Michigan Indian

Indian Families and Peyote

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the Leelanau Enterprise:  “Leelanau County Family Court Judge Joseph E. Deegan last week ordered that the parents of three children who are members of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians must refrain from giving their children hallucinogenic peyote as part of Native American religious rituals.”

This appears to be an emerging issue in Michigan and perhaps elsewhere. Naturally, these cases arise when the families split and custody and visitation questions are decided in court. Interestingly, because there is relatively little trust land in Michigan, I would imagine that few (if any) of these cases are heard in tribal court. I wonder if the outcomes would be different.

Larry Plamondon and the “Keith Case”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We had the pleasure of hearing the story of Larry Plamondon, a member of the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians, who was the defendant in the famous “Keith Case,” known in the U.S. Reporter as United States v. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). The “Keith Case” was announced by the Court on June 19, 1972 — two days after the famous Watergate burglary.

Here’s how Larry tells it in his memoir, “Lost From the Ottawa: The Story of the Journey Back.”

“Though I didn’t know it at the time this Supreme Court decision and the Watergate break-in were connected. Years later it was explained to me.

“It went down like this: The Justices decided the Supreme Court wiretap issue on Friday the 16th of June. According to Court rules the decision was to be kept secret until it was released by the Court [–] in this case, the following Monday. However, someone at the High Court (Rehnquist, or his clerk?) notified the White House and informed them the wiretap issue had been lost.

“This meant that any wiretaps installed by the Executive branch, or its agents, or Nixon’s re-election committee would be illegal on Monday, the 19th, when the ruling was made public. The Watergate burglars were sent in to the Democratic National Headquarters to retrieve the electronic listening devices on Saturday, the 18th of June, before the Monday release of the decision made warrantless wiretaps unconstitutional. The rest, as they say, sucks.”

Plamondon at 276.

I haven’t been able to find (in my ten minutes of research) whether or not anyone other than Larry and a couple conspiracy theorists have made this serious claim. If Rehnquist, who sat out the Keith case deliberations because he was personally involved in the prosecution of Larry Plamondon, or one of his clerks, called the White House to give them a heads up about the outcome AND that communication inspired the Watergate break-in, then … whew!

More Inland Coverage: The Settlement from the POV of U.P. Whitetails Assn

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Escanaba Daily Press: “The conservation work performed by organizations such as the Bay De Noc Sports Fishermen and the MDNR was recognized as an integral component of the successful management of our inland fisheries. Is [the settlement] perfect? Not totally. However it is a far cry better than what was in place before because now everyone is thinking towards the future.”

The longer article appears to be an interesting CYA from the treaty rights opponents.

One nit to the author — the settlement doesn’t “change[]” the treaty, just interpret it.

Gun Lake Casino Oral Argument Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

From the Kalamazoo Gazette: “Both sides said they were optimistic after arguments were presented Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals over the future of a proposed Indian casino in Wayland Township.James Nye, a spokesman for the Gun Lake Tribe of Potawatomi Indians, said the group is prepared to begin casino construction before year’s end if the three-judge panel ejects a challenge by Michigan Gambling Opposition, or MichGO.”

Hammitte v. Leavitt: Detroit Urban Indians Case Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The federal district court in Detroit granted the motion to dismiss filed by the United States/Indian Health Service on October 11, 2007.

The opinion is here.

Hammitte v. Leavitt Complaint

United States Motion to Dismiss

Hammitte Response to Motion

United States Reply Brief

MichGO v. Kempthorne Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

This case involves a challenge to the Secretary of Interior’s decision to take land into trust for gaming purposes benefiting the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (a/k/a Gun Lake Band).

Here is a recent news article noting that the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in this case this morning.

Here is Gun Lake’s appellate brief [it is very large, 103 pages].

More Coverage of Soo Tribe Vote on Inland

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the AP: “The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians said Thursday that its members have approved an agreement between five American Indian tribes and the state of Michigan over inland hunting and fishing rights.”

Daily Press article “Agreement Long Time Coming”

Nick Reo

The Daily Press of Escanaba, Michigan recently printed an article on the 2007 Consent Decree entitled “Agreement Long Time Coming“. The author provides balanced information and a useful summary of the context of this important agreement. The author references the fact that when the 1836 Treaty of Washington was signed, Michigan had not yet achieved state status; they also mentioned that Michigan became a state in 1837. It is worth emphasizing that this order of events is in no way merely coincidental. The 1836 Treaty of Washington ceded an enormous land area directly providing the land necessary for the formalization of Michigan’s statehood. This point can not be over emphasized and is a critical part of our collective history. The direct connection between this treaty and Michigan’s founding should be seen as an important part of the context when we think about and discuss the 2007 Consent Decree.

Saginaw Chippewa v. Granholm Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Please find below the amended complaint, answers, and other court documents from this ongoing and important case — (scary, too, if SCIT loses).

Amended Complaint

Answer to Amended Complaint

US Intervenor Complaint

Answer to Intervenor Complaint

Isabella County Motion to Intervene

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe Votes to Approve Inland Settlement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

BIG NEWS!!!!

From the Soo Tribe website:

Membership Approves of Inland Consent Decree

Written by Cory Wilson

Thursday, 18 October 2007

The Sault Tribe Election Committee released the unofficial election results pertaining to the referendum on tribal members’ inland treaty rights, indicating 3,476 voted to approve, 678 voted to disapprove, while 28 ballots were deemed spoiled or unrecognizable.

The Election Committee announced that 4,182 ballots were received out of 12,734 mailed to the membership, accounting for a 32.8 % voter turnout. According to these results, this referendum exceeds the 30% vote requirement and therefore, is considered a valid election as defined by the election code.

On August 14, the Board of Directors determined an issue of such importance should be sent to a vote of the people by referendum to decide whether or not the tribe should enter into a permanent agreement with the state and federal government regarding tribal members’ rights related to inland fishing, hunting, and gathering. Subsequently, the referendum ballot language was approved on September 17, which asked tribal members “Do you approve or disapprove of resolution: Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree?” The election ballot was mailed to members on September 27. The deadline to return ballots was 5 p.m. on October 17.

The “Inland Consent Decree” is an agreement between five northern Michigan tribes, the state of Michigan, and the federal government that defines and details the specific treaty rights of tribal members. An “Agreement in Principal” was signed by all parties last summer, which committed all those involved to work together to formulate an agreement or settlement.

Following the release of the election results Chairperson Aaron Payment stated, ”Despite strident opposition from select board members to letting the people decide this issue, an overwhelming response of over 80 percent should put the issue to rest. I am satisfied with the outcome. The people have spoken.”

According to the tribe’s lead attorney, even though a referendum was held, official approval by resolution is still required. A special meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Sunday, October 21 at 1:00 p.m. at the Kewadin Shores Casino in St. Ignace to accept the election results and to enact the resolution specifically outlined in the referendum.

The resolution titled, “Authorization to Ratify the Inland Consent Decree for U.S. v. MI” and states, “Whereas, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is currently engaged in the inland phase of the United States v. State of Michigan, informally know as “US v MI”, and the parties are: as Plaintiff, The United States of America, and as Plaintiff-Interveners, Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, versus as Defendants, State of Michigan, et al, and as Amicus Curiae, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Bay De Noc Great Lakes Sportfisherman, Inc, and U.P. Whitetails, Inc, and finally as Amicus Curiae, the Coalition to Protect Michigan’s Resources, Stuart Cheney, Robert Andrus, Walloon Lake Trust and Conservancy (“Parties”); and…the Parties agreed to a binding settlement of the inland phase of US v. MI by executing an Agreement in Principle; and…upon execution of the Agreement in Principle the Parties agree to prepare a proposed consent decree and a stipulation for the entry of the proposed consent decree based upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement in Principle; and…through lengthy negotiations the Parties have completed a proposed consent decree and are presenting it to their respective governing bodies for ratification. Now therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby ratifies the Inland Consent Decree. Be it further resolved, that the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Chairperson, or his designees, to execute a stipulation for entry of the proposed consent decree, or other implementing documents as my be necessary.”

The Board of Directors is also scheduled to meet with the judge presiding over the Inland Consent Decree case on October 22, to finalize any other legal matters related to the case.