Friday, April 24, 2009

A just tribal court?

Who else is annoyed that this situation has gone on as long as it has? Our one disadvantage is a lack of resources. Who has tens of thousands to retain legal counsel we need to get rid of the tribal council . Petitions will only be rejected or deemed invalid. Since the tribal court and tribal police have been established- a takeover is no longer an option. That is, unless you're willing to do jail time. I have gone over the pros and cons of a tribal court. It is definitely a Nay to a tribal court. What justice can be had when who had the ultimate say in hiring you. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to make waves in this recession.

9 comments:

  1. True. What i am sure most of us would like to know is how much is this court and all associated officers, office personnel etc costing us? There is no requirement for the tribe to have a tribal court. The I.G.R.A. demands a 'forum'. A tribal council may fill that role. That is partially why i would like to see a salary or some type of compensation for council members. We are no longer living in the past where we can skate on the minimum of leadership. I know there are some out there who would think that we need "real" legal minds. However, that is countered with the argument.."where we are now is thanks to the (legal minds) of the lawyer(s) in the tribes employ." No, i can't see justification for a full-time court system. Hire a lawyer as the need dictates. We should not be paying all these funds to support either a full-time tribal lawyer or a mass of judges like we do now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are your pro's and con's?

    At this time I think the tribal court is useful. It allows tribal members to have a forum to conduct legal procedures.

    If the tribal council is so powerful that they are able to ignore referendums, how are we to counter any of their actions if the tribal court is disbanded? Tribal court may be the only forum the people possess. An expensive alternative is better than none.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pro's and con's?? Where do i start. It all begins with money. The judges in the employ of the tribe know they have to decide for who hired and pays them. That is NOT you or I. The Council is the forum we used to have and should still be able to use as a adjudicating body. That is why it is important to elect those with the character and the wisdom to make sound and correct decisions. Elect those who are not afraid of "rocking the boat" with what ever decision they may have to make. Justice should not waver to political correctness. For instance..look at the Ironshell case. He is an outsider. The council asked, then demanded he leave. he refused. Now, Given the councils resources, they could have had him removed in small order. BUT THEY WERE AFRAID of offending some loudmouths who stood at his defense. Ok. Still with me? So, the case is as of yet unresolved. Because the council let the "burden" fall on the courts. NICE...Be mindful that i am not weighing the case here..i am showing the mechanics of why we need a strong and good leadership that will take care of business the way they are (and used to be) expected to. So, in the end, we can do things ourselves. AND save money doing it. As i stated in another comment, they (the council) may consult an attoney when or if the need arises, but there's no need full time legal service.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You forgot the pro's.

    Also, I don't see whats so wrong about Mr. Ironshell residing on the settlement with his family. He is in fact native, just not an enrolled Meskwaki Tribal member.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, i thought the absence of pro's would confirm that there are none in my view.
    Mr. Ironshell?? The only problem with that whole thing is that he was asked to leave. By the council. I have no idea of why..but i know that if we allowed anyone to come and live on the settlement, then where would we be?? His being a native has NOTHING to do with the case. You are a native..DO YOU feel as though you could just go and live on any rez you wanted and when asked to leave by their proper authorities...refuse?? i hope not. All societies need rules. And when a GUEST refuses to obey OUR rules..it's time to go. I don't know the guy, but i DO know that if a man is respectful and humble, he would comply with the wishes of the people who's guest he might be. He should be ashamed of his behavior. Family or no..take them and go somewheres where you are welcome..sheeesh.. What kinda man izz that?? wow...unreal..

    ReplyDelete
  6. You complain about the council for not having 'good mechanics', yet you defend their decision regarding Mr. Ironshell.

    'Tribal officials claim that James Ironshell, who is Rosebud Sioux, has violated a Meskwaki law that prohibits a non-Meskwaki man from sharing a settlement home with a Meswkaki woman.'- www.wcfcourier.com

    Well, I believe that rule needs to be modified. The Meskwaki Tribe is small and EVERYONE is related blood wise practically. THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT KEEP GOING IGNORED. So if we uphold this unrealistic law in the modern world, Meskwaki women can no longer live on the Meskwaki Settlement, unless they are single. Do you agree with that? Now, that is UNREAL. I understand this law was practical WHEN our ancestors created it, but TODAY it is OUTDATED.

    The SHAME should be on the Tribal Council for not abiding by the Meskwaki CONSTITUTION.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uhhh..i didn't complain about the council's "mechanics"..that was in reference to the reasons we need councilpersons of character. And no, i am not defending the council's decision to oust the guy..just "agreeing" to their reason(s)AND "right" to do so. Mr. Ironshell has NO rights under our tribe's constitution. What folks don't realize is this: Regardless of the reasons some may feel Mr. Ironshell has a "right" to be on our settlement, it is not true. He is nothing more than a guest. Whenever a guest is asked to leave..for WHATEVER reason, then he should "man-up" and do his thing..which in this case..is to leave.
    As far as the constitution being outdated, that may be true. However, it is still the sole determinant of our tribe's rule of law. Instead of people getting all riled and hyped emotionally over some issues..it is better to research and UNDERSTAND what is happening, and why. The "woman on the settlement" question as addressed right now stands in spite of what you or i may offer. Our tribe is not alone in that our ancestors like many others determined that it was through paternalism that we would survive. And it is, and we have. I ask you, would you like to see a cherokee "likeness" of us when the allowable blood quantum is 1/64th? nice...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I too would like to preserve the fundamentals of the constitution, but it is outdated. I do believe in paternalism to preserve the identity of our tribe. The way in which we determine blood quantum is no longer relevant. We Meskwaki are now too closely blood related to keep intermarrying. How do you suppose we address this problem? Do you condone cousins marrying one another for the sake of having a higher blood quantum? Shall we have relations with those outside the tribe and get penalized with a lower blood quantum.
    For example: I am an enrolled Meskwaki Tribal Member, my father is Meskwaki(4/4) and my mother is Navajo(4/4). I am only considered (1/2) Meskwaki. My children can be enrolled, but they'll only be (1/4) Meskwaki. Intermarrying is not a viable option. I would prefer to marry someone from a different tribe.
    Even when we choose to have relations with other tribes, we are still penalized by the way we determine blood quantum. Yet, I would be considered full Meskwaki by our ancestors. You want to preserve the likeness of the Meskwaki, you have to preserve the likeness of natives in general.
    Solution: Meskwaki's being a paternal tribe. A childs blood quantum is ultimately determined by the father, but the mothers blood quantum of whichever tribe she's from should be absorbed into the overall Meskwaki blood quantum of the child. In doing so you preserve likeness of the Meskwaki and still preserve the principles of our ancestors.

    That's my take on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, that works for you...fine. I have two (3) chiuldren..2 boys, one wahine (girl). they are NOT enrolled. I choose not to enroll them as i think that being a tribal member is not an automatic right. They have voiced in no small way that they only want the money...sooooo..sorry..If one is not to be a contributor to the tribe then he/she should not be a member.That is my take on the thing. I walk the walk..talofa lava

    ReplyDelete