Larry E. Hawk is From The Federal Government and He's Here to Help

Larry E. Hawk's motto.

The Cherokee Phoenix is writing a story that quite a few people have been slow to pick up on:  Larry E. Hawk from the BIA (Bossing Indians Around) is not a friend of the Cherokee Nation. 

Will Chavez writes a good story and it seems pretty clear:  The BIA wants to have its cake and eat it too.  Larry E. Hawk sent the Nation a letter a few weeks ago, saying the BIA doesn’t recognize our 1999 Constitution or our 2010 election laws.  Only he sent it to then acting principal chief S. Joe Crittenden (APCSJC), who was elected under the 2010 election laws.  If they didn’t recognize those laws, then why would they recognize APCSJC and send him a letter?  Turns out, they only want to not recognize the Cherokee Nation’s Constitution on days when they feel like it.  In this case, Mr. E. Hawk wanted to make sure non-Indians (freedmen) got to vote, so on that day, he decided the Cherokee Nation’s 1999 Constitution wasn’t in effect.

However, as Chavez pointed out, since the Constitution was implemented, the BIA has recognized us (almost) every single day of every single year.  They recognize our council members and our courts.  They give us buckets of money, which is pretty bad policy if, according to Mr. Larry E. Hawk, we are not operating under a valid Constitution.  So the Cherokee Nation is faced with two options:  Either the BIA is incompetent and has been giving the Cherokee a bunch of money when it shouldn’t, or the BIA is just trying to boss us around, even though they don’t have the right to tell us what our Constitution is or says, because, what the heck, it worked with APCSJC.

So what does Baker think? He tells the Cherokee Phoenix he’ll stand up for our sovereignty, as long as it doesn’t cost us federal funding.  “What I won’t do is risk $500 million dollars in federal funding for our 300-plus thousand Cherokee citizens.”  Which is right in line with what S. John Crittenbaker have done already, for only $30 million in HUD funds.

Baker says he’s ‘weighing the pros and cons of the BIA’s stance,’ though we’re not sure what the pros are, unless having someone telling the Cherokee Nation what to do is a pro because then we wouldn’t have to make any pesky decisions ourselves, we can just rely on the smart and trustworthy folks at the BIA to do it for us.  After all, having the federal government make decisions for us seems to have worked out really well so far. Weren't they the ones who arranged for us to relocate here in the first place?

In the meantime, Larry E. Hawk was at Baker’s inauguration and told us all this:  “I pledge to hold the Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty in high regard.”  We at the Cherokee Truth would hate to see what would happen to us if he started holding Cherokee Nation’s sovereignty in low regard. 

The Price of Sovereignty: Part "Tali" (That's Cherokee for "2")

In the discussion about the HUD funding being restored, we neglected one more retroactive and inaccurate statement.

While Baker was busy taking credit for selling our sovereignty for roughly $40 million pieces of silver, he also took a shot at Smith, by saying he was getting the money restored that was “withheld from the Nation and the previous administration.”

Either Baker is taking a shot at APCSJC, or he forgot that Smith wasn’t Chief when the ruling came down on August 22.

August 22 is the day that the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court issued the ruling saying the freedmen weren’t citizens any more, and threw everything sideways.  Until that happened, HUD was giving us our money.

Remember--Smith left office on August 14th, and Joe Crittenden was sworn in as Acting Principal Chief, a week before all this hit the fan.

Baker was there; he ought to know that his buddy Joe Crittenden was in office when the Supreme Court issued their ruling and got the ball rolling on this.

Not that its Crittenden’s fault… the Chief doesn’t control the timing or the content of Supreme Court decisions. That goes for Chief Smith, Chief Crittenden and now, Chief Baker.

So, if Baker wants someone to blame for HUD withholding housing funding, he really should start with HUD.  They withheld the money even though there was no law that said they should.  Or he could start with the Cherokee people, for changing the Constitution.

Baker should learn that he doesn’t necessarily look better when he tries to make Smith look worse, especially when he does so by ignoring the Truth.

The Price of Sovereignty

Mt. Rushmore, Black Hills of South Dakota

Depending on your point of view, Friday was either a really good day for the Cherokee Nation, or a really bad day for the Cherokee Nation.

The good news?  HUD agreed to release the housing funds it had been holding pending itsinterpretation of the Cherokee freedmen issue.  

They didn’t decide we were right, though.  They decided to dole out the money because we had caved in.  Specifically, they decided that as long as we ignore our own Supreme Court ruling, we can have housing money, no questions asked.

Baker thinks whatever deal we made is a feather in his cap.  “We are pleased that in the second week of our term we’ve managed to work with the Federal Government to have this money released.”

The bad news?  We now know the price of our sovereignty, and it’s about $40 million depending on which news story you believe.

Why?  Well, our Constitution says that you have to be Indian to be in our Indian tribe.  We voted for it to be that way, our Supreme Court said the Constitution was right, and that’s it.  If we are a sovereign Nation, we decide our own citizenship.  You don’t have to like the citizenship policy, but we voted on it.  If it is against a treaty, we should have a court tell us that it is (which is what the whole Cherokee Nation v. Nash case is about).  If it isn’t against a treaty, and we are ignoring our own law for cash, should we be happy about that?

Well, let’s put it in perspective.  The Sioux tribes in South Dakota say that they own the Black Hills.  And did you know that the federal government is willing to give it back to them--on certain terms.  As of last year, there was more than $1BILLION (with a B) in a settlement account.  

That account has been growing every year since the 80s, and the Sioux haven’t touched a penny.  Not one.  Why? Because they are fighting for their treaty rights.  And their tribal sovereignty is more important to them than a billion dollars.

 

It’s okay to want housing funding for our people.  It’s also okay to fight the federal government for it.  We can fight the feds and win.  We just did, in fact, on this very issue (Vann v. Kempthorne).  It is possible to set our own citizenship criteria AND have housing funding, but to do that we have to actually follow our own laws AND fight for our own Constitution.

Or we could just take the $40 million.  For us, it appears our sovereignty is worth $40 million or less.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 11: Know your Roll/Role

It is important to know your roll* as a council member.

Ever since the Cherokee Nation won its lawsuit against the freedmen (last week), there has been some discussion about the OTHER lawsuit with the freedmen, known by some as the Nash case.  Nash is the name of the one of the freedmen who sued the Cherokee Nation in Tribal court (and lost) over citizenship.  The Cherokee Nation sued him (and a bunch of others) back in federal court.

Baker and his lawyer, Chuck Hoskin Jr., are referring to this when they said that Smith “secretly cut a deal secretly cutting a deal with Congressmen in DC to allow the Freedmen to remain on the roles (sic)* as long as he was chief in exchange for HUD money.  Smith illegally cut this deal with a group of Congressmen without the knowledge or consent of the elected Cherokee Council.”

He also said that the  "Tulsa World further verified that Smith waived the Tribes (sic) sovereignty and we demand the details. The tribe's suit, which waived the Cherokee Nation's sovereign immunity only, in that case, was originally filed in Tulsa,’ the Tulsa World wrote.”

They asked Attorney General Diane “Hammonds”   to investigate this “secret deal.”

Well she did, and she released the results of her investigation today.  The Smith campaign liked it so much, they posted it online.

 

It’s just a couple of pages long, and it’s pretty straight forward.  She notes that the request for the investigation was filed 3 days before the election and immediately publicized by Baker’s campaign.  She also points out that Baker was well informed about the Nash case, despite his claims otherwise.

We did a little research of our own, based on Hammon’s analysis, and the more we looked the more Cherokee Truth came out. Here’s what we discovered:

On February 3, 2009, the Cherokee Nation issued a news release, which is still publicly available on the Cherokee Nation’s web site for all to see. It begins:

“TULSA, Okla.—The Cherokee Nation filed today a lawsuit asking a federal court in Oklahoma to resolve the long-standing dispute of whether non-Indian Freedmen descendants have a federal right to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.  The Cherokee Nation is asking the court to confirm that Congress unilaterally modified the Treaty of 1866, and, as a result, the non-Indian descendants of those Freedmen have no federal rights to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation.”

It later has a quote from Smith:

“Last year, I assured members of Congress, including Barney Frank (D-MA), that if they would let the federal courts decide we would push to have the controversy heard on the merits,” Smith said.  “This filing today is the Cherokee Nation keeping its word, and letting the federal courts have a clear path to reaching a decision on the merits without compromising the Nation’s sovereign immunity, and without the risk of setting procedural precedents that may affect other tribes.  Members of Congress have said they will respect a federal court decision on this issue, and this is the quickest way to an impartial, apolitical, judicial solution."

Nothing secret going on here: There was and is a news release about it on the Cherokee Nation’s web

site.

There are also later media references to the case, including an Associated Press story. 

Just two days after the case was filed, Hammons told a council committee meeting about it (see the rules committee meeting minutes from February 5, 2009).  Smith talked to the full tribal council about it at the February Council meeting (see the council meeting minutes from February 17, 2009).  The full council voted on, and unanimously approved of the lawsuit in the March council meeting (see minutes of the March 16, 2009 council meeting).  

Unanimously, of course, means everyone on the council agreed.  Bill John Baker and Chuck Hoskin Jr. were both on the council during these meetings, and both men were in attendance.  Hammons was kind enough to pass along a PDF showing Baker and Hoskin had indeed approved it.

So not only is the "deal" not secret, Baker and the full tribal council were explicitly informed about the case--so much so that they agreed it was a good idea for it to move forward!

So, that said, let’s walk back through Baker’s quotes again after having done some cursory research that any Cherokee citizen could do for themselves.

Baker claims: “Smith illegally cut this deal with a group of Congressmen without the knowledge or consent of the elected Cherokee Council.”  WRONG. Council minutes referenced above show that the council, and any Cherokee who checked the Cherokee Nation web site, were proactively informed about the lawsuit.

Baker claims: “Tulsa World further verified that Smith waived the Tribes (sic) sovereignty and we demand the details.”  WRONG AGAIN.  And while we’re handing out demands, how about this: the Cherokee people demand you pay attention in the council meetings we pay you to attend!  The details you need are in the minutes from the meeting in 2009 when you voted IN FAVOR of the lawsuit you are now criticizing.

Smith had some choice words on the subject and he, rightfully, lets Baker have it with both barrels.  You can visit his facebook page if you want to find out more.  

Baker and Hoskin may have presented more evidence to Hammons, but the evidence that any Cherokee can find is clear:  the discussion of the Nash case was made in a very public way and approved by the very people who now claim not to know anything about it.  It doesn’t seem like they take their rolls** as council members very seriously if they don’t even know what they voted on.

  

*Probably a typo.  He probably meant tribal rolls, the list of Cherokee Nation citizens, not ‘tribal roles’

** We meant to use the wrong word here.  Because it is funny.  We know our role, as citizens on the Cherokee Nation’s rolls.  See?  It isn’t that hard really. But don't get us started on the difference between polls and poles.

Election Limbo Part II, Day 6: Two Bulls are Better Than One

One of our readers sent us this link to this political cartoon:

 

Courtesy: Indian Country Today

 

We’re pretty sure S. John Crittenbaker is out of the tree already.  Megaprops to Marty Two Bulls, who does great work.  You should check out his web site http://m2bulls.com/ and buy some stuff.

10 Days Until the New Election: Britney Spears Edition

Yesterday, the freedmen filed something called a “motion to reconsider” with the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court.  Basically, asking for a do-over in the court case, because, hey why not? We’re having a do-over election, right?  Certainly worth a shot.

Today, a surprise so weird we’re not sure what to compare it to:  the Cherokee Nation agreed to the do-over, and oh-by the way asked the court to put the injunction back in place that allowed the freedmen to have citizenship.   

What?  Since March 2007, the Cherokee Nation has been fighting for its Constitutional amendment in court.  Last month, the Cherokee Nation won.  But today, they told the court we can do this over.  So… what’s changed?  If you say the Echo Hawk letter or the HUD funding hold, that might mean you think money is more important than our people’s constitutional amendment.   And APCSJC might agree with you according to his statement on the Cherokee Nation web site today, which said in part: "I believe the Nation should do what is best for its people especially sinceFederal HUD funding is currently frozen."

  

Or you could go with what APCSJC said to Channel 2 tonight:  

"They may have helped put me in office. I believe they're entitled to vote again."

Surely he didn’t mean it the way it sounded, because some people might interpret that to mean he’s in favor of doing something for the people who voted him in, even if the Supreme Court disagrees.

Meanwhile, the Cherokee Nation Election Commission met tonight and decided freedmen could vote in this election after all, despite the Supreme Court ruling.  The Commission is going to send ballots to freedmen absentee voters and is going to allow freedmen to walk in and vote as well.  They are going to cast challenge/provisional ballots, which means… well, we’ll let Election Commission Chair Susan Plumb explain it: "If a court decides the freedmen descendants can vote we will have the ability to certify the election," Plumb said. "If the court decides they cannot vote we will still be able to preserve the election."

Anyway, to paraphrase Britney Spears: it looks like everybody involved wants our Supreme Court to say Oops!