CBS Blows the Whistle on Lakotah Electricity Scandal

March 3, 2009 by  
Filed under Media, News

HARLEY CARNES NOT JUST ANOTHER STORY: 03/02/09

CLICK TO LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST njas-mar-03-09

Date: 03/02/2009 Length: 00:01:29

Families Freezing in Nation’s Poorest County:

PUBLIC UTILITIES “CUT” ON CROW CREEK RESERVATION

(Fort Thompson, SD) Electric company caught “pulling meters” (CLICK TO VIEW THE VIDEO) in the poorest community in the nation, leaving America’s most vulnerable people without power in the dead of winter. Predatory electric companies continue to conduct these atrocious practices amid growing public outcry and damning national media scrutiny. Headlines in newspapers across the country highlight unnecessary tragedies as arctic winter months reveal the electric company’s controversial conduct of shutting off the community’s power, despite the rest of South Dakota having Seasonal Termination Protection Regulations.[1]

CORRECTION: “Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc” is the wholesale provider, not the retail provider that has been illegally disconnecting the meters on Crow Creek Reservation. The real culprits are at the “Central Electric Cooperative:” We apologize for any confusion caused by this error and our happy to oblige the request of Loren Noess - General Manager of CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE to post his information here for your convenience. See his e-mail request below.

index.htm.gif

NoessLoren Noess - General Manager

Text of Mr. Noess’ e-mail with:

To Whom it may concern:

Please change the address of Central you have on your web site. Also if you do some research on this video it was played last June on Utube [sic] and we know they were at Crow Creek last March of 2008 doing taping This video we believe is a year old. Our employees are on this video. They are doing their and should not be explosed[sic].

Please refer to the attached letter that I emailed to Eric Klein yesterday and also sent by mail.

I have sent copies of this letter to all 3 Congressional Leaders in Washington and the South Dakota PUC. The 3 Offices in Washington indicated they haven’t received any calls from the Reservation about disconnects. As you’ll read in our letter we haven’t disconnected any[sic] for the months of Dec. Jan and Feb.

Any questions please give me a call.

Loren Noess

General Manager

PO Box 850

1420 North Main

Mitchell, SD 57301

605-996-7516

index.htm.gif

Contact Information

Office Hours: Monday – Friday 8 am – 5 pm
E-mail: cec@centralec.coop
Phone: 605.996.7516
Toll Free in SD: 800.477.2892
Fax: 605.996.0869

Office Locations:

Headquarters Office:
PO Box 850
1420 North Main Street
Mitchell, SD 57301 USA

Plankinton Branch Office:
PO Box 130
102 South Main Street
Plankinton, SD 57301 USA

Putting LIVES on the Line:

This winter, the Crow Creek Indian Reservation is experiencing record-low temperatures reaching fifty below zero. Hundreds of families living in government housing have had their electric meters removed by Central Electric Cooperative, the local electric cooperative. When these power meters are pulled the residents are left without power; the propane heaters do not run; pipes freeze; and there is no water for cooking, drinking, bathing or flushing toilets. Many of these households have family members whose lives depend upon electronic medical equipment such as defibrillators.

Ironically these families are paying some of the highest electricity rates in the country even though they live adjacent to the Big Bend Hydro-Electric Dam on the Missouri river. These homes are poorly insulated causing electric bills in excess of $300.00 in the coldest months.

Median income in the region is approximately $5,000 a year (typical of the thirteen Lakotah (Sioux) Reservations in the “Great Sioux Nation” as defined in the Treaties of 1851 and 1868 with the US Government).

“I’ve been to disaster areas around the world including Sri Lanka after the tsunami, hurricane Katrina, and after the Iowa floods, but, I have never witnessed such blatant disregard for human life as I have here in my own country on the Crow Creek reservation,” stated Eric Klein, Founder and CEO of Compassion into Action Network – Direct Outcome Organization (CAN-DO). “Especially now, with the new administration focusing on the development of America’s infrastructure, we need to focus our energies and resources immediately to address this critical situation where such infrastructure is being blatantly misutilized.”

Appalled by the abuse and neglect, one US Marine and Crow Creek resident took action to publicize the exploitation. Using a hand-held video recorder, he documented local power companies physically cutting electricity lines and removing meters in the peak of winter.

Watch the footage at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wIVgpMK5-Jo&feature=channel

Utilizing their proven approach to providing lasting solutions with full accountability, efficiency and results, CAN-DO is addressing the operation at the Crow Creek Indian Reservation on the local level to raise the nation’s awareness of the urgent human right abuses taking place in the South Dakota region.

“We are calling for a collaborative effort by ethical individuals, organizations, schools and political leaders to assure that this damage is reversed,” said Klein. “Together, we can contribute to real change here at home.”

View the complete Crow Creek plan at www.can-do.org. Join in the ‘Call to Action.’

LAWS OF SOUTH DAKOTA TITLE 49

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND CARRIERS

49-34A-2. Service required of utilities. Every public utility shall furnish adequate, efficient, and reasonable service.

49-34A-6. Rates to be reasonable and just – Regulation by commission. Every rate made, demanded or received by any public utility shall be just and reasonable. Every unjust or unreasonable rate shall be prohibited. The Public Utilities Commission is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to regulate all rates, fees and charges for the public utility service of all public utilities, including penalty for late payments, to the end that the public shall pay only just and reasonable rates for service rendered.

Source: SL 1975, ch 283, § 16.

THE LIE PROPAGATED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe:

“Every night, the sun slips quietly away behind the bluffs of the Missouri River. These bluffs flank the western edge of the Crow Creek Reservation in central South Dakota. Located one mile south of tribal headquarters at Fort Thompson is Lake Sharpe, one of South Dakota’s Great Lakes. Water recreation abounds on the 80-mile reservoir created by the Big Bend Dam. Visitors enjoy boating, fishing and swimming as well as picnicking and camping along the water’s edge. The tribe’s wildlife department offers guided fishing and hunting trips. It also maintains a buffalo herd that often grazes north of Fort Thompson. ” http://www.travelsd.com/ourhistory/sioux/tribes/crowcreek.asp

THE TRUTH

… thousands of hectares of Indian land have been lost to dams. In North Dakota, a quarter of the Fort Berthold Reservation, shared by the Arikara, Mandan and Hidatsa peoples of the upper Missouri, for example, was flooded as a result of a staircase of dams (the Missouri River Development Project (MRDP), built during the 1950s and 1960s. The land lost included the best and most valuable and productive land on the reservation – the bottom lands along the river where most people lived.105 Five different Sioux reservations also lost land. Again, the impact was quite severe: the dams destroyed nearly 90 per cent of the tribes’ timberland, 75 per cent of the wild game, and the best agricultural lands.106

Ultimately, the Missouri dams cost the indigenous nations of the Missouri Valley an estimated 142,000 hectares of their best land – including a number of burial and other sacred sites – as well as further impoverishment and severe cultural and emotional trauma. A guarantee, used to rationalise the plan in the first place, that some 87,000 hectares of Indian land would be irrigated was simply scrapped as the project neared completion. As researcher Bernard Shanks puts it: “MRDP replaced the subsistence economy of the Missouri River Indians . . . with a welfare economy . . . As a result of the project, the Indians bore a disproportionate share of the social
cost of water development, while having no share in the benefits.”.107

104 Pittja 1994:54.
105 Guerrero 1992.
106 United States v David Sohappy, Snr et al., 477 US 906 (1986), cert. denied. Cited in Guerrero 1992.
107 Guerrero 1992.

About CAN-DO:

Founded by Eric Klein, CAN-DO has set a new standard for humanitarianism and is changing the face of philanthropy. It quickly has become an organization people can trust and depend upon to “get it done” fast and effectively. It is a 501c3, relief organization dedicated to working on the local level to provide lasting solutions, with full accountability, efficiency, and results.
Video footage, photographs and the web site offer documentation of the organization’s efforts at every phase. CAN-DO supporters take pride in watching their generosity directly affect the lives of those in need through the organization’s VirtualVolunteer.TV.

CAN-DO’s successful missions to bring immediate and direct relief to areas in need have captured the attention of renowned philanthropists including Oprah Winfrey and former president Bill Clinton. The organization was recently awarded the Global Compassion Award at the United Nations for its global impact, unparalleled transparency and accountability. For further information, please visit www.can-do.org or email Eric Klein at ek@can-do.org.

About the Republic of Lakotah:

We are the freedom loving Lakotah from the Sioux Indian reservations of Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana who have suffered from cultural and physical genocide in the colonial apartheid system we have been forced to live under.

We are continuing the work that we were asked to do by the traditional chiefs and treaty councils at the first Indian Treaty Council meeting at Standing Rock Sioux Indian Country in 1974.

During the week of December 17-19, 2007, we traveled to Washington DC and withdrew from the constitutionally mandated treaties to become a free and independent country. We are alerting the Family of Nations we have now reassumed our freedom and independence with the backing of Natural, International, and United States law.

We do not represent those BIA or IRA governments beholden to the colonial apartheid system, or those “hang around the fort” Indians who are unwilling to claim their freedom.

For further information, please visit www.republicoflakotah.com or call 605-867-1111.

– END –

The Lakotah’s 158 Year Struggle for Justice

January 29, 2009 by  
Filed under News

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-Mohandas Gandhi

“We are working towards complete freedom in a lawful, non-violent, non-aggressive way.”
- Russell Means

The Lakotah’s 158 Year Long Struggle for Justice

In December of 2007, the Republic of Lakotah was formed by the formal withdrawal from its Treaties of 1851 and 1868. This was the latest step in the longest running legal battle in the history of the World.

This was not a “cessation” from the United States, but a completely lawful “unilateral withdrawal” from the Treaties as permitted under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of which, the United States is a signatory.

The purpose of the Republic of Lakotah is to follow the Instructions given by the Elders at the first International Indian Treaty Council in 1974. The Council held a “Western Hemisphere” Conference at Wakpala on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. Over 5000 delegates of 97 Indigenous Peoples from the Americas gathered. The “manifesto” that was created on that occasion supports the rights of all Indigenous Peoples to live free and take whatever actions are necessary to uphold our sovereignty. This was the largest gathering of Indian People in the 20th Century where Indians paid their own way.

It was here that the Declaration of Continuing Independence was created. The conference was attended by numerous elders, including Chief Frank Fools Crow, pictured left. These were not your ordinary elders; most of them were born in the 1800’s to parents who had been born free, they had never been to schools. The majority spoke no English, and the rest spoke broken English. Russell Means was made a permanent trustee of the International Indian Treaty Council by the elders and the conference.

These Elders Gave the Conference and the Newly Formed International Treaty Council Two Mandates:

1. The first mandate was to become recognized by the International Communities. On September 2007, when the United Nations passed the Declaration of Indigenous Rights, that mandate was fulfilled.

2. We were to remember the words of Noble Red Man (Matthew King, pictured below), “We must always remember that we were once a free People, if we don’t, we shall cease to be Lakotah.” This second mandate is to return to our original status as free and Independent Nations. On December 17, 2007, the Lakotah Freedom Delegation presented to the Department of State of the United States of America, we are unilaterally withdrawing from all Treaties and Agreements entered into between the United States of America and Lakotah.

Leading up to the 2007 Unilateral Treaty Withdrawal, Russell traveled all over the five state area meeting with key people over a seven month period. Now in his seventieth winter, he is working on achieving better conditions for the Indian people for over forty years. Russell was appointed by the conference and the elders as a permanent trustee of the Indian Treaty Council.

The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty was considered by some commentators to have been a complete victory for Red Cloud and the Sioux. In 1904 it was described as “the only instance in the history of the United States where the government has gone to war and afterwards negotiated a peace conceding everything demanded by the enemy and exacting nothing in return.”

As a result of the long running litigation between the Lakotah and the United States, the U.S. has made some telling statements:

“A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history,…”
U.S. Court of Claims, 1975

“ It is clear that, based on the representations of the United States negotiators, the Indians cannot have regarded the 1868 Treaty as a treaty of cession. Nowhere in the history leading up to the treaty negotiations themselves is there any indication that the United States was seeking a land cession or that the Sioux were unwilling to consent to one. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that the Sioux would never have signed the treaty had they thought they were ceding any land to the United States.” Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Indian Claims Commission, 1978

“Here, there is no doubt that the Black Hills were “taken” from the Sioux in a way that wholly deprived them of their property rights to that land. The question presented is whether Congress was acting under circumstances in which that “taking” implied an obligation to pay just compensation, or whether it was acting pursuant to its unique powers to manage and control tribal property as the guardian of Indian welfare, in which event the Just Compensation Clause would not apply.” U.S. Supreme Court, UNITED STATES v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS, 1980

The court also remarked upon President Grant’s duplicity in breaching the Government’s treaty obligation to keep trespassers out of the Black Hills, and the pattern of duress practiced by the Government on the starving Sioux to get them to agree to the sale of the Black Hills.

“That there was tragedy, deception, barbarity, and virtually every other vice known to man in the 300-year history of the expansion of the original 13 Colonies into a Nation which now embraces more than three million square miles and 50 States cannot be denied. But in a court opinion, as a historical and not a legal matter, both settler and Indian are entitled to the benefit of the Biblical adjuration: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.’” Hearing before the committee on Indian affairs, united states senate session on Tribal Sovereign Immunity 9-24, 1996

The Historical Facts that Form the Basis of the Lakotah’s Claim to Sovereignty

1824 – Indian Service Department (BIA) created in the War Department.

1849 - Indian Service Department (BIA) transferred to the Department of the Interior.

1851 – Treaty of Fort Laramie marks turning point in U.S.-Indian relations on the northern plains creating the Great Lakotah (Sioux) Nation

1853-56 – The United States acquires 174 million acres of Indian lands in a series of 52 treaties, all of which are subsequently broken by the U.S. Government

1854 - U.S. Indian Affairs commissioner calls for end of Indian removal policy – IGNORED

1862-63 – Santee Sioux uprising in Minnesota under Chief Little Crow ends with the hanging of 38 Santees on Dec. 26, 1863, the largest mass execution in U.S. history was ordered by President Lincoln without a hearing just two days after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

1864 - Nov. 29, Army Colonel (and United Methodist Reverend) John M. Chivington’s hastily assembled volunteers massacre more than 300 Cheyenne men, women and children peacefully camped at Sand Creek.

1866 – U.S. Congress appropriates Indian lands (without consultation or consent as required by the Treaty of 1851) as right-of-way for construction of transcontinental railroad

1866-68 – U.S. TREATY VIOLATION: In direct violation of the Treaty of 1851, the U.S. government allowed the Bozeman trail to go through the Heart of the Lakotah Nation as a short-cut to the gold fields in Montana. Soon, the Army began, in another gross violation of the 1851 Treaty, to construct and man a string of forts along the Bozeman Trail. Cheyenne, Lakotah and Arapaho forces led by Chief Red Cloud soundly defeat the U.S. Army on the field of battle. The war ended when the U.S. sued for peace and made the promises documented in the Treaty of 1868. This will remain the only full-scale “Indian War” won by the Indians, a victory formalized in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty

1868 - The United States pledged that the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Black Hills, would be “set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named.”

The Fort Laramie Treaty included several agreements central to the issues presented in this case. First, it established the Great Sioux Reservation. The United States “solemnly agree[d]” that no unauthorized persons “shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in [this] territory.”

Second, the United States permitted members of the Sioux tribes to select lands within the reservation for cultivation. Id., at 637. In order to assist the Sioux in becoming civilized farmers, the Government promised to provide them with the necessary services and materials, and with subsistence rations for four years.

Third, the U.S. Government fraudulently claims, that in exchange for the benefits conferred by the treaty, the Sioux agreed to relinquish their rights under the Treaty of September 17, 1851, to occupy territories outside the reservation, while reserving their “right to hunt on any lands north of North Platte, and on the Republican Fork of the Smoky Hill river, so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase.” The Indians also, allegedly, expressly agreed to withdraw all opposition to the building of railroads that did not pass over their reservation lands, not to engage in attacks on settlers, and to withdraw their opposition to the military posts and roads that had been established south of the North Platte River.

Fourth, Art. XII of the treaty provided: “No treaty for the cession of any portion or part of the reservation herein described which may be held in common shall be of any validity or force as against the said Indians, unless executed and signed by at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians, occupying or interested in the same.”

1868 - The U.S.A. Treaty Commission, upon returning to Washington, D.C., stopped in Chicago and altered the text of the Treaty to eliminate all land now used by the State of Nebraska.

1869 - Transcontinental railroad completed. Among other uses, this transported large numbers of hunters to kill off the Buffalo herds.

1871 – Congress ratifies last of 372 treaties made with Indian tribes since 1778; later accords will not have treaty status, which recognizes tribes as sovereign nations – General Sheridan issues orders forbidding western Indians to leave reservations without permission – White hunters in Unites States begin wholesale killing of buffalo

1874 – U.S. TREATY VIOLATION: Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer led the expedition of close to 1,000 soldiers and teamsters, and a substantial number of military and civilian aides. By the end of JULY, they had reached the Black Hills, and by mid-August had confirmed the presence of gold fields in that region. The discovery of gold was widely reported in newspapers across the country. Custer’s florid descriptions of the mineral and timber resources of the Black Hills, and the land’s suitability for grazing and cultivation, also received wide circulation, and had the effect of creating an intense popular demand for the “opening” of the Hills for settlement. The only obstacle to “progress” was the Fort Laramie Treaty that reserved occupancy of the Hills to the Sioux.

In an interview with a correspondent from the Bismarck Tribune, published September 2, 1874, Custer recognized the military’s obligation to keep all trespassers off the reservation lands, but stated that he would recommend to Congress “the extinguishment of the Indian title at the earliest moment practicable for military reasons.”

Quoting the 1874 annual report of Lieutenant General Philip H. Sheridan, as Commander of the Military Division of the Missouri, to the Secretary of War: “Having promised the Sioux that the Black Hills were reserved to them, the United States Army was placed in the position of having to threaten military force, and occasionally to use it, to prevent prospectors and settlers from trespassing on lands reserved to the Indians.”

For example, in September 1874, General Sheridan sent instructions to Brigadier General Alfred H. Terry, Commander of the Department of Dakota, at Saint Paul, directing him to use force to prevent companies of prospectors from trespassing on the Sioux Reservation. At the same time, Sheridan let it be known that he would “give a cordial support to the settlement of the Black Hills,” should Congress decide to “open up the country for settlement, by extinguishing the treaty rights of the Indians.”

Sheridan’s instructions were published in local newspapers. Eventually, however, the Executive Branch of the Government decided to abandon the Nation’s treaty obligation to preserve the integrity of the Sioux territory. In a letter dated November 9, 1875, to Terry, Sheridan reported that he had met with President Grant, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of War, and that the President had decided that the military should make no further resistance to the occupation of the Black Hills by miners, “it being his belief that such resistance only increased their desire and complicated the troubles.”

These orders were to be enforced “quietly,” , and the President’s decision was to remain “confidential.” (letter from Sheridan to Sherman). With the Army’s withdrawal from its role as enforcer of the Fort Laramie Treaty, the influx of settlers into the Black Hills increased. The Government concluded that the only practical course was to secure to the citizens of the United States the right to mine the Black Hills for gold. Toward that end, the Secretary of the Interior, in the spring of 1875, appointed a commission to negotiate with the Sioux. The commission was headed by William B. Allison. The tribal leaders of the Sioux were aware of the mineral value of the Black Hills and refused to sell the land for a price less than $70 million. The commission offered the Indians an annual rental of $400,000, or payment of $6 million for absolute relinquishment of the Black Hills. The negotiations broke down.

Winter of 1875-1876
– Many of the Sioux were hunting in the unceded territory north of the North Platte River, reserved to them for that purpose in the Fort Laramie Treaty. On December 6, 1875, with blatantly hostile intentions, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs sent instructions to the Indian agents on the reservation to notify those hunters that if they did not return to the reservation agencies by January 31, 1876, they would be treated as “hostiles.”

Given the severity of the winter, compliance with these instructions was impossible. On February 1, the Secretary of the Interior nonetheless relinquished jurisdiction over all hostile Sioux, including those Indians exercising their treaty-protected hunting rights, to the War Department.

1876 – Sioux War for the Black Hills waged by Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho forces under Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. On June 25, 1876, Custer’s 7th Cavalry is crushed at Battle of the Little Bighorn while on the way to ambush a Lakotah village. That victory, of course, was short-lived, and those Indians who surrendered to the Army were returned to the reservation, and deprived of their weapons and horses, leaving them completely dependent for survival on rations provided them by the Government. Sitting Bull and followers seek refuge in Canada.

1876 – U.S. TREATY VIOLATION: “GIVE UP THE LAND OR STARVE CAMPAIGN”: August, Congress enacted an appropriations bill providing that “hereafter there shall be no appropriation made for the subsistence” of the Sioux, unless they first relinquished their rights to the hunting grounds outside the reservation, ceded the Black Hills to the United States.

A commission, headed by George Manypenny, arrived in the Sioux country in early September and commenced meetings with the head men of the various tribes. The members of the commission impressed upon the Indians that the United States no longer had any obligation to provide them with subsistence rations. The commissioners brought with them the text of a treaty that had been prepared in advance. The principal provisions of this treaty were that the Sioux would relinquish their rights to the Black Hills and other lands west of the one hundred and third meridian, and their rights to hunt in the unceded territories to the north, in exchange for subsistence rations for as long as they would be needed to ensure the Sioux’ survival.

Hagan, The Reservation Policy: Too Little and Too Late, in Indian-White Relations: A Persistent Paradox 157-169 (J. Smith & R. Kvasnicka, eds., 1976). In words applicable to conditions on the Sioux Reservation during the years in question, Professor Hagan stated: “The idea had been to supplement the food the Indians obtained by hunting until they could subsist completely by farming. Clauses in the treaties permitted hunting outside the strict boundaries of the reservations, but the inevitable clashes between off-reservation hunting parties and whites led this privilege to be first restricted and then eliminated. The Indians became dependent upon government rations more quickly than had been anticipated, while their conversion to agriculture lagged behind schedule. The quantity of food supplied by the government was never sufficient for a full ration, and the quality was frequently poor. But in view of the fact that most treaties carried no provision for rations at all, and for others they were limited to four years, the members of Congress tended to look upon rations as a gratuity that should be terminated as quickly as possible. The Indian Service and military personnel generally agreed that it was better to feed than to fight, but to the typical late nineteenth-century member of Congress, not yet exposed to doctrines of social welfare, there was something obscene about grown men and women drawing free rations. Appropriations for subsistence consequently fell below the levels requested by the secretary of the interior….That starvation and near-starvation conditions were present on some of the sixty-odd reservations every year for the quarter century after the Civil War is manifest.” The Government’s “sell or starve policy” was not effective.

According to the terms of the one-sided Manypenny arrangement, the Sioux were to surrender claims to the Black Hills region, which stretched across five states and covered 47 million acres of land stuffed with gold and other resources that would enrich American industrialists and financiers while impoverish the indigenous people who lived there.

In setting out to obtain the tribes’ agreement to this treaty, the commission ignored the stipulation of the Fort Laramie Treaty that any cession of the lands contained within the Great Sioux Reservation would have to be joined in by three-fourths of the adult males. Instead, the treaty was presented just to Sioux chiefs and their leading men. It was signed by only 10% of the adult male Sioux population.

The provision of rations was to be conditioned, however, on the attendance at school by Indian children, and on the labor of those who resided on lands suitable for farming. The Government also promised to assist the Sioux in finding markets for their crops and in obtaining employment in the performance of Government work on the reservation.

Three years after the agreement that bore his name was ratified, George Manypenny wrote a book entitled Our Indian Wards. There he wrote that:

It can not be denied, that from the period when the first infant settlements were made upon the Atlantic sea-board by European colonies, until the present time, there have been constant, persistent, and unceasing efforts on the part of the white man to drive the Indian from his hunting ground and his home.

1877 – Feb. 28, – Congress “resolves” the “3/4 of adult males” problem by enacting the 1876 “agreement” into law as the Act of(1877 Act), 19 Stat. 254. The Act had the effect of abrogating the earlier Fort Laramie Treaty, and of implementing the terms of the Manypenny Commission’s “agreement” with the Sioux leaders. The passage of the 1877 Act legitimized the settlers’ invasion of the Black Hills, but throughout the years it has been regarded by the Sioux as a breach of this Nation’s solemn obligation to reserve the Hills in perpetuity for occupation by the Indians secured by the Sacred document of the white man and the Constitution of the United Sates of America!

1877 – Crazy Horse is killed while in custody after he surrenders.

1881
– Sitting Bull and 187 followers surrender to U.S. officials at Fort Buford, North Dakota

1885 – The last great herd of buffalo in the United States (at one time 60,000,000) is exterminated. In this chapter of history eliminated from the history books, the government took sixty years to accomplish this most damning genocidal policy!

1887 - Congress passes the General Allotment Act (the Dawes Act), which ends communal ownership of reservation lands, distributing 160-acre “allotments” to individual Indians and disposing of the surplus. Tribes lose millions of acres. (Much of this land is now in the hands of white ranchers.)

1888
– Congress begins the outlawing of the entire Indian Way of Life and our Spiritual and Prayer Ceremonies.

1890-1910 – U.S. Indian population reaches low point: less than 250,000. The population of the Indigenous People prior to the invasion in 1492, has been estimated at 14,000,000 in the contiguous 48 states!

1890 – On Dec. 15, 1890, Sitting Bull is killed at the Standing Rock Reservation, South Dakota, increasing tensions there.

1890 - Dec. 28, U.S. troops massacre more than 300 Sioux prisoners of war at what is now known as Wounded Knee who were traveling to to visit Red Cloud. After disarming the Indians, the U.S. Army used for small arms and four of their newest weapons, the Hotchkiss revolving canon which fired 1.25 inch exploding shells. This “battle” as it’s recorded in the U.S. history books resulted in the awarding of twenty Congressional Medals of Honor for Valor which were bestowed on the 7th Calvary. To this day, this day, this is the most Medals of Honor EVER awarded for a battle. More than any of the atrocious battles in the Pacific during World War II.

1891 – Indian Education. A Congressional Act authorized the Commissioner of Indian Affairs “to make and enforce by proper means” rules and regulations to ensure that Indian children attended schools designed and administered by non-Indians. Children were literally ripped from their parents’ arms and sent to federal and missionary boarding schools all over the West. This genocidal campaign continues to this day as children are unlawfully and manipulatively taken from their parents all over the U.S. under the 1978 “Indian Child Welfare Act.”

1891 – Amendment to the Dawes Act. This amendment modified the amount of land to be allotted and set conditions for leasing allotments.

1891 – Congress authorizes the leasing by whites of allotted Indian lands

1893 - Indian Education. This Congressional Act made school attendance for Indian children compulsory and authorized the BIA to withhold rations and government annuities to parents who did not send their children to school.

1898 – Curtis Act. This Congressional Act ended tribal governments practice of refusing allotments and mandated the allotment of tribal lands in Indian Territory – including the lands of the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations.

1898 – TREATY VIOLATION: Curtis Act seeks to extend allotment policy to “Five Civilized Tribes” by dissolving tribal governments, requiring abolished Indian nations to submit to allotment, and instituting civil government in Indian Territory

1903 - Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903) Supreme Court decision. The Kiowas and Comanches sued the Secretary of the Interior to stop the transfer of their lands without consent of tribal members which violated the promises made in the 1867 Treaty of Medicine Lodge. The Court ruled that the trust relationship served as a source of power for Congress to take action on tribal land held under the terms of a treaty. Thus, Congress could, by statute, abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty. Further, Congress had a plenary – or absolute – power over tribal relations.

1906 - Antiquities Act. This Congressional Act declared that Indian bones and objects found on federal land were the property of the United States. This unleashed a flood of of anthropologists and archaeologists as well as ghoulish profiteers to rob our graves with impunity.

1906 – Burke Act. This act amended the Dawes Act to give the secretary of War the power to remove allotments from trust before the time set by the Dawes Act, by declaring that the holders had “adopted the habits of civilized life.” This act also changed the point at which the government would award citizenship from the granting of the allotment to the granting of the title.

1908 – TREATY VIOLATION: Supreme Court defines rights of the federal government to reserve water for the use of Indian tribes

1910 – TREATY VIOLATION: Federal government forbids the Sun Dance among the Plains Indians, giving the use of self-torture as the reason.

1923 - The Lakotah, after years of lobbying, succeeded in obtaining from Congress the passage of a special jurisdictional Act which provided them a forum for adjudication of all claims against the United States “under any treaties, agreements, or laws of Congress, or for the misappropriation of any of the funds or lands of said tribe or band or bands thereof.” Pursuant to this statute, the Sioux, in 1923, filed a petition with the Court of Claims alleging that the Government had taken the Black Hills without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This claim was dismissed by that court in 1942. The case was re-filed after the establishment of the Indian Court of Claims in 1946. Subsequently, the case went to the Supreme Court three times, before finally being ruled on in 1980, thus making the “Black Hills Claim” the longest running litigation in U.S. history, 58 years. As the money awarded has still not been accepted by the Lakotah, one could say that the claim is yet unresolved. The Lakotah asked for the return of all lands according to the treaties and the Constitution. However, once the lawyers go to Washington, D.C., they violated the Lakotah’s instructions and and sought not the return of the land, but “just compensation.”

1924
– The Indian Citizenship Act, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America’s indigenous peoples, called “Indians” in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2. However, to this day, Indians are not granted the protections granted all other citizens under the Bill of Rights. This was done without the consent of Indians!

1927 – Grand Council of American Indians:

The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call “assimilated,” bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.

We want freedom from the white man rather than to be integrated. We don’t want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don’t want power, we don’t want to be congressmen, or bankers….we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.

The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had ‘freedom and justice,’ and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this.


1930’s
– Adolph Hitler patterns his genocidal techniques after the American Indian Policy of the U.S. Government. “Adolf Hitler”, John Toland, Publisher: Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York 1976.

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.” Pg 702

1934 – TREATY VIOLATION: U.S. Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) reverses U.S. policy of allotment, providing for tribal self-government and landholding and launching an Indian credit program.

1943 - The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Court of Claims dismissal of the Black Hills claim under the 1920 jurisdictional statute by denying the Sioux bands’ petition for a writ of certiorari (Sioux Tribe v. United States, 318 U.S. 789 [1943]).

1946
- Indian Court of Claims established by the US. creating a new forum to hear and determine all tribal grievances that had arisen previously.

1950 – Counsel for the Sioux resubmit the Black Hills claim to the Indian Claims Commission. The Commission initially ruled that the Sioux had failed to prove their case. The Sioux filed a motion with the Court of Claims to vacate its judgment of affirmance alleging that the Commission’s decision had been based on a record that was inadequate, due to the failings of the Sioux’ former counsel. This motion was granted and the Court of Claims directed the Commission to consider whether the case should be reopened for the presentation of additional evidence.

1954 – Indian Claims Commission dismissed Docket 74, a part of the Black Hills claim.

1958 – Indian Claims Commission entered an order reopening the case and announcing that it would reconsider its prior judgment on the merits of the Sioux claim. Following the Sioux’ filing of an amended petition, claiming again that the 1877 Act constituted a taking of the Black Hills for which just compensation had not been paid, there ensued a lengthy period of procedural sparring between the Indians and the Government.

1960 – Indian Claims Commission agreed to allow the Sioux tribes to amend their original Docket 74 petition by substituting two separate petitions to be designated as Docket 74-A and 74-B.

Docket 74-A involved claims for Sioux property outside of western South Dakota that was, according to the United States, voluntarily “ceded” by the Sioux bands under article 2 of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty! Docket 74-A consisted of the following claims:

1. A recognized title claim for 34 million acres of Sioux lands located west of the Missouri River (outside of western South Dakota) in the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Nebraska; and

2. An aboriginal title claim for 14 million acres of Sioux lands located east of the Missouri River (in the states of North Dakota and South Dakota).

Docket 74-B involved claims for Sioux property confiscated by Congress under the 1877 act in violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Docket 74-B consisted of the following claims:

1. A claim for 7.3 million acres of the Great Sioux Reservation (the Black Hills) confiscated under article 1 of the 1877 act;

2. A claim for article 11 hunting rights confiscated under article 1 of the 1877 act;

3. A claim for placer (surface) gold removed by trespassing gold miners with U.S. government connivance prior to 1877; and

4. A claim for three rights-of-way confiscated under article 2 of the 1877 act.

1962 – After the Sioux tribes succeeded in reopening Docket 74 in 1960, they attempted three times to amend their petition to allege a wrongful taking under the 1868 treaty. All three amendments were denied by the ICC on May 11,1960, February 28, 1962, and October 29,1968.

1964
– South Africa copies the U.S. Reservation Scheme: The Bantu Laws Amendment Act of 1964 gave the government complete authority to banish blacks from any urban area and from white agricultural areas. During the 1970′s, the government stripped thousands of blacks of their South African citizenship when it granted nominal independence to their homelands. Most of the homelands had few natural resources, were not economically viable, and being both small and fragmented, lacked the autonomy of independent states.

1965
– The Indian Claims Commission ruled that the 1851 treaty recognized title in the “Sioux or Dahcotah Nation” to approximately 60 million acres of territory situated east of the Missouri River in what is now the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana.

1969 – Indian Claims Commission allows the Docket 74 Sioux Tribes to intervene in the suit with the Yankton Sioux (Docket 332-C) and include their claims for aboriginal title lands located east of the Missouri River. It also allowed the Yankton Sioux, for the first time, to assert a recognized title claim west and north of the Missouri River on the basis that it was a party to the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty.

1969 – American Indian activists occupy Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay to call attention to the plight of contemporary Indians. The occupation lasts until 1971.

1969 – Vienna Convention on Treaties:

Scope of the present Convention: The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 49- Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows:

Article 2

Use of terms
1. For the purposes of the present Convention:

(a) ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

(b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the
international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

(c) ‘full powers’ means a document emanating from the competent authority of a
State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;

(d) ‘reservation’ means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;

(e) ‘negotiating State’ means a State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty;

(f) ‘contracting State’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the
treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force;

(g) ‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(h) ‘third State’ means a State not a party to the treaty;

(i) ‘international organization’ means an intergovernmental organization.
Article 60

Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach:

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as aground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or
(ii) as between all the parties;

(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for
suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

1970
– Nixon’s “Special Message on Indian Affairs.” President Nixon delivered a speech to Congress which denounced past federal policies, formally ended the termination policy, and called for a new era of self-determination for Indian peoples.

1972
– Trail of Broken Treaties. Over 500 Indian activists traveled across the United States to Washington, DC where they planned to meet with BIA officials and to deliver a 20-point proposal for revamping the BIA and establishing a government commission to review treaty violations. When guards at the BIA informed the tribal members that Bureau officials would not meet with them and threatened forcible removal from the premises, the activists began a week-long siege of the BIA building. The BIA finally agreed to review the 20 demands and to provide funds to transport the activists back to their home. Shortly thereafter, the FBI classified AIM as “an extremist organization” and added the names of its leaders to the list of “key extremists” in the US.

1972 – White vigilantes beat Raymond Yellow Thunder to death in Gorden, Neb. A ruling of death by suicide causes protests by more than 1,000 Sioux from Pine Ridge Reservation. Officials, forced to perform an autopsy, change their finding to manslaughter; two of the killers are subsequently tried and convicted

1973 – Members of AIM and about 200 armed Oglala Sioux occupy site of the Wounded Knee Massacre on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota for 71 days.

1974
– In Minnesota, the first trial stemming from the occupation of Wounded Knew takes place. In 1975 AIM leaders Dennis Banks and Russell Means are convicted on assault and riot charges. In 1978 Gov. Jerry Brown gives Banks sanctuary in California

1974 - By a 4-to-1 vote, the Commission reached a preliminary decision on the 1968 questions it posed. The Commission first held that the 1942 Court of Claims decision did not bar the Sioux’ Fifth Amendment taking claim through application of the doctrine of res judicata. The Commission concluded that the Court of Claims had dismissed the earlier suit for lack of jurisdiction, and that it had not determined the merits of the Black Hills claim. The Commission then went on to find that Congress, in 1877, had made no effort to give the Sioux full value for the ceded reservation lands. The only new obligation assumed by the Government in exchange for the Black Hills was its promise to provide the Sioux with subsistence rations, an obligation that was subject to several limiting conditions. Under these circumstances, the Commission concluded that the consideration given the Indians in the 1877 Act had no relationship to the value of the property acquired. Moreover, there was no indication in the record that Congress ever attempted to relate the value of the rations to the value of the Black Hills. The Commission concluded that Congress had acted pursuant to its power of eminent domain when it passed the 1877 Act, rather than as a trustee for the Sioux, and that the Government must pay the Indians just compensation for the taking of the Black Hills.

1974
– Indian Claims Commission ruled that the 1877 act constituted an unconstitutional taking of the Black Hills and three rights of way under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment; that the Congress acted pursuant to its power of eminent domain and was required to pay Just Compensation to the Docket 74 Sioux. The ICC then awarded the Docket 74 Sioux $17.1 million for the 7.3 million acres of Black Hills land that the United States confiscated, plus 5 percent simple interest from the time of the taking. The ICC also awarded the Docket 74 Sioux compensation for placer (surface) gold removed by trespassing miners prior to 1877, and for the three rights of way across the reduced Great Sioux Reservation (Sioux Nation v. United States, 33 Ind. Cl. Comm. 151 [1974]). The total award in Docket 74-B was $105 million.

1975 – Shoot-out on Pine Ridge Reservation between AIM members and FBI agents results in the death of two agents. Leonard Peltier is later convicted, a verdict that remains controversial.

1975 – On appeal, the Court of Claims, without deciding the merits, dismissed the Indian Claims Commission’s 1974 final judgment on the basis that the appeal was barred by res judicata since the Black Hills Claim had been previously decided against the Sioux in 1942. The Docket 74 Sioux argued that the earlier dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction, not a dismissal on the merits of their claims.

1975 - The court’s majority recognized that the practical impact of the question presented was limited to a determination of whether or not an award of interest would be available to the Indians. This followed from the Government’s failure to appeal the Commission’s holding that it had acquired the Black Hills through a course of unfair and dishonorable dealing for which the Sioux were entitled to damages, without interest, under §2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Stat. 1050, 25 U.S.C. §70a(5). Only if the acquisition of the Black Hills amounted to an unconstitutional taking would the Sioux be entitled to interest. 207 Ct.Cl., at 237, 518 F.2d, at 1299. The court affirmed the Commission’s holding that a want of fair and honorable dealings in this case was evidenced, and held that the Sioux thus would be entitled to an award of at least $17.5 million for the lands surrendered and for the gold taken by trespassing prospectors prior to passage of the 1877 Act.

The court also remarked upon President Grant’s duplicity in breaching the Government’s treaty obligation to keep trespassers out of the Black Hills, and the pattern of duress practiced by the Government on the starving Sioux to get them to agree to the sale of the Black Hills. The court concluded: “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all probability, be found in our history, which is not, taken as a whole, the disgrace it now pleases some persons to believe.”

1976 – The Indian Claims Commission determined that, as of February 24, 1869, the fair market value of both the recognized title claim (34 million acres) and the aboriginal title claim (14 million acres) in Docket 74-A was $45,685,000.00. This valuation was broken down as follows:

* East of Missouri West of Missouri
* Agricultural $11,135,000 $ 3,790,000
* Grazing $ 9,760,000 $21,000,000
* Total $20,896,000 $24,790,000

See Sioux Tribe v. United States, 38 Ind. Cl. Comm. 485 (1976).

1977 - Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA). This Senate resolution re-established the SCIA. The Committee was originally created in the early nineteenth century, but disbanded in 1946 when Indian affairs legislative and oversight jurisdiction was vested in subcommittees of the Interior and Insular Affairs Commission of the House and Senate. The Committee became permanent in 1984. Its jurisdiction includes studying the unique issues related to Indian and Hawaiian peoples and proposing legislation to deal with such issues – issues which include but are not limited to Indian education, economic development, trust responsibilities, land management, health care, and claims against the US. government.

1977 – Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. The Commission, established in 1975, issued its report in which it called for a firm rejection of assimilationist policies, increased financial assistance to the tribes, and a reaffirmation of the tribes’ status as permanent, self-governing institutions.

1978
– Indian Claims Commission rendered its final decision on the merits, land valuation, and offsets. The matter came before the ICC on a motion filed by the Sioux Tribes for “an order that no offsets, either payments on the claim or gratuities, be deducted” from the award in Docket 74-A (Sioux Nation v. United States, 42 Ind. Cl. Comm. 214 [1978]).

After examining the history behind the Sioux Claim, the ICC found that:

The Indian Peace Commission presented the proposed treaty to the Sioux Bands in a series of councils held in the spring of 1868…..At these councils, after hearing an explanation of the terms of the treaties, the Sioux generally voiced these sentiments;… 2–they were unwilling to cede any of their lands [emphasis added]….

[I]t is clear that, based on the representations of the United States negotiators, the Indians cannot have regarded the 1868 Treaty as a treaty of cession. Nowhere in the history leading up to the treaty negotiations themselves is there any indication that the United States was seeking a land cession or that the Sioux were unwilling to consent to one. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that the Sioux would never have signed the treaty had they thought they were ceding any land to the United States. (Sioux Tribe v. United States, 42 Ind. Cl. Comm. 214 [1978])

1978
– Indian Child Welfare Act. This Congressional Act addressed the widespread practice of transferring the care and custody of Indian children to non-Indians. It recognized the authority of tribal courts to hear the adoption and guardianship cases of Indian children and established a strict set of statutory guidelines for those cases heard in state court. (As of 2009, coerced and forced adoptions of Indian children are rampent)

1978 – American Indian Religious Freedom Act. This Congressional Act promised to “protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise” traditional religions, “including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites.” Although the enactment seemed to recognize the importance of traditional Indian religious practices, it contained no enforcement provisions.

1978 - US v. Wheeler, Supreme Court decision. The Court considered the question of whether the power to punish tribal offenders is “part of inherent tribal sovereignty, or an aspect of the sovereignty of the Federal Government which has been delegated to the tribes by Congress.” He concluded: “The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance. But until Congress acts, the tribes retain their existing sovereign powers. In sum, Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not withdrawn by treaty or statute, or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status.” In short, Indian nations were sovereign, but such sovereignty was limited and subject to Congressional whim.

1978
– Congress passesa special jurisdictional statute allowing the Court of Claims to review the Indian Claims Commission’s 1974 judgment de novo (Act of March 13, 1978 [92 Stat. 153]). The Black Hills Claim (Docket 74-B) was refiled in the Court of Claims under the 1978 jurisdictional statute as 148-78. The parties to Docket 148-78 thereafter stipulated that the Indian Claims Commission’s record in Docket 74-B could be used by the Court of Claims to decide the merits of the Black Hills Claim.

1979 - Court of Claims hearsthe merits of the Black Hills Claim de novo, and affirmed the Indian Claims Commission’s 1974 judgment (United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 220 Ct. Cl. 442, 601 F2d 1157)-

1980 – Court of Claims remanded Docket 74-A to its trial division (United States Claims Court), since the life of the Indian Claims Commission terminated in 1978 and all pending cases in the ICC were transferred to the Court of Claims. The Claims Court determined on remand that the only issue remaining in the case concerned the amount of offsets to be allowed against the $43,949,700 land valuation award. The United States made an offer to the tribal claims attorneys (Lazarus/Sonosky/Payne) in 1978 to settle the offset issue in docket 74-A for $4,200,000. The attorneys accepted the offer with conditions. The conditions were rejected by the United States, but the original offer was left open. The claims attorneys subsequently recommended acceptance of the offer to the Sioux tribes. See Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States, 806 F.2d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Sioux tribes rejected the offer and demanded (among other things) the return of all federal lands to the 48 million acre area.

1980 – Supreme Court affirms the 1979 judgment of the Court of Claims (United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 488 US 371 [1980]). The Docket 74 Sioux were awarded $102 million for Black Hills land ($17.1 million in principle and $85 million in simple interest from 1877 to 1980), and $3 million for the placer gold and three rights of ways. (Note: The Court of Claims subsequently awarded the claims attorneys [Lazarus/Sonosky/Payne] 10 percent of the final $105 million judgment as attorney’s fees.)

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed that the “sale” of the Black Hills had not been conducted legally. It refused, however, to return the land to the Lakota people and ordered them to accept belated financial compensation instead.

The Committee observed: “The facts are, as the Commission found, that the United States disarmed the Sioux and denied them their traditional hunting areas in an effort to force the sale of the Black Hills. Having violated the 1868 Treaty and having reduced the Indians to starvation, the United States should not now be in the position of saying that the rations it furnished constituted payment for the land which it took. In short, the Government committed two wrongs: first, it deprived the Sioux of their livelihood; secondly, it deprived the Sioux of their land. What the United States gave back in rations should not be stretched to cover both wrongs.”

The dissenting opinion suggests, post, at 2750-2751, that the factual findings of the Indian Claims Commission, the Court of Claims, and now this Court, are based upon a “revisionist” view of history. The dissent fails to identify which materials quoted herein or relied upon by the Commission and the Court of Claims fit that description. The dissent’s allusion to historians “writing for the purpose of having their conclusions or observations inserted in the reports of congressional committees,” post, at 2750, is also puzzling because, with respect to this case, we are unaware that any such historian exists.

A further word seems to be in order. The dissenting opinion does not identify a single author, nonrevisionist, neorevisionist, or otherwise, who takes the view of the history of the cession of the Black Hills that the dissent prefers to adopt, largely, one assumes, as an article of faith. Rather, the dissent relies on the historical findings contained in the decision rendered by the Court of Claims in 1942. That decision, and those findings, are not before this Court today. Moreover, the holding of the Court of Claims in 1942, to the extent the decision can be read as reaching the merits of the Sioux’ taking claim, was based largely on the conclusive presumption of good faith toward the Indians which that court afforded to Congress’ actions of 1877.

1980 – Bradley Bill (Senator Bill Bradley, D-NJ). The prime mover behind the Bill was a young Lakota man named Gerald Clifford. Unfortunately, a non-Indian named Phil Stevens (a retired millionaire) claiming to be Sioux from California attempted to introduce a Bill of his own and muddied the waters enough that Bradley withdrew his sponsorship and the Bradley Bill died a quiet death. Under the Bradley Bill the tribes of the Great Sioux Nation would get 1.3 million acres of the 7.5 million acres returned to them. The 1.3 million acres would be strictly U. S. National Forest Service land. No municipalities, no state owned land, no private land or no federal monument lands would have been threatened. Of course, the local media played it to the hilt. “Sioux seek return of the Black Hills” was a common headline. This frightened a lot of non-Indians even though the headline was clearly wrong. Sentiment did turn against the Indians.

In the meantime, South Dakota’s elected officials and the federal government itself believes that all claims to the land were extinguished when the money was awarded. In a way its like telling the Indians, “Here is money for your house and whether you want to sell it or not, here is the money and the house is now ours.”

1982 – Congress abolishes the Indian Court of Claims.

1983 – Dennis Banks, the AIM leader, still under indictment in South Dakota for 1973 Wounded Knee occupation, takes refuge on the Onondaga Reservation in New York State. In 1984 Banks surrenders to officials in South Dakota; he is sentenced to three years in prison

1985 – On February 22, 1985, the Claims Court, without considering the remaining three motions for summary judgment, entered an order implementing the government’s settlement offer of $39,749,000 as its final judgment and terminated Docket 74-A (Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 80 [1985]). The court concluded that Docket 74-A had become “an uncontrolled quagmire” and that “[t]he simple fact that four of the reservation tribes are refusing to accept any settlement or award of this court, which does not include the return of their land, is indicative of the plaintiffs [sic] refusal to comprehend, after 35 years of litigation, that this Court can only award money judgments.”

1987 – Senator Bradley reintroduced the “Bradley Bill” as S. 705 in the One Hundredth Congress. A Companion bill H.R. 1506, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman James Howard of New Jersey. No hearings were held on S. 705 or HR 1506.

1990 - Congressman Matthew Martinez of California introduced the Black Hills Bill (HR 5680) developed by the Grey Eagle Society in the One Hundred and First Congress. The bill was an amended version of the Bradley Bill, S. 705. The bill was referred to the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. No hearing was held on the bill. Congressman Martinez was also one of the cosponsors of the House version of the Bradley Bill (HR 1506) in 1987.

1994 – President Clinton invites leaders of all 547 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska native tribes to the White House, the first-ever meeting of its kind. Tribal leaders and U.S. officials identify issues for follow-up conferences.

1996 – Congressman Bill Barrett of Nebraska introduced HR 3595 in the US House of Representatives. The bill proposed to pay out the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska’s “proportionate share” of Docket 74-A.

A Hearing was held on HR 3595 on August 1, 1996, before the Resources Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. Congressman Barrett and Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman Arthur “Butch” Denny submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Deborah J. Maddox, director of the Office of Tribal Services, US Department of the Interior, submitted written testimony indicating that the Interior Department had no position on the bill “because it affected eight other tribes.”

Johnson Holy Rock of the Oglala Sioux Tribe submitted written testimony on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe opposing the bill, and testified against the bill at the hearing. Others testifying at the hearing against the bill were John Yellowbird Steele, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Greg Bourland, Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; and William Kindle, President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The bill died in Committee.

1998 – Docket 74-A: The larger Sioux tribes continue to reject the cram down of the final $40,245,807.02 judgment in Docket 74-A, demanding instead that the United States return all federal lands to the Sioux tribes in the 48 million acre area.

Docket 74-B: The Anti Indian forces in South Dakota (such as the Open hills Association organized by Senator Tom Daschle) still continue to oppose land restoration proposals to settle Docket 74-B.

As of April 8, 1998, the total award for both the 1868 Treaty claim (Docket 74-A) and the Black Hills Claim (Docket 74-B, aka Docket 148-78), according to the US Department of Interior’s Division of Trust Fund Services, is as follows:

1. Docket 74-A……………. $67,073,267.88

2. Docket 148-78……….. $473,161,163.29

Total…………………………. $540,234,431.17

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1974, p. 6115. See also R. Billington, Introduction, in National Park Service, Soldier and Brave xiv (1963):

The Indians suffered the humiliating defeats that forced them to walk the white man’s road toward civilization. Few conquered people in the history of mankind have paid so dearly for their defense of a way of life that the march of progress had outmoded . . . In three tragic decades, between 1860 and 1890, the Indians suffered the humiliating defeats that forced them to walk the white man’s road toward civilization. Few conquered people in the history of mankind have paid so dearly for their defense of a way of life that the march of progress had outmoded. This epic struggle left its landmarks behind, as monuments to the brave men, Indian and white, who fought and died that their manner of living might endure.

2000
– Head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs admits to crimes, “Remarks of Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary–Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the Ceremony Acknowledging the 175th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Full text at Web site: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED445851&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED445851

Immediately upon its establishment in 1824, the Office of Indian Affairs was an instrument by which the United States enforced its ambition against the Indian nations. As the nation expanded West, the agency participated in the ethnic cleansing that befell the western tribes. War begets tragedy, but the deliberate spread of disease, the decimation of the bison herds, the use of alcohol to destroy mind and body, and the cowardly killing of women and children made for tragedy on a scale so ghastly that it cannot be dismissed as merely the inevitable consequence of the clash of competing ways of life. After the devastation of tribal economies, the BIA set out to destroy all things Indian by forbidding the speaking of Indian languages, prohibiting traditional religious activities, outlawing traditional government, and making Indians ashamed of who they were. Worst of all, the BIA committed these acts against the children entrusted to its boarding schools. The trauma of shame, fear, and anger has passed from one generation to the next, and manifests itself in the rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence that plague Indian country. The BIA expresses its profound sorrow for these wrongs, extends this formal apology to Indian people for its historical conduct, and makes promises for its future conduct. (TD)

2007 – Unilateral withdrawal of the Lakotah from the Treaties of 1851 and 1868 as permitted under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of which, the United States is a signatory.

Lakotah Unilateral Withdrawal

January 24, 2009 by  
Filed under Media, News

VIEW a television interview about this withdrawal

Lakotah Unilateral Withdrawal from All Agreements and Treaties with the United States of America

We as the freedom loving Lakotah People are the predecessor sovereign of Dakota Territory as evidenced by the Treaties with the United States Government, including, but not limited to, the Treaty of 1851 and the Treaty of 1868 at Fort Laramie.

Lakotah, formally and unilaterally withdraws from all agreements and treaties imposed by the United States Government on the Lakotah People. Lakotah , and the population therein, have waited for at least 155 years for the United States of America to adhere to the provisions of the above referenced treaties. The continuing violations of these treaties’ terms have resulted in the near annihilation of our people physically, spiritually, and culturally. Lakotah rejects United States Termination By Appropriation policy from 1871 to the present.

In addition, the evidence of gross violations of the above referenced treaties are listed herein. Lakotah encourages the United States of America, through its Government, to enter into dialogue with Lakotah regarding the boundaries, the land and the resources therein. Please contact the Republic of Lakotah at (605) 867-1111 or info@republicoflakotah.com.

Should the United States and its subordinate governments choose not to act in good faith concerning the rebirth of our nation, we hereby advise the United States Government that Lakotah will begin to administer liens against real estate transactions within the five state area of Lakotah.

Lakotah, through its government, appointed the following representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties entered into force in 1980 and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007:

Teghiya Kte Canupa
Heretofore known as Gary Rowland

Gluha Mani
Heretofore known as Duane Martin Sr.

Oyate Wacinyapin
Heretofore know as Russell Means

Mni yuha Najin Win
Heretofore known as Phyllis Young

Political and Diplomatic Relations with the United States of America

The first official contacts between Lakotah and the government of the United States of America began in earnest after the United States conducted a commercial transaction with France, commonly known as the Louisiana Purchase, in1803. Prior to that time, Lakotah exercised complete and unfettered freedom and independence in their territory. According to the fantasy of United States’ history, the Louisiana Purchase was a purported sale by France to the United States of 530 million acres (2.1 million sq.km.) for $15 million. Part of this sale included the territory of Lakotah who, of course never had knowledge of, nor gave consent to, the sale of their national territory.

The first treaty between the U.S. and any segment of Lakotah occurred in 1805, and various other treaties of “peace and friendship,” between Lakotah and the U.S. As citizens of the U.S. began to invade and encroach on the territory of Lakotah in increasing numbers, tensions and violence erupted. To prevent full-scale war, the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was requested by the U.S., to allow a transportation route through Lakotah territory. The treaty did not impair the sovereignty or the independence of Lakotah. In fact, the treaty expressly recognized Lakotah as an independent nation, and the treaty respected “all national business” of Lakotah.

After repeated violations by the United States of the 1851 Treaty, warfare broke out between Lakotah and the U.S. Lakotah defeated the U.S. in the so-called “Red Cloud War,” leading to the U.S. to call for another treaty conference at Fort Laramie. The second treaty agreed for the U.S. to abandon the Bozeman Road, and the accompanying military forts that had been built along it, and promised to keep U.S. troops and settlers out of Lakotah territory. Almost immediately, the U.S. began violating terms of the treaty, allowing railroad and
mining interests to trespass and steal Lakotah resources and territory. In 1874, the infamous U.S. military commander, George Custer, led an invasion of the most sacred part of Lakotah territory, the Paha Sapa (Black Hills), prompting an invasion of gold seekers, and provoking another war between the U.S. and Lakotah. As a result of the war, Lakotah territory was illegally occupied by the U.S., and billions of dollars of natural resources have been stolen from the occupied territories of Lakotah.

The United States has engaged in multiple military, legal and political strategies for more than a century to deny Lakotah our right to freedom and self-determination. In 1876-77, in violations of the treaties that it had signed with Lakotah, the U.S. engaged in a sell-or-starve policy to coerce Lakotah to sell our national
homeland. Lakotah refused, and has consistently refused to the present time.

In 1871, the U.S. decided no longer to enter into treaties with indigenous nations, but the U.S. treaty-ending legislation made explicit that the new policy of the United States would in no way impair or limit those treaties already in force between indigenous nations and the U.S. Lakotah have consistently relied on the sanctity of the treaty between the U.S. and Lakotah.

As mentioned above, the United States has consistently violated the treaties between Lakotah and the U.S., resulting in the loss of life, resources, and territory for Lakotah. Although the United States was willing to take the benefit of its bargain (i.e., territory and natural resources) in signing treaties with Lakotah, it was almost immediately unwilling to respect the mutual bargain to the Lakotah. The U.S. began to use U.S. law and policy to attempt to diminish the political, economic and cultural freedom of Lakotah. After signing the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, the U.S. allowed its military, and its civilian citizens to invade Lakotah territory to steal gold, silver and other natural resources. The U.S. unilaterally violated the 1868 Treaty throughout the 1870s and 1880s by coercing alterations in the Treaty onto Lakotah, without the required 2/3 agreement of Lakotah, as required in the Treaty.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the ongoing freedom and independence of Lakotah in the landmark case of Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), two years later, the U.S. Congress attempted to steal Lakotah independence through the passage of the Major Crimes Act, that unilaterally extended U.S. criminal jurisdiction into Lakotah territory.

These actions were followed by more arrogant actions of the United States, culminating in the shocking Supreme Court Case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903). Although Lone Wolf involved the Kiowa and Comanche Nations in what is now the State of Oklahoma, its impact adversely affected Lakotah. In Lone Wolf, the United States not only said that it could violate, change or abrogate treaties with Indian nations unilaterally, but it also said that the U.S. Congress possesses plenary (absolute) power to legislate in any way in indigenous affairs without the consent or consideration of indigenous nations.

By extension, Lone Wolf has been used to violate hundreds of treaties between the U.S. and indigenous peoples, including Lakotah. Through the operation of Lone Wolf, the U.S. stole the sacred Black Hills, allowed the mining of billions of dollars of gold from them, admitted that the Black Hills were taken in violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, and then offered to compensate Lakotah at 1874 land values. Lakotah have, to
this day, rejected the offer of payment, and continue to insist on the return of the Paha Sapa (Black Hills).
An overview of violations follows:

• Homestead Acts
• Allotment Acts
• Citizenship Act forcing United States citizenship upon all American Indians
• Indian Reorganization Act a.k.a. Howard Wheeler Act (the first Apartheid Act)
• Forced relocation during the decades of the 1950’s over the 1960’s.
• Supreme Court decision disallowing our religions.
• Even though we are citizens of the United States of America, we are denied
protections of the United States Constitution while living on Indian reservations, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The operation of the United States in the nefarious ways outlined above are a violation, not only of the sovereignty and independence of Lakotah, not only of the solemn treaty signed between the U.S. and Lakotah, but it is a violation of the fundamental law of the United States itself. Article Six of the United States Constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the United States are the supreme law of the land, and must be respected by every court and by every lawmaker, as such.

Referenced Documents
1. Treaties of Fort Laramie, 1851 and 1868

2. Article VI of United States Constitution

Article. VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under
the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

3. Vienna Convention on Treaties 1969; specifically Article 49,
Article 60 Parts I and II
Article 49- Fraud
If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct govern questions not regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows:

PART I INTRODUCTION
Article 1
Scope of the present Convention
The present Convention applies to treaties between States.
Article 2
Use of terms
1. For the purposes of the present Convention:
(a) ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;
(b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;
(c) ‘full powers’ means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect
to a treaty;
(d) ‘reservation’ means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State;
(e) ‘negotiating State’ means a State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty;
(f) ‘contracting State’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force;
(g) ‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;
(h) ‘third State’ means a State not a party to the treaty;
(i) ‘international organization’ means an intergovernmental organization.

Article 60
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as aground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in
whole or in part or to terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or
(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the
operation of the
treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.
3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.
5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in
treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.
4. United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights 2007;
specifically Article 37
Article 37
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honor and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
5. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)

Note: Lakotah precludes all litigation and political intrusions not relevant to Lakotah.

FBI Attacks on American Indians Continues!

January 15, 2009 by  
Filed under News

FBI Attacks on American Indians Continues!

(using racism and hatred as a tool to convict)

We must put a stop to this decades-long unlawful prosecution!

PLEA FOR ATTORNEYS: Marshall’s court-appointed defense attorney, Dana Hanna, is a babe-in-the-woods when it comes to such a high-profile political case. Marshall desperately needs qualified counsel that understands the methodology of political trials.

US Government Continues to Attack Innocent American Indians by Utilizing the Now Defunct American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) to Fan the Flames of Racism in the Heart of the Republic of Lakotah (Now Known as the State of South Dakota)

Anna Mae Aquash (b. Indian Brook, Nova Scotia, Canada, March 27, 1945; d. mid-December 1975) was a Mi’kmaq activist from Nova Scotia, Canada who became one of the most active and prominent female members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the early 1970s.

After nearly three decades of dormancy, law enforcement attempts to “solve” the murder of Aquash recently resumed.

Murder:

On February 24, 1976, Aquash was found dead by the side of State Road 73 on the far northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Reservation, about 10 miles from Wanblee, South Dakota, close to Kadoka. Her body was found during an unusually warm spell in late February, 1976 by a rancher, Roger Amiotte.

FBI’s Initial Coverup:

At the Pine Ridge morgue, a doctor and nurse found blood on the woman’s head. However, BIA pathologist Dr. W. O. Brown, described the case as “awfully routine,” reported no blood, and concluded the woman had died from “exposure” two weeks earlier, in early February. On FBI instructions, Brown severed the victim’s hands for later identification and approved a burial.

“It was the darndest thing I ever saw,” said mortician Tom Chamberlain, “an unidentified corpse buried without a death certificate or burial permit.” On March 3, 1976, the anonymous body rested in a pauper’s grave on Pine Ridge. On that day, the FBI identified the dead woman as 30-year-old Anna Mae Aquash from Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia, a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM). The Bureau notified the Pictou family in Canada that Anna Mae had died “by natural causes.”

The family requested another autopsy, and AIM lawyer Bruce Ellison petitioned the FBI to exhume the body. On March 11, Dr. Garry Peterson examined the corpse, noticed “a bulge in the dead woman’s left temple and dry blood in her hair,” and revealed the actual cause of death: a .32 calibre bullet “shot at close range into the back of her head.”

FBI Blames AIM for the Murder:

The story itself raises many obvious questions, including:

* Why would an AIM “hit squad” take Aquash, in the presence of so many witnesses, from one city to another, across two states, to several apartments and a defense office (more than likely under surveillance), then execute her?

If the FBI seriously considered the death of Aquash to have been carried out by AIM in 1976, we can be sure vast amounts of resources would have been devoted to this case at that time. Instead, the FBI attempted to cover it up!

There are many theories about who may have been behind the murder of Anna Mae. John Trudell fingers Dennis Banks, stating in both the 1976 Butler and Robideau trial and the Looking Cloud trial that Banks told him about the killing before the body had been identified.  In Dennis Banks’ autobiography, Ojibwa Warrior, he states that he was informed by John Trudell that the body that had been found was Annie Mae. Banks states that he did not know until that time that Aquash had been killed.

The FBI’s version is that Aquash was taken from a house in Denver, Colorado, by Graham, Looking Cloud, and Thelda Clarke. She was then driven to various offices & apartments in Rapid City, S. Dakota. One of these included the legal offices of the Wounded Knee defense committee. From there, she was taken to houses on Pine Ridge, then executed on a desolate road near Wanblee, on or around Dec. 12, 1975 (where her body was found two months later).

According to the FBI, Aquash was suspected of being an informant and had sensitive info related to the Oglala shoot-out. Because of this, she had to be killed.

Looking Cloud’s video-taped statement reflects the FBI’s version of events, except in one important detail: according to Looking Cloud, he did not know what was occurring until moments before John Graham took her out of the car and shot her.

The FBI’s version of events has always been based on rumors within AIM that Anna Mae was a suspected informant. Candy Hamilton, a friend of Aquash, reports that it was common for people to be suspected of being an informant at this time.

Over the years, many people had in fact informed or gave evidence to police. It is a common practice of police and the FBI to use informants & collaborators. In 1975, Douglas Durham was exposed as an FBI infiltrator who worked at the highest levels within AIM.

_________________________

History of the Prosecution’s Grand Juries

US Marshal Robert Ecoffey has played a prominent role in resurrecting the investigation. Ecoffey got his start in law enforcement as a GOON in the 1970s, and he participated in the Oglala shoot-out. In the 1990s, after becoming the first Native US Marshal in history, Ecoffey resurrected the Aquash murder investigation and followed FBI claims that AIM was responsible. Ecoffey and Denver, Colorado, Detective Abe Alonzo spent years visiting and questioning Looking Cloud about the murder.

During these years, the Government, through Alonzo, gave Looking Cloud immunity and  tried to turn him into prosecution witness.  It was only after this immunity expired that Looking Hawk was indicted.

After nearly three decades of dormancy, law enforcement attempts to “solve” the murder of Aquash recently resumed, with a surprising number of former AIM members accepting and promoting the FBI’s version of events. There is no credible evidence linking either man to the crime, and their prosecution seems like nothing more than an effort to destroy what little remains of AIM.

Five federal grand juries have been convened into her death in March of 1976 in Pierre, S.D., November of 1983 in Sioux Falls, S.D., August 1994 in Pierre and again in Sioux Falls on November 17, 1999. In the fourth Grand Jury, Russell Means testified that Vernon Bellecourt, now deceased, and a former spokesperson for his own Intergalactic American Indian Movement wherein he purportedly was the Grand Poupa of AIM, was the person who ordered the murder.

After 29 years, the FBI, blatantly ignoring both Trudell’s 1976  testimony, and his testimony in the Looking Cloud trial, was turned away by grand juries in 1976, 1983, 1994, and 1999.  Not a fifth grand jury was convened in March, 2003 did the U.S. Attorney for South Dakota finally get indictments against Arlo Looking Cloud and John Graham.

In August 2008, a federal grand jury indicted a third man, Vine Richard “Dick” Marshall, with aiding and abetting the murder. It is alleged that Graham, Looking Cloud and Clark had taken Anna Mae to Marshall’s house where she was held just prior to her being driven to her death.

Looking Cloud is an Oglala Lakota and a father of two. He also has serious substance abuse problems that were exploited by Ecoffey and Alonzo during their investigation. In March 2003, in an alleged confession video-taped by Ecoffey, Looking Cloud admitted to being under the influence of alcohol. Alonzo then fed him leading questions, and Looking Cloud slurred contradictory answers. He allegedly confessed that he had been the unwitting accomplice in Aquash’s execution by AIM. He stated that he witnessed Graham take her to the edge of a ravine and shoot her in the back of the head.

The Looking Cloud Trial

On February 8, 2004 Arlo Looking Cloud was tried before a U.S. federal jury and five days later was found guilty. While the prosecution called 23 witnesses, his government appointed lawyer called only one, an FBI agent!  NO no physical evidence linking Looking Cloud to the crime was presented

During the trial , government witnesses gave conflicting testimony, including that of an admitted informant: Kamook Banks (former wife of AIM leader Dennis Banks). Under cross-examination, Kamook revealed she was paid $42,000 by the FBI to wear wiretaps & record meetings with Looking Cloud, Banks, & others.

Despite requests to change lawyers, the judge has consistently denied this basic right. Although he entered a plea of not guilty, his video-taped confession from April/03 was not challenged by his lawyer!

Although, a videotape was shown in which Looking Cloud admits to being at the scene of the murder but claims that he was unaware that Aquash was going to be killed. In that video, in which Looking Cloud is interviewed by Detective Abe Alonzo of the Denver Police Department and Robert Ecoffey, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, taped on March 27, 2003, he states that Graham was the triggerman.

Graham adamantly denies any involvement in the death of Anna Mae. He claims that the U.S. government threatened to name him as the murderer of Anna Mae if he “didn’t co-operate”. Claiming that he last saw Annie Mae on a drive that took them from Denver to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where he left her at a “safe house” (in his own words, in an interview with Antoinette Nora Claypoole), Graham explains why he believes he is being charged as her murderer:

“…in the mid-80s or sometime about there.
The FBI showed up at my home in the Yukon, and asked me all kinds of questions about Anna Mae and the death. They were trying to say I was there, or I knew about it, or I was aware of it. And I had to tell them I wasn’t aware, I wasn’t around there and I wasn’t involved in her killing at all.
And they wanted me to name leadership that would have given the order to that effect, to kill Anna Mae. And they were trying to tell me they would put me in the witness protection program, they would change my identity, they would relocate me if I would go to testify in front of the federal Grand Jury in South Dakota against the AIM leadership.
So I told them I couldn’t do that because it never happened.
I never, ever received orders of any kind like that from any of the AIM leadership. And so I wouldn’t do it; I wouldn’t cooperate with them.
And they left. Then they came back a year or so later and said…. if I didn’t cooperate with them to put this information on the AIM leadership, then I would be facing all these charges myself.”

During this interrogation, Looking Cloud states that he is still under the influence of alcohol; the FBI not only continue to ask him questions, they get him to sign statements!

Looking Cloud was denied the right to choose his own lawyer. During his trial, every witness for the prosecution presented AIM in the most negative light possible, and they contradicted each other in their testimonies. Many people could have been called as defense witnesses, to testify that Aquash had been afraid of the FBI, not AIM. But the defense called only one witness—FBI Agent Price! He was questioned for 10 minutes on Aquash and whether she was an FBI informant.

Looking Cloud’s lawyer made few motions and did not challenge Ecoffey and Alonzo’s manipulation of his client. Looking Cloud was not allowed to take the stand to defend himself; all that was shown was the videotaped interview that he had given.

Due to an “unfortunate accident,” Denver police claim to have lost these critical recordings; the only evidence given was hearsay based on alleged conversations with Looking Cloud over the years. One of these government witnesses was former AIM leader John Trudell!

A large focus of the trial did not even concern Looking Cloud, but instead AIM & the case of Leonard Peltier. In a Feb. 7th news release, Peltier’s lawyer Barry Bachrach stated:

“Who was on trial? The majority of the testimony presented had nothing whatsoever to do with Arlo Looking Cloud, but prominent members of the American Indian Movement. There was not one iota of proof presented to support many witnesses’ “beliefs”. And for every witness presented, there are any number of other individuals who could be called to appear and who would tell very different stories.”

Arlo Looking Cloud now claims that, over the years, the FBI & police would periodically pick him up and feed him drugs & alcohol while indoctrinating him with their version of events.

On April 23, 2004 he was given a mandatory sentence of life in prison.


South Dakota in the Early 70s

AIM first came to South Dakota when a call was made for outside help to get serious convictions against white men responsible for a racially motivated murder that took place in a Nebraska border town. A Lakota man had been publicly humiliated and later murdered by 2 white brothers. Disinterested law officials didn’t have the time of day to bother to investigate the death of an Indian. Angry Lakotas and AIM members caravanned to the Nebraska border, only miles away from Pine Ridge, and confronted the law officials.

The sight of hundreds of angry Indians, shocked law officials and they immediately caved in to their demands. A year later, a young man was murdered by a rich white businessman, who had told people that he was “gonna go kill himself an Indian.” A riot occurred at the Custer courthouse because police beat the mother of the victim. The riot lasted over an hour, and 2 cop cars were overturned, and the vacant building beside the courthouse was torched.

U.S. Government’s Motive to Grab Resources

Thirty years after the death of Aquash, the US government has renewed its war against the last remnants of AIM. As in the 1970s, this attack is only part of a larger war to gain control over Native lands and resources.

In 1975, with his control of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota secured by force, Tribal President Wilson set about ceding uranium-rich areas of the sacred Black Hills to the federal government. AIM assisted in protecting Pine Ridge’s traditional families from the constant onslaught of violence, which culminated in the AIM occupation and government siege of Wounded Knee in the Spring of 1973. From 1973 to 1976, the people of Pine Ridge lived under the “Reign of Terror”—more than 76 Natives, mainly traditional Lakotah and AIM members, were murdered, primarily by,, Wilson’s goons, a term coined by the elderly women who protested against them.  Later,  in a perverse play on words, the goons called themselves,  “Guardians of the Oglala Nation” (GOONs).

In response the Wilson and his GOONs, AIM launched a campaign to protect people.

On June 26, 1975—while Wilson was in Washington, DC, signing away an eighth of the reservation—the FBI launched an attack on an AIM camp at Pine Ridge. The US was dealt a humiliating blow—two FBI agents lost their lives. Although Joe Stuntz Killsright, a Native warrior, was killed in the shoot-out, an estimated 40 Native men, women and children escaped.

In extreme rage, the FBI violently harassed Lakota families. They drafted a list of people that they suspected were present at the shoot-out, and they blamed Leonard Peltier, Bob Robideau, Dino Butler and Jimmy Eagle for killing the agents. The four young men went on the run. Butler and Robideau were eventually arrested, tried and acquitted by an all-white jury, so the FBI targeted Peltier for the “murder” of the agents. Of course, there has never been an investigation into Stuntz Killsright’s death.

FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) Directly Targets AIM and Its Members

Press Release
September 24, 2006

“REP. McKINNEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO RE-OPEN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS INTO COINTELPRO PAST AND PRESENT

(Washington, DC) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA 4^th ) has introduced legislation calling for a re-opening of the investigations of the 1970′s by the United States Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities chaired by Senator Frank Church which led to startling revelations concerning federal, state and local intelligence and law enforcement agency violations of Constitutional rights of privacy, limits on search and seizure, surveillance, wiretapping and disruption of dissent and protected activities, and massive collection of dossiers by FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, Defense Intelligence Agencies and other local agencies, targeting the civil rights, Native American and anti-war movements of the period and “neutralizing” their leadership and discrediting the efforts for social change over decades.

The most infamous of these abuses was the FBI’s COINTELPRO operations, or counter intelligence program…, Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, there were immediate calls to renew COINTELPRO-style surveillance, go to Continuity of Government, release intelligence agencies from the restrictions of the Church Committee era laws (which included the establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to pre-approve Presidential surveillance programs), calls to end the principle of Posse Comitatus, which separates police and military functions, and renewed surveillance and disruption by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and by certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT…”

The US made its first violent attack against AIM in 1973, in what became known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Takeover. Natives had been conducting a peaceful protest outside the BIA headquarters in Washington, DC, when they were attacked by riot police. In response, the Natives barricaded themselves inside the building, smashed up offices and took top-secret documents. These documents proved that the government was illegally handing out reservation land, water and mineral rights to corporations.

At this time, Aquash was “snitch-jacketed” by the FBI. This tactic of the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) undermined valuable members of a group by casting them in suspicious situations. Wherever Aquash went, arrests would follow. She’d be released, while other AIM members were slapped with charges and high bail. In September 1975, FBI Agent David Price attempted to force her to sign an affidavit implicating Peltier for the murder of the two FBI agents. She refused to cooperate, and Price promised her that she wouldn’t live to see the year’s end.

Aquash went underground, turning to AIM for protection and putting her fears of the FBI in writing. In late February, her body was found outside of Wanbli, on Pine Ridge. Four FBI agents joined the “investigation,” including Price. They cut off her hands for “fingerprint analysis,” and despite the visible bullet hole in the back of her head, they determined that the cause of her death was exposure. They quickly arranged for her to be buried as a Jane Doe. After this cover-up came to light, the FBI released a statement announcing that Aquash was not a government informant. As intended, this statement insinuated that AIM might have believed Aquash to be an informant and murdered her.

Through Dickie Wilson, the corrupt Tribal President of Pine Ridge, the FBI established a paramilitary group made up of local boys who called themselves the Guardians of Oglala Nation (goons).

The FBI trained and supplied the goons with bullets, guns and intelligence on AIM. Indians began to arm themselves for protection against the onslaught of assaults, torched houses, and hit and runs, and drive-by shootings. Only years later, did it become clear to Indians why the FBI reacted so brutally to the bold assertions Lakotas were making in the districts of Pine Ridge.

Unknown at that time, the US had an eye on developing uranium mining on a portion of the sacred Black Hills, and an area known as Sheep Mountain. This area has proven to be one of the richest in uranium deposits in the US. The FBI implemented their counterintellegence operation in Pine Ridge in order to weaken and destroy the urban Indian movement, and to subjugate the traditional Lakotas once and for all. The FBI Counterintellegence Program (COINTELPRO), targets political groups that are viewed as a threat to national security.

Often these groups were fighting oppression, systemic racism, and were attempting to make things better for their people. This program discredits organizations, and its’ members through media smears. Infiltrators staged many scandals that put AIM in a bad light to weaken their popularity and wide-support.

COINTELPRO has lethal consequences, as any means necessary can be used to thwart the enemy. This is why so many AIM members have been criminalized, imprisoned, or outright murdered as a result of this FBI program.  Also the once powerful and beautiful movement became riddled with FBI informers, and infiltrators. As the violence escalated, the paranoia and suspicion grew. The FBI put trustworthy AIM leaders in situations that made them look suspicious, which the FBI call snitch jacketing, or bad jacketing. Soon, it was hard for people to tell the difference between whom they could trust, and who was working with the feds.

The FBI officially and publicly ended its COINTELPRO operations on April 28, 1971. But FBI documents obtained by NFIC from the FBI Reading Room in the capital indicate that in November of 1973 the FBI continued “COINTEL measures to further disrupt AIM leadership” which it had employed in its discredited former counterintelligence program. There is also ample evidence that many of the actions by the FBI in the 1970′s across the country where less then lawful.

Trial Scheduled for February 24, 2009

By Heidi Bell Gease, Journal staff | Tuesday, January 13, 2009

“The attorney for Richard “Dickie” Marshall, one of two men charged with killing American Indian Movement activist Annie Mae Aquash in 1975, has asked that the trial be moved back two months.

Marshall, 57, and John Graham, 52, are to go on trial Feb. 24 in U.S. District Court in Rapid City. Both men are charged with first-degree murder.

On Monday, Marshall’s defense attorney, Dana Hanna, filed a motion for continuance, saying he needs more time to prepare for the trial.

Hanna said he had read more than 5,000 pages of case background information provided by the federal government but has not reviewed those documents with his client. He also said he needs but has not received copies of the more than 100 audio cassette tapes produced during the investigation.

Hanna’s motion also states that the government has refused to provide records or information concerning other AIM-related events during the 1970s that could come into play during the trial.

“I require more time to locate and interview witnesses, gather records, subpoena evidence, research legal issues and to investigate the case,” Hanna wrote.

Marshall was indicted last August, more than 32 years after Aquash’s body was found on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in February 1976. She had been shot in the head.

Marshall and Graham would face life in prison if convicted. A third man charged in the case, Arlo Looking Cloud, was convicted of murder after a 2004 trial and is serving a life sentence.”

We must put a stop to this decades-long unlawful prosecution.  As in previous cases, the prosecution will try this case before an all-white jury using racial bias and fabricated evidence to further it’s centuries-old campaign to wipe out every trace of the once great Lakotah people.

URGENT – Stop Black Hills Uranium Mining

January 12, 2009 by  
Filed under News

For the past two years we have been asking that letters be sent to South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds requesting a moratorium on further uranium development until the old mines are cleaned up. He has always replied in the negative. Therefore we are now approaching the South Dakota legislature who is starting their sessions in Pierre, SD.
Enclosed are two form letters addressed to Representatives Hunhoff and Lange. The facts in the form letters are based on studies and research. It would greatly help these two representatives if they could approach their colleagues with hundreds of letters asking for a moratorium on further uranium development. Please make copies of the enclosed letters and have your friends and relatives sign them, then send them immediately to Bernie Hunhoff and Gerry Lange. Let’s get as many letters to them as possible. Anyone living anywhere can send a letter because the uranium is used all over the world in power plants or weapons.
If you live in South Dakota, it would also help if you would send a similar letter, or group of letters, to your own state Senator or Representative as well as these letter to Hunhoff and Lange. Letters to the Editor of South Dakota newspapers are also needed. Please also consider sending a letter to the editor encouraging a moratorium on further nuclear development in SD.
Together, we can all make our environment safe from nuclear radiation by starting at where the nuclear cycle starts with the exploration and mining.

Thank you.
Charmaine White Face, Coordinator

Freedom Opportunities

January 3, 2009 by  
Filed under Culture

Freedom Opportunities: (Mostly Volunteer Positions)

  • Web / Administrative Assistant, room and board
  • E-Commerce familiar or able to learn ZenCart, room and board + profit sharing
  • Construction Contractor, room and board + profit sharing
  • Physician for Health Clinic – 3rd Party Building

Apply for Our Summer Construction Projects:

To Apply, E-mail David Grefrath at treatyschoolbuild@gmail.com

  • First we need and R.O.L. “champion” out there in cyberspace to act as a project coordinator.
  • Send your resume to info@republicoflakotah.com
  • We will be finishing the construction of the T.R.E.A.T.Y. Total Immersion School as well as building a prototype of compressed earth, sustainable house made from the local volcanic ash.
  • We will need carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters, excavators (septic system), solar technicians, wind turbine technicians, cooks, labors, architects, engineers.
  • Bring your own tent and food. We’ll supply a cook tent with a propane stove.
  • Currently, we are looking at early May through late August for these projects.

Update on Disaster Declaration

November 19, 2008 by  
Filed under Humanitarian Relief, News


Three elders all found safe:

  1. Sofia Romero, age 98
  2. Emme Zimiga, age 96
  3. Amanda Milk, age 80

    How to Send Relief Aid

    November 10, 2008 by  
    Filed under Humanitarian Relief, News

    1. Food and NEW Clothing can be sent to:

    RELIEF AT T.R.E.A.T.Y. SCHOOL, a 501(C)(3) Tax Exempt Organization

    P.O. BOX 99, 444 Crazy Horse Drive, Porcupine, SD 57772

    2. Republic of Lakotah Emergency Propane for the Elderly:

    can be purchased directly from Lakotah Plains Propane via Mastercard/Visa at: 605-867-5199 . Via mail to P.O. Box 1994, Pine Ridge, SD 57770

    3. Send Contributions of Relief Aid to Republic of Lakotah Humanitarian Relief


    STATE OF EMERGENCY

    November 8, 2008 by  
    Filed under Humanitarian Relief, News

    INTERNATIONAL DISASTER DECLARATION

    info@republicoflakotah.com, 605-867-1025

    RE: Oglala Sioux Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
    STATE OF EMERGENCY

    Governor Michael Rounds of South Dakota has declared the State a disaster area. However, Indian Reservations are NOT included in the declaration.

    I, Russell Means, due to the total absence of Tribal Government and its leadership, and as candidate for Tribal President and Chief Facilitator of the Republic of Lakotah, am declaring an INTERNATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY.

    The reason for this declaration is two-fold: 1) The current life-threatening severe weather conditions and 2) The ongoing genocidal policies of the United States Government that still remain unaddressed:

    • Unknown thousands are still stranded by high snow drifts for 3rd straight day.
    • Unknown number of people without heat and/or electricity.
    • Impassable road conditions preventing emergency services and propane deliveries.
    • Confirmed fatality due to inability to get to dialysis treatment. Status of other dialysis patients is unknown.
    • Second fatality bled to death due to no emergency services.
    • Tribal President Steele and Vice President Brewer