" in no way includes being denied something you are not entitled to. We do not enroll non-Indians of any color and we enroll all those who meet our requirements regardless of color. All citizens enjoy equal rights under our laws regardless of color. So you see we definitely meet this standard.

"Indigenous sovereigns, as any government, should, however, be bound by the minimum threshold of universal standards of human rights. “

'aamokat said...

Outlander, I know all about the KNBC Los Angeles investigative report and how Mr. Macarro can flat out lie with a straight face.

His statement that once the casino came in that a lot of people suddenly turned up is, in regards to the people who have been disenrolled, a total falsehood and he knows it.

He knows that the great majority of us who were disenrolled were in the tribe many years before the casino was even planned.

The Pechanga family in the video are all relatives of mine who are telling our story.

What the KNBC video fails to mention is that the woman who is crying because her children were kicked out of the tribal school was attacked in front of her children and knocked to the ground by a tribal member and the tribal rangers, the internal security for the Pechanga reservation, did nothing and told her they were there to protect tribal members.

Notice how Mr. Macarro very briefly glances to the side at some unseen person in the room when the reporter asks him about the tribe's own hired expert who in his report ruled in favor of my family's credentials as tribal members.

It is as if the unseen person is telling Macarro to not answer the question but Macarro is telling this person that he can handle it.

IDNLady, I don't understand completely the details on what the definition of a refugee is but I do think that watching my tribe destroy culturally sensitive land and being able to do nothing about it and being denied being able to vote against the golf course project because I had been disnerolled makes me feel like a refugee because I have been banished from my community.

NDNLady said...

To the anonymous who says I come across as a pompous know it all.

Sorry, but that is the risk you run when your primary focus is to correct the distortions of history and law surrounding our constitutional amendment and the misrepresentations of indigenous rights that make up this thread. I try to be courteous but watching someone just repeat the same lies over and over again gets tedious.

Outlander said...

IND Lady,
And how many actual votes were there? Out of how many that could have voted if given enough notice? If you remember, we had a scheduled election alreay coming up and then Chad said "we got to have this special election!" at an earlier date. Spent a lot of dollars, but mainly misled voters that might have voted in our regular election. Yes, IND Lady, that election was based on fraud and hurry up tactics designed to mislead Cherokee members.

And to answer you, YES, I do know what I am talking about, I have been paying attention from March 2006 up until now.

Look how the PR told that 75% voted in favor of not abiding by the 1866 Treaty. If you have 10
people voting out of 200,000 and 7 vote to adopt an admendment, would you say that is a true representation of the voting membership? I think you are sensible and will say no, that is not a vote of the people. Well, that is what happened in 2007.

Outlander

John Cornsilk said...

NDNLady said...
Outlander, punch who in the gut? Do you ever have any idea what you're talking about? Regardless of whether you believe the petition was a fraud, the court certified it and ordered the election and the election was most certainly not a fraud. And what does the fact that the petition was worded as a clear choice have to do with Mr. Barkman's trying to frame that question the way he did. It was exactly the same as that old saw I posted. As I keep saying, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on non-Indian enrollment, but no one's opinion means more than the expressed will of the Cherokee majority.

The Elder Cornsilk sez!

What Majority Hench-ho aprox 13,000 voted 77% for the kick out, that would be about 10,001 votes of a populace of 268,000 probably a few short maybe closer to 300k, in which case the percentage would go to .0333, never the less .0375% of a populace can hardly be called a majority VOTE do you think? Of course you do, yur just that dam stoopid!

As for your last response to your beeing seen as pompus, my response is quite aptly in a prior post, you ara pompus dum-ass that don't know shyt from shinola; Plain and simple!!

And for the proof, of the ole cliche, from the pudding, you said the Cali Enrolements and our Freedmen kick out are different
Absolutely NOT, both Identical a human rights violation in both instances, with the Cali violation of tribal law, with Smith and CNOT, vioaltion of Federal Law both VIOLATION of Civil Rights!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!

NDNLady said...

Outlander, you keep insisting that we are breaking a treaty..do you know what supersedes means?

Garfield v. United States ex rel. Lowe, D. C. Appeals Court 1909, aff’d. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 1912


“If any doubt theretofore existed as to the proper construction to be given article 9 of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, that doubt was dissipated by the language of sec. 3 of the above act of April 26th, 1906, for that language constitutes a legislative interpretation of, and SUPERSEDES pro tanto, the prior treaty. Cherokee Tobacco (Boudinot v. United States) 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. ed. 227. In other words, we think that, under the TRUE construction of the language of said treaty of August 11th, 1866, the BENEFITS OF CITIZENSHIP WERE CONFERRED ONLY upon free colored persons, or the slaves of Cherokee citizens and their descendants, who were actual bona fide residents of the Cherokee Nation August 11th, 1866, or who actually returned and established such residence in the Cherokee Nation within six months from that time.”

And you've been paying attention since 2006? The mind boggles.

Mr. Cornsilk, you are purposely manipulating numbers when you try to construct a percentage based on the total number of Cherokee citizens since a huge percentage of THAT number are not eligible to vote (too young) or may have never registered to vote. You know as well as I do that it was a sizeable turnout for a special election. More than usually vote in the run-off following a regular election.

I see you've learned to spell human rights. Now if you and Mr. Lee would only learn what they mean.

NDNLady said...

'aamokat, like I keep saying, I realize your situation is very difficult. But I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is to see good Cherokee people smeared and attacked for nothing more than exercising the right to require Indian ancestry to have citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. The Pechanga disenrollees have in effect supported these attacks because you believe we have somehow done the same thing as your government. I've tried to learn all I can about your situation by reading the things you post. I would hope you would do the same.

Our history is different, the law is different, and we have violated no laws.

Outlander said...

IND Lady,
Who is having a pity party now? You try to seperate the CA Indians from the CNO issue and there are common issues we each have in common. I suggest you try to learn more about their problems, you live in CA, and should respect the people that lived here far longer than you have. You and myself are intruders in their country, do you realize that? California is their country, not ours. We merely live here, but historically, the land belongs to CA Indians.

I respect the Indians I know in my area (CA) and I know their history. Where you live, they held auctions to sell Indians much like slaves in the South, are you aware of that?

Your blathering is getting obnoxious, the more you say, the more you show your true colors.

The more I learn, we, the Cherokee people are not about race, we are about culture. We are made up of many nationalities as citizens. The treaty said the Freedmen were to have all the rights of Cherokee people and that is plain for all to read, we are Cherokee citizens and so are they. Your leader is leading you down a dangerous path and yet you follow him!? Why?

Outlander

'aamokat said...

NDNLady, I know our situations are different and my posts about how our tribe has done things is not piling on with the pro Freedmen who come here.

But from what I have read, I still feel that the 1866 treaty granted citizenship to the Freedmen and what you probably see as attacks on yourself and Chief Smith by the pro Freedmen people who come here, I am staying out of it.

Except I did post a while ago that I believe that any name calling going on does not do either side of the debate any good.

I do like it though that both sides in the Freedmen debate do strive to present arguments to support their positions which I wish the pro disenrollment people from my tribe and other California tribes would come here and do.

All we usually get are people making general statements, and/or calling us losers, or telling us to give up and get on with our lives.

As far as what O.P. puts on his blog, he is a relative of mine but I don't tell him what to put on his blog and I don't speak for the disenrolled of Cal. as a whole.

So you have to address him or them, whatever the case may be, if you don't agree with his or their positions about how they are protraying the Freedmen situation.

I just speak my opinions as an individual.

I posted the stuff about the Pechanga golf course to show people how I feel about how some of the Cal. tribes are using sovereignty.

It seems to them that sovereignty means that everyone else just needs to shut up as they can do whatever they want and that they can tell the U.S. government and the general public one thing but then do the exact opposite.

Allen L. Lee said...

NDNLADY said:
"Being a Cherokee is a nationality, emphasis on "NATION." NO ONE, not me, not the Freedmen, not (personal name removed) can rise above the voice of the Cherokee people and OUR right to determine who is and who IS NOT a Cherokee.”
February 28, 2009 12:19 PM
then NDNLADY said:
“The United Nations definition of refugees is what I paraphrased and shortened. It does not apply to disenrollees because "nationality" does not mean indigenous nation.”
March 1, 2009 6:14 PM

Fairly obvious where the mis-information and self contradiction is coming from.

International human rights authors approach minorities and indigenous peoples differently because indigenous peoples are equated with “Nations” while minorities are considered populations with-in nations.
“THE INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF THE
RIGHTS OF PEOPLES AND MINORITIES
by Alfred de Zayas

“It should also be noted that the rights of peoples and of minorities are not the same, and that peoples, in particular indigenous populations, perceive themselves as nations and very much object to being considered "minorities".
http://alfreddezayas.com/Chapbooks/AMSTERDAM.shtml#N_1_


NDNLADY said:
It was made in direct response to Rep Watson's bill interfering in the Cherokee Nation's right to determine their citizenship based on the fact that the Cherokee Nation's laws once sanctioned slavery. Of course, the freedmen desdendants are about "laying blame for history".

Let’s take a look at where Diane Watson’s bill is really laying the blame:
“Diane Watson Bill
HR 2824 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2824...

“…Congress finds the following:

(1) In the 1830s, members of the Cherokee Nation were removed from their lands in the southeastern United States and forced to migrate to Oklahoma along a route known as the Trail of Tears. Among those persons forced to migrate were the Black slaves of Cherokees, free Blacks married to Cherokees, and the children of mixed-race families, known now as the `Black Cherokees'.

(2) In 1861, the Cherokee Nation executed a treaty with the Confederate States of America, thereby severing its relations with the United States Government. Members of the Cherokee Nation held positions in the Congress and military of the Confederate States of America and waged war against the United States during the Civil War.

(3) Following the Civil War, the United States reestablished relations with the Cherokee Nation through the Treaty of 1866. The Treaty of 1866 declared that the Black Cherokees, also known as `Cherokee Freedmen', were to be made citizens of the Cherokee Nation and to have all the rights of Cherokees.

(4) The Treaty of 1866 further guarantees the following:

(A) Laws `shall be uniform throughout said nation' and that if `any law, either in its provisions or in the manner of its enforcement, in the opinion of the President of the United States, operate unjustly in [the Freedmen] district, he is hereby authorized and empowered to correct such evil.'.

(B) The Cherokee Freedmen are given the right to elect officials and to representation `according to numbers' on the national council.

(5) Following the Treaty of 1866, the Cherokee National Council amended its constitution to guarantee the Cherokee Freedmen full rights as citizens of the Cherokee Nation.

(6) Also following the Treaty of 1866, the Courts upheld the Cherokee Freedmen's treaty rights, including--

(A) in 1895, the Court of Claims held that the Cherokee Freedmen were entitled to share in the tribe's land sale proceeds and the Cherokee Nation's sovereignty could not be exercised in a manner that breached the nation's treaty obligations to the United States (Whitmire, Trustee for the Cherokee Freedmen v. Cherokee Nation, 30 CT Cl. 138, 180 (CT Cl. 1895); and

(B) in 1906, the Supreme Court noted that the Cherokee Freedmen are citizens of the Cherokee Nation entitled to the same property rights as other members of the Cherokee Nation under the Treaty of 1866 (Red Bird v. United States, 203 U.S. 76, 84).

(7) In a December 19, 2006, ruling in Vann v. Kempthorne, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that in 1906, the Dawes Commission registered members of the Cherokee Nation under separate categories: the `Freedmen Roll' for the Black Cherokees and the `Blood Roll' for other Cherokees. Individuals possessing African blood were placed on the Freedmen Roll, where no levels of Indian blood were recorded. Those possessing no African blood were placed on the Blood Roll, where levels of Indian blood were recorded. The Dawes Commission declared that persons recorded on the Freedmen Roll were on equal footing with those on the Blood Roll.

(8) In 1970, Congress passed the `Principal Chiefs Act' requiring the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Nations to obtain approval for their voting laws for selection of the principal chief. The Department of the Interior drafted a policy stating that it was not necessary that each of these groups have identical or similar regulations, but that three conditions are deemed fundamental to the democratic selection of a principal tribal official. One of the three conditions stipulated by the Department is that voter qualifications of the Cherokees must be broad enough to include the enrolled Cherokee Freedmen citizens.

(9) In May 2003, the Cherokee Nation held an election for its officers and ratification of a new constitution. The vote proposed to amend the 1999 constitution of the Cherokee Nation by removing the requirement that the United States Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs approve amendments to the Cherokee Nation Constitution. The Cherokee Freedmen were not permitted to vote or run for office. The election violated the Treaty of 1866, the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Principal Chiefs Act of 1970, and the Department of the Interior's guidance on the ratification of a new constitution.

(10) In May 2003, the Cherokee Nation held an election for its officers and the ratification of a new constitution. The new constitution removed the requirement that the United States Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs approve amendments to the Cherokee Nation constitution. The Cherokee Freedmen were not permitted to vote in this election. The election violated the Treaty of 1866, the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Principal Chiefs Act of 1970.

(11) The Department of the Interior has not recognized the May 2003 vote to amend the Cherokee Nation's constitution. The Cherokee Nation has subsequently removed its request for approval from the Department of the Interior.

(12) Currently, the Cherokee Nation operates under a Principal Chief elected in violation to the 1970 Principal Chiefs Act and Treaty of 1866, a National Council constituted without Cherokee Freedmen representatives in violation of the Treaty of 1866, and a Constitution not approved by the United States pursuant to Article XV, Section 10 of the 1975 Cherokee Nation Constitution.

(13) In May 2003, the Cherokee Nation renamed its highest court, formerly named the Judicial Appeals Tribunal and newly renamed the Supreme Court, after the Judicial Appeals Tribunal ruled in a 2-1 decision that the Cherokee Freedmen were entitled to citizenship pursuant to the 1975 Cherokee Nation constitution. Pursuant to the new May 2003 constitution, which still has not been approved by the Department of the Interior, the illegally elected Principal Chief appointed two additional judges to the Supreme Court. The panel of five Supreme Court judges ruled in a 3-2 decision that the Cherokee Nation could hold a vote on the tribal status of the Cherokee Freedmen.

(14) Operating under the unapproved Constitution, the Cherokee Nation held an election in March 2007, to remove the Cherokee Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation. In a vote of less than 4 percent of the total Cherokee Nation population, the voters elected to remove Cherokee Freedmen not on the Dawes blood rolls from the Nation.

(15) In May 2007, the Cherokee Nation leadership determined that it would allow registered Freedmen to vote in the June 23, 2007 election for tribal officers. Despite the Cherokee Nation's decision to allow Freedmen to vote, Freedmen's rights as members of the Cherokee Nation are severely restricted: Freedmen are not allowed to run for office in the June 2007 election in violation of the Treaty of 1866; the registration of Freedmen entitled to Cherokee citizenship under the 1906 Dawes Rolls has been halted; and the election is to be held under provisions of an unapproved constitution and in violation of the 1970 Principal Chiefs Act that requires the Cherokee leadership to submit its voting requirements for the election to the Secretary of the Interior for his approval. Further, the actions of the Cherokee Nation in halting citizenship application processing and voter registration of Freedmen have disproportionately reduced the number of Freedmen voters that can participate in the election.

(16) The manner in which the Cherokee Nation is conducting the relationship between the United States and the tribal entity is not in the best interest of the United States Government, citizens of the Cherokee Nation, and violates existing treaties and laws governing the relationship between the United States Government and the Cherokee Nation.

(17) Current efforts of the Cherokee Nation to expel members of the Cherokee Freedmen from the tribal rolls and abolish Department of the Interior oversight are being pursued in violation of the treaty rights extended to the Cherokee Freedmen in a treaty agreement between the United States and Cherokee Nation in the 1866 Treaty and in violation of Freedmen citizenship under the federally approved Cherokee Nation constitution of 1975.

(18) The Department of the Interior has failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibility by recognizing the May 2003 Cherokee Nation election for Principal Chief in which Freedmen were not allowed to vote in violation of the Principal Chiefs Act and the Treaty of 1866 and by failing to take any administrative action against the Cherokee Nation leadership for its decision to sanction a referendum in March 2007 in which the Freedmen were expelled from the Cherokee Nation.”
http://www.theucfi.com/2824watson.html

In all those findings, the word “slaves” is only used once.


"Cherokee freedmen to challenge special election
By Christina Good Voice
Published: October 9, 2006

"I am outraged for several reasons... We have our rights by treaty. Most of the freedmen have blood rights," Vann said. "We're only asking for what we've been promised. We're not asking for apologies. We're not asking for money. We're asking to be treated the same as other tribal citizens."

Vann said she believes the motives of trying to remove freedmen from the tribe are of a "political" nature by Chief Smith and some tribal councilors, including Cara Cowan Watts, who represents District 7 of the Cherokee Nation.
Vann said the special election and freedmen issue is a "smoke screen" for people to stay in office, but Cowan Watts said there's only one issue at hand.
http://www.newsok.com/article/2953514/
Again no mention of slavery but to be “be treated the same as other tribal citizens."
It's not about laying blame on history, it's about honoring the corrective measures granting human rights to formerly subjugated persons.

“Carla Pratt, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law, charged that the removal of the Freedmen really was about race. Traditional notions of tribal citizenship weren't always based on blood quantum, she told attendees of the conference.
"Do we really honor ancestors when we refuse to recognize their descendants?" she said. "I really hope tribes can get away from this notion of blood as the essence of Indian identity."
…Steve Emery, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, said tribes who limit membership strictly by blood aren't respecting their relatives.
"Today at Cheyenne River, there is no such thing as a blood quantum," he said, citing traditional Lakota notions of family that go beyond blood. "We know who each other are."
Emery spoke of daughter's mixed-race children, whom he helps provide care for since their father was critically disabled in an accident. "We need other blood in our cultures," he said. "We always had it."
http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/002611.asp




Allen L. Lee

The Local Crank said...

NDN Lady, I wasn't aware that asking a simple question was a "lawyer trick." Nevertheless, if your position is that the petition was not riddled with fraud, then I must conclude that you believe Judge Leeds was lying in her dissent and simply fabricated all the evidence of fraud she referred to. Is this correct? Do you also believe that the CN Attorney General's office was in on the lie when it investigated the fraud (but of course chose not to prosecute)?

John Cornsilk said...

Well Patrick, Its not so much that the shythead believes anything, too dam stupid! She simply regirgutates the equine feces Smith feeds her...They know exactly what the dissent says and of the crime committed, and the sanctioning of it by the majority of the lil Hitler court

Read this Article written
By Will Chavez: a Reporter for CNOT Wrote in May of 2007!! That Clearly lays out the abject stupidity of the bullshyt corruption of the AG'S office, and what a dam JOKE the office is, and the dumass CLOWN lawyers in it!!

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – Citing jurisdictional problems, the Cherokee Nation Attorney General’s office in May said it could not prosecute anyone who committed wrongdoing during the signature-gathering phase of the initiative petition that called for the March 3 special election.

Tribal attorney Richard Osburn stated in a written opinion that even though crimes were committed in the gathering of signatures for the petition, he could not prosecute due to lack of jurisdiction.

“There is no question that names were forged to the initiative petitions,” Osburn wrote. “There is no question that at least two of the petition carriers perjured themselves on the attestations to the petitions. However, we do not have any evidence in our possession to indicate that these crimes were committed within the criminal jurisdiction of the Cherokee Nation. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to prosecute these acts.”

CN Attorney General Diane Hammons added the tribe could only prosecute crimes committed by “Indians on Indian country,” and cross-deputization agreements with cities and counties in the tribe’s 14-county jurisdiction apply to police authority only, not prosecutorial jurisdiction.

In May, the tribe released the investigation findings regarding misconduct in the gathering of signatures for the initiative petition. The petition, which passed through the Election Commission and Supreme Court, called for the March 3 special election to determine CN citizenship.

CN Attorney General Diane Hammons requested the CN Marshal Service conduct the investigation in January following a November court case where some petition carriers were accused of fraudulently obtaining petition signatures. The Supreme Court heard the protest filed by Freedmen descendent Vicki Baker against the initiative petition and eventually ruled to validate the petition.

According to the opinion, Supreme Court Justices Darell Matlock, James Wilcoxen and Kyle Haskins ruled to validate the petition, while Supreme Court Justice Darrell Dowty ruled partly in favor and partly in dissent. Former Supreme Court Justice Stacy Leeds dissented.

In her 18-page dissent, Leeds wrote while she agreed that “the Cherokee people have the legal right to amend the constitution to redefine citizenship,” they also must “abide by Cherokee law in exercising that right.”

Leeds wrote that it was shown that some individuals who circulated petitions violated Cherokee law by falsifying affidavits, particularly petition carriers Darren Buzzard and Dwayne Barrett.

Leeds also wrote that “the majority” of the court acknowledged that Buzzard and Barrett should be referred to the CN attorney general for possible criminal prosecution for their fraudulent conduct.

Dowty wrote in his opinion that he agreed.

“I concur with Justice Leeds that the conduct of some of the circulators is such that their certification cannot be relied upon, and I agree that there should be referrals for further investigation and prosecution.”

Although Osburn did not specifically name anyone in his report, he did agree that enough evidence was presented in the case to show misconduct during signature gathering for the initiative petition.

“The evidence presented at the hearings is sufficient to prove that two of the individuals circulating the petitions perjured themselves by signing attestations on the initiative petitions swearing that they witnessed all of the signatures,” Osburn wrote. “The evidence presented included testimony that some of the signatures gathered on their petitions were actually gathered by others and that the two individuals in question did not witness the signatures. There was also testimony by witnesses that some persons signed the names of others to the initiative petitions.”

According to tribal law, any person “signing any name other than his/her own to any petition, or knowingly signing his/her name more than once for the same measure at one election, or who is not at the time of signing the same a legal voter or whoever falsely makes…shall upon conviction thereof be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding $500 and such other civil penalty” in the discretion of the tribal courts.


John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Pirveyor of simple Truth!!

John Cornsilk said...

Hey Patrick, in all this BS by the Dunce where she cites:

"Garfield v. United States ex rel. Lowe, D. C. Appeals Court 1909, aff’d. sub nom, United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, 1912

As having superseded Art.IX of the 1866 Treaty If you google the case title as written, all references tie back to the CNOT website page where it is cited for the BULLSHYT of superseding.

I can find no such case to check out the Court order, because this shythead is all the time Twisting up DICTA from cases as Case Law.

Nor is such Case on This Supreme Court List I have for Checking out her dicta twisting!!

So I thought maybe you could tell me what I am missing in my search for the Case title, that could be a stringing together of words for Bullshyting the unlearned readers, or something to turn people off by the legal looking babble!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Pirveyor of simple Truth!!

'aamokat said...

Mr. Cornsilk, is there a percentage of signatures that need to be valididated in order for a petition to be put to a vote of the Cherokee people?

I do believe that your tribe should abide by the 1866 treaty and that disenrolling the Freedmen is wrong but if the petition had enough valid signatures could it still be legal?

But sometimes something legal doesn't make it right.

John Cornsilk said...

Well aamokat, yes there is a requirement as to the number of required siganatures. That has never been in contention...

The problem was with the procuring of the signatures, where there is law, rules and regulations as to how this will be done...And in the Vicki Baker Case where she protest the signatures and the process. Stacy leed Dissent quite aptly explains all these and how they were violated!

Without a Doubt the 1866 Traty is Law, and this freedmen kick out farces is a blatant violation of this law, plain and simple.

Number of signatures, passing of any amendment, can-NOT abborgate the fact of law of the Treaty, any action to instute such is simply a violation of Law on Smith and CNOT's part, plain and simple!!

True Legal doen't always mean right, just legal, and the Petition, the vote, nor the Amendment can be deemed Legal, and it will all be shown one day sooner than later we hope!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of simple Truth!!

Allen L. Lee said...

NDNLady referenced Cherokee Tobacco case in
Cherokee Tobacco (Boudinot v. United States) 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. ed. 227.

As much as I dislike referring to antiquated dicta and decisions that have undoubtedly been subject to contemporary corrective measures by both Congress and the Courts, reaching back to the Five Civilized Tribes Act and the Cherokee Tobacco Case as a defense for a superseded treaty and the expulsion of Cherokee Freedmen descendants, begs the attention of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma mantra, “Let the courts decide,” and the following excerpt regarding the Cherokee Tobacco Case

THE CHEROKEE TOBACCO 78 U.S. 616
December Term, 1870

“…If a wrong has been done the power of redress is with Congress, not with the judiciary, and that body, upon being applied to, it is to be presumed, will promptly give the proper relief.”
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/78/78.US.616.html


If we were to believe that no corrective or restorative acts were done for tribal self-determination and rights of individuals tribal members since 1906, not the least being the “Allen” decision in the Cherokee Courts, then you would have a point, but we all know different. It starts at article 9 and finds its mangled way like, much of Indian law, all the way up to 2006. If the Watson bill passes, then we can add a later date to that article 9 train. Diane Watson is following the correct procedure, and it is my hope that the Congressional Native American Caucus will follow suit for the rest of those wronged in Indian Country.
Allen L. Lee

John Cornsilk said...

Well Said Allen, And David Cornsilk splains the bullshyt blathered by the CNOT-SUCKERS here and slse where!!

pro tanto (proh tahn-toe) Latin for only to that extent. Example: a judge gives an order for payments for one year, pro tanto.

The Whitmire Court set the standard by which the Freedmen would be required to prove their right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation. The last day certain whereby a Freedmen could return to the Cherokee Nation and acquire the rights of Cherokee citizenship was February 11, 1867. At midnight on that date those freedmen who had not returned and established a bonefide residency in the Cherokee Nation were forever barred from citizenship.

The Garfield Court reiterated the Whitmire standard in so far as it applied to the enrollment of citizens of the Freedmen class of Cherokees on the Dawes Roll. The case did nothing more, thus pro tanto. What the CNOT-suckers are trying to do is make "pro tanto" into "pro tOnto." In their twisted interpretation of the law, whether wishful thinking or sheer stupidity, they are trying to make the Garfield case the terminus of Freedmen citizenship. That, it is not.

The sole purpose of the Treaty provision (Article IX) wherein the Cherokee Nation imposed a limit upon the time that Freedmen could return to the Nation, and agreed upon by the United States, was by design, an effort to protect the Cherokee Nation from the constant harangue of descendants of their freed slaves coming into the Nation and seeking citizenship. Unlike Cherokees by blood, who had no limitation for their return to the Cherokee Nation, the Freedmen had to meet the six month requirement or be barred.

Had the courts not established the beginning (Aug. 11, 1866) and the end (Feb. 11, 1867) for the return of Freedmen, the efforts to close the Final Rolls of the Cherokee Nation would have been an impossibility. Without a closing date, any former slave of a Cherokee, regardless of residency, could enter the Cherokee Nation and lay claim to citizenship. The Cherokee Nation might well have been faced with hundreds of claims of citizenship and the Dawes Commission's work extended far beyond the date set by Congress for its termination.

To understand the impact of the six month window of opportunity set by the Treaty for Freedmen to return, picture this:

Every former slave, freed by their masters, whether voluntarily or under order of law, who was a resident of the Cherokee Nation prior to the Civil War and any free person of color similarly situated, would be taken as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation if they were residing in the Cherokee Nation on Aug. 11, 1866 or should return and establish a bonefide residence before midnight Feb. 11, 1867. Each person who met these specific requirements, whether a resident at the close of the War or not, began to glow with the light of citizenship. Those who were in the Cherokee Nation didn't have much to do, other than get recognized. Those living away, whether they had left of their own accord or had been carried off by their masters, had to come back home to the Cherokee Nation at their own expense.

The clock was ticking and the glow in each person who had not come back yet began to dim. As their time passed, the light of citizenship began to fade in them. As the clock struck midnight on Feb. 11, 1867, the light of citizenship went out forever for those who did not return in time.

CNO is attempting to take the Garfield decision far beyond its pro tanto intent. The court was trying to clean up a mess made by the Sec. of Interior when he put people on the roll who were not eligible. The court noted that the Whitmire court had made the dates to return absolutely certain. In the context of the era, wherein Congress was attempting to dispose of the Cherokee government, any mention of citizenship beyond March 1st, 1906 would seem absurd whether adopted or by blood. However, in light of the fact that Congress continued the Cherokee government in full force and effect without reservation, except those already proscribed by law, all classes of citizens who had been identified as citizens by inclusion on the Dawes Roll, continued to be citizens of the Cherokee Nation.

Congress closed the Cherokee citizenship rolls by law. The Cherokee government continued, but without any authority to recognize new citizens, whether adopted or by blood. Absent an express termination of the Cherokee government by Congress, and so long as Cherokee citizens listed on the Dawes Roll were still living, the Cherokee Nation lived on. The office of Principal Chief was to be filled by appointment by the U.S. President. This singular fact changed in 1970 when Congress granted the authority to popularly select the Principal Chief to the citizens listed on the Dawes Rolls and their descendants. That granting of authority included everyone listed on the Dawes Rolls and all of their descendants.

The Garfield court could not have contemplated an Act of Congress making such a grant of authority nearly 70 years later. It was not the intent of the Garfield court to terminate the rights of any citizens of the Cherokee Nation. Nor was it the intent of Congress to alter the rights to enrollment of any Cherokee citizen who were entitled to inclusion on the Dawes Roll. It is absolutely a tortured construction of both federal law and the Garfield decision to reach the conclusion that the Freedmen were permanently excluded or that Congress had, in some unstated manner, abrogated Article IX of the Treaty of 1866.

David Cornsilk

____________________________
John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

Allen L. Lee said...

Just anted to let the readers know that I am not the only one who equates the dis-enrolled as being refugees from Indian nations.
an excerpt:




“Citizenship of the Freedwomen and Freedmen
Updated: 5/23/2008 Posted: 5/23/2008

We're imitating the enemy
Shannon Prince
May 16, 2008
Indian Country Today




…Smith claims that robbing the freedmen of their citizenship is a sovereign act, but Indian removal was also a sovereign act. Sovereign acts and moral acts are two very different things. Smith claims that the Congressional Black Caucus is challenging the Cherokee Nation's sovereignty. Actually, what the CBC is doing is showing that sovereignty has consequences, and that when nations make refugees of their people by revoking their citizenship, they risk facing economic sanctions. Backlash against a nation's sovereign decision is not denial of that nation's sovereignty. Being sovereign means you can make decisions freely - it doesn't mean others have to agree with those decisions....

Shannon Prince, Cherokee (Aniyunwiya), is a Presidential Scholar, Inaugural Scholar, Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellow, and junior at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire."
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=3333&issue_id=111

John Cornsilk said...

Everyone knows what CNOT and Smith are Allen, everybody but the CNO-SUCKIN Fools that is, they are babbling piece's-a-shyt plain and simple!! To know the facts folks simply read David Cornsilk's words above!!

BTW, folks if ya go and Check the Tulsa World Comment Section you will see the CNOT-suckin fools are starting to post the BS about superseding, but if you will notice TW some how have the forum set up where I can post but no one is allowed to see what I post, I am becoming the number one topic and I cant even be seen but you can see me on the following link, I have their thread going here on my domain, and I add each comment to it for the world to see daily!!

My purpose is to show the world a major media entity, the Tulsa World is apparently manipulated by Smith and his hawkers of his Racist horseshyt!!

John Cornsilk Real Cherokee
CNOT Member UKB Too,
Purveyor of Simple Truth!!

Anonymous said...

The Freedmen accepted 100 acres of Cherokee land around the turn of the century and signed off on an agreement that stated that this was their FINAL allotment. I would understand this to be the Freedmen's payoff and would relieve the Cherokee from any future obligation to them. But, when the Cherokee reorganized in 1975, here they came wanting more.