123 Flash Menu Placeholder.

 

News

 

CHIEF RIDGES' POSITION ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS

We have retained rights on navigable Streams, some were even written in a couple of treaties, on others they were silent issues, but not surrendered. Held in Supreme Court cases that silent issue rights were retained.

But as to my position.

On 22 Oct 1970, Congress enacted an Act affecting the Five Civilized Tribes in favor of Tribal Self Government (84 Stat. 109). So that the government would have Officially recognized Tribal Officials and Govt. Entity-to whom they could respond-upon request-in the development and implementation of procedures-etc.

1970 PRINCIPAL CHIEFS ACT. The BILL was to increase the autonomy of self government of the Tribe(s)-so in construing that statute and its legislative history, (2) TWO Cardinal Principles MUST be observed.

(1) In order to rectify an originally erroneous administrative interpretation of earlier legislation, Congress Must give Express Consideration or make Specifice Reference to the question at issue in Later legislation. In the Record, Must be some Clear Indication that Congress Intended to alter an Existing Legal situtation.

(2) IMPLIED REPEAL is not a favored Intent of construction, the courts Must try to give effect to Earlier legislation which HAS NOT been Expressly Repealed....(This Revealed Assumption against Applied Repeal applies with specifice force where the ESTABLISHED Legal Rights of Indians (SCN) under Federal Legislation or TREATIES is involved.......Mattz v. Arnett, 412 US 418 (1972); Choate v. Trapp, 224 US 665 (1912); Jones v. Meehan, 175 US 1 (1899).

This is why it could be shown that it was therefore Legally Insufficeint-in the circumstances of one ACT-that their affairs were being administered by appointed "Principal Chiefs" [Cherokee Nation] and "Governors" [as in the case of the Chickasaws] which were Presidental appointments--so that the interpretation of this statute by BIA/BLM etc-were legally insufficient to establish a repeal of the Tribes right to Constitutional Self Government in favor of a one-man elected monarchy.

Beyond the impact of these Cannons of Construction however, is the Legislative history itself-that shows that Congress was unaware of the Long Controversy or with questions with regard the Legal form of Tribal governments-or an Intent to Narrow the issue to the method of selection of a Principal Chief or Governor- The legislative history noreover shows that the fundamental Congressional judgement underlying each Act was a desire to facilitate tribal self determination to the maximum extent possible. The bill was Amended to require the "Chief" to be "selected" (popularly selected, rather than "elected") so the choice of selecting officers would be left to the Tribes, istself. H.B. No. 91-1499, 91st Congress 2nd Session.

All of the Creeks problems are similar to the Cherokee and Choctow, see the 1906 Act--re:Act-Cherokee.

34 Stat 148- provides in sec 271, upon dissolution of the Tribes, lands belonging to them shall not become public lands nor the property of the United States-but shall be held in trust by the United States for the Indians....

34 Stat Sec 28-provides for the Continuation of Tribal Existence and Tribal government(s) for All legal purposes authorized by law. The Supreme Court has held that this Act in effect Repealed (by implication) the Curtis Act and also Restored not only the Government(s) of the Five Civilized Tribes, but as well the Courts of the Five Civilized Tribes which includes the Canadian District (Southern Chreokee Court)

When once Congress establishes an Indian Reservation (14 Stat 799 article 4 for the SCN)-all tracts included within it remain a part of the reservation until Separated therefrom by Congress.....Seymore v. Supertindent, 368 US 351-354.

In the case of the Oklahoma Cherokee there was no separtion of the Rivberbed-Arkansas River- Tribal Govt(s) still Exist...the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1907 (Act of 16 June 1906, 34 Stat 267) disclaims Title to ALL lands owned by "any" Indian or Indian Tribe(s).

Exercise of the Navigational Servitude is a FEDERAL Right with which a citizen may Not Interfere but which is a right citizens have.--The riverbed in part is "Indian Country"--18 USC 1151 etseq........HOWEVER, use of the Arkansas River-over Indian Land in exercise of the Navigational Servitude is not an invasion of Tribal Property Rights -US v. Rands 389 US at 123,...BUT see 480 US at 707-708 and Board of County Commissioners v. Seber 318 US 705 (1943)....

The Creeks survived the 1906 Act.....Congress at one time planned to Territorialize the Five Civilized Tribes in 1906, and the Act of 1906 was introduced into the House of Representatives with the object of preserving Indian Interest after Disolution. In the course of discussion, Congress determined to continue the Tribal existance and the Act was Amended to that effect before passage.

IMPORTANT see Harjo v. Kleppe 420 F.Supp 1116 (DDC 1976).

Indian country in Eastern Oklahoma; see State v. Burnett, 671 P.2d 1165 (okla Crim. App. 1983) -Eastern Oklhoma which followed Littlechief, 373 P.2d 263 (Ok 1978) in which the court considered the impact of adoption of 18 USC sec 1151 in 1948 and held that under the plain language of 1151 (c) Indian Allotments in Eastern Okl...(ICCA) were Indian Country. Indian allotments were Indian country under EXCLUSIVE Fed/Tribal Jurisdiction. The court reasoned that since Okla had not assumed Criminal jurisdiction under public law 280, the State could not exercise Criminal jurisdiction over allotments..... The State has no Civil or Criminal Jurisdiction over Indian Land (Including Allotments) under the Definition of Indian Country...in the US Code-18 USC 1151 et.seq-see Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.....

The Cherokee's Riverbed is Indian Country inpart--in parts of the Arkansas-which is subject to the Navigational Servitude.....Navigational Servitude is a Federal Right all citizens have-such as the right to travel.....etc.

NOTE: In Barnett, 671 P.2d the Okla State Plaintiffs argued that (unlike Littlechief)-that restrictions placed on allotments by the Fed Govt. only deprived the State of land (Eastern Okla) not the scope of Criminal jurisdiction. They sought to distinguish trust allotments from Indian restriced Fee Lands.....common among the lands in the former Indian territory etc -BUT the State Court of Appeals held that the definition in 18 USC 1151 (c) etseq-included Indian Allotments and Rights of Ways running through the same. The State of Oklahoma therefore, Lacks Jurisdiction over the RIVERBED belonging to the Cherokees in Common.

Oklahoma cannot now assume jurisdiction -over Indian Country-without a Referendum vote of the Indians affected -Civil Rights Act of 1968- a requirement which repealed PL 280 as it was ..Kennedy v. Dist of Montanna 400 US 423 (1979).

Although the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is preseently Cross-Deputizing with the State of Oklahoma, thereby relinquishing the Sovereign Rights of its members, Cross-Deputizing VIOLATES the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act and is illegal without a Referendum Vote of the Cherokee People. Oklahoma did not amend their Constitution nor ever complied with PL 280 when they could. The Indians will never vote to cede jurisdiction to Okla. Their right to be free of State Jurisdiction has been identified with their Civil Rights-(1968)

As Oklahoma lands were Granted as Fee Patent Land to "All Cherokees" in Common...and not to the Corporate Body Politic, if you have Cherokee Blood, regardless of Tribal affiliation, you could have your Canoe on the Arkansas River and Shoot Dice or something to that effect---with confidence of your right to do so ---under the present Acts of Congress...and, under the present Acts of Congress the "Southern Cherokee" remain a semi-autonomous part of the Cherokee Nation-with exclusive use and occupancy of the Canadian District 14 Stat 799 article 4 (1966). This Act of Congress specifically made the Southern Cherokee a Federally Recognized BAND of the Cherokee Nation not subject to the laws of the Cherokee Nation

BUT, as with everything governmental or Political, unless a Right is Demanded or ACTED upon, it does not exist....UNTIL it is DEMANDED or ACTED upon.

Respectively
Gary Ridge

 

 


THIS IS THE OFFICIAL SOUTHERN CHEROKEE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED WEB SITE
@1999-2006 Southern Cherokee Nation