Rosebud Indian Reservation

NYTs on the Auction of Little Thunder’s Shirt

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the article “Indian Family Sees Its History in a Shirt.”

An excerpt:

Cultural property claims can be complex: The competing interests of good-faith collectors and plundered civilizations have to be adjudicated among complications like the passage of time, the disappearance of records and the evolution of law.

Douglas Diehl, director of the American Indian and ethnographic art department at the auction house, would not discuss the matter when reached by phone, but released a statement saying that Skinner “is committed to the highest standards of research and due diligence” and is “particularly sensitive to Native American artifacts.”

The collector who consigned the item for sale, Charles E. Derby, said that he had good title to the shirt. He bought it, according to his lawyer, William H. Fry, from another collector in the early 1980s and has a bill of sale. Mr. Fry said his client could track the shirt, which has been shown in museums, back to 1955, when it was displayed, and later sold, by a bookstore in Cambridge, Mass.

A lawyer for the Little Thunder family, Robert P. Gough, said that a collector would need a lengthier provenance for the shirt to claim good title.

NPR on Slow Pace of Criminal Justice Reform in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here. Via the excellent North Dakota Supreme Court site.

An excerpt:

The Hopi of northern Arizona were among the first in the nation to increase criminal sentences under the law. The tribe spent 18 months updating criminal codes to create a new class of felonies that could result in more jail time for convicted offenders.

Few tribes have put together all the pieces required to boost jail time, but progress is being made on other fronts. The Southern Utes in Colorado are now contracting with the federal government to hold detainees. On South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux reservation, tribal officials worked with the U.S. attorney’s office to create a diversion program to keep juveniles out of trouble.

In Montana, special teams made up of tribal and federal officials were established last summer to investigate sexual assault cases.

UN Special Rapporteur to Visit Sinte Gleska University on the Rosebud, May 1-2, 2012

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to hold Consultation at Sinte Gleska University, 

Sicangu Lakota Oyate/Rosebud Sioux Tribal Nation, South Dakota, 

May 1st – 2nd, 2012

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Professor James Anaya, will hold a consultation with Indigenous Peoples at Sinte Gleska University, Sicangu Lakota Oyate/Rosebud Sioux Tribal Nation, May 1st and 2nd, 2012, as part of his first official visit to the United States.  Traditional Treaty Councils, Tribal Governments representatives, Tribal Colleges and concerned Indigenous Peoples of all Nations are invited to attend this historic consultation, which is co-sponsored by Sinte Gleska University and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC).

The purpose of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States is to examine the situation of Indigenous Peoples in light of the inherent rights recognized and affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This and other consultations held around the country from April 23th – May 4th will provide an opportunity for Indigenous Peoples to share information with the Special Rapporteur on conditions that currently exist in the United States.

The Special Rapporteur, through meetings and consultations with federal, state and Indigenous governments and representatives, will assess ways in which the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the rights it affirms are currently reflected in U.S. law and policy, domestically and internationally.  He will identify areas of needed reform in light of the Declaration which contains the internationally recognized “minimum standards for the dignity, survival and well-being of the Indigenous Peoples around the world”. Following the visit, the Special Rapporteur will prepare a report containing his observations which will be made public and presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Issues addressed at this consultation will include:

1)    Treaties, land and resource rights

2)    Cultural Rights, language and protection of Sacred Sites

3)    Self-determination and self-government

4)    Food Sovereignty and environmental protection

5)    Education and health; social and economic rights

6)    Indian Child Welfare and removal of Indian Children from communities and families.

Representatives of Indigenous Nations, organizations and communities will have the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Special Rapporteur within the constraints of time. Representatives who wish to make a statement should register by email at shawn.bordeaux@sintegleska.edu, indicating the topic that they wish to address. Those who pre-register will be placed on a presenters list which will be posted prior to the meeting.   Participants can also register on site at Sinte Gleska University on May 1st, 2012. Please note that it may not be possible for all those wishing to make a statement to do so. A more detailed agenda will be disseminated and posted in the near future. A community dinner will be provided the evening of May 1st.

In addition to oral testimony, Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and organizations can submit written testimony to: indigenous@ohchr.org. For guidance on how to present written information to the Special Rapporteur, please visit: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/comm/submitting-information-to-the-special-rapporteur. Written information to supplement the oral presentations will also be accepted at the consultation.

For additional information on this consultation and the Special Rapporteur’s US visit, log onto IITC’s web page: http:///www.treatycouncil.org or see IITC on Facebook.

For more information on the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for updates on the visit of the Special Rapporteur to the US, please visit: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/.

Eighth Circuit, Over a Dissent, Affirms 48-Year Sentence for Indian Juvenile Convicted of Murder

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the court’s opinion in United States v. Boneshirt.

A lengthy excerpt from the dissent:

As a longtime federal judge, I have seen and reviewed scores of cases in which Indian males have been convicted of assaultive crimes, including murder. Alcohol has played a substantial role in the crime in almost every one of those cases. See, e.g., United States v. Jensen, 423 F.3d 851, 853 (8th Cir. 2005), United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 884–85 (8th Cir. 2003), United States v. Emeron Taken Alive, 262 F.3d 711, 712 (8th Cir. 2001). And alcohol obviously played a major role in the unfortunate homicide of Ms. Walking Eagle. Yet the sentencing judge chose a sentence well above the average sentence for murder when, in context, the circumstances were not outside of the usual, serious crime by an adult male Indian, particularly on a reservation.

In addition, the district court did not take into consideration Boneshirt’s life expectancy. The sentencing judge specifically expressed the desire to protect the public by ensuring that Boneshirt would be an old man when he was released: “the Court believes that there is just too much of a risk with Mr. Boneshirt being a part of society before the point where he’s of a very mature age.” However, the district court did not properly consider Boneshirt’s background as a Native American male, who has a life expectancy of fifty-eight years. See Christopher J. L. Murray et al., Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and RaceCounties in the United States, 3 PLoS Med. 1513, 1514 (2006) “Native American males in the cluster of Bennet, Jackson, Mellette, Shannon, Todd, and Washabaugh Counties in South Dakota had a life expectancy of 58 [years] in 1997–2001 . . . .”). Even if he earns all of his good time credit, which the district court was not optimistic about, he will still serve more than forty years in prison. The district court anticipated Boneshirt would be an old man when he was released, but in reality he may be a dead man.