• Global file usage

Where the law is spoken or relayed; I mean that is one possible Latin translation of Jurisdiction.

Flower asked me to write about a jurisdictional issue that affects Native Americans. One of her links/cites involves a 1978 Supreme Court case entitled: Oliphant and Belgarde v. The Suquamish Indian Tribe http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/Oliphant_v_Suquamish_435_191.htm

The area at issue was a:  7,276-acre reservation near Port Madison, Wash. Located on Puget Sound across from the city of Seattle, the Port Madison Reservation is a checkerboard of tribal community land, allotted Indian lands, property held in fee simple by non-Indians, and various roads and public highways maintained by Kitsap County.

I begin my discussion with this description by the Court to underline why jurisdiction becomes such a strange creature to begin with and why Native American relations with 'civilians' as well as state and local governments can become so complicated.

The checkerboard metaphor is very descriptive of Native American 'settlements' throughout our nation. You might have 'communal' lands in the form of the reservation with private ownership determined by the Tribal Government. Then 'alongside' the reservation there may be land subject to state jurisdiction but owned in fee simple absolute by a member of the tribe. Then you might find a neighbor who is not a member of the tribal community who owns her plot in fee simple absolute.

So I might be driving along the West Coast and have little problem discerning whether or not I am in Oregon or Washington. But I might have a hell of a time discerning whether or not I am within the boundaries, the jurisdiction of the Tribal Government or the state and county governments. It comes down to a matter of crossing a dirt road.

Everybody is aware of the Indian Casino. States and local communities had outlawed gambling for centuries in this country. Out of the blue, some Native American entrepreneurs (or white entrepreneurs with some connections to a local Native American community) had the idea that since their land, granted through treaties, sort of excised them from state controls, they might make some Vegas money. And they sure did make that money once the Supreme Court decided to grant them that right.

The 1968 Indian Civil Rights Acts even came into play here as far as defining certain rights associated with self rule and the Suquamish Indian Tribe has its own system of government formulated primarily by its Law & Order Act.

Petitioner Mark David Oliphant was arrested by tribal authorities during the Suquamish's annual Chief Seattle Days celebration and charged with assaulting a tribal officer and resisting arrest.

I take this sentence from the case to underline the fact that the nontribal community partakes in Native American festivities and vice versa all the time. It is not like a Native American Tribe puts gates around its community to keep non Native Americans out of its community any more than the state or local government would discriminate against Native Americans--at least on a de jure level.

So you can see where the treatment of criminal behavior in either camp becomes a problem. If a Suquamish citizen goes outside his reservation and shop lifts something at a Kmart and then runs back to his home, can a county police officer enter the reservation and arrest the alleged shoplifter?

And what if a Kitsap County citizen comes onto land considered to be part of the reservation and steals a sacred relic; absconding with it back to his residence. Kitsap County would not relish duly appointed Tribal Officers making arrests within its jurisdiction.

When do the Feds arrive to settle the issue since a Fed can arrest anyone on a reservation or county lands?  And where does the money come from to fund such actions by the Federal Government?

Flower is interested in a real cold blooded issue here, but I wanted to set forth a context for a real problem prevalent in the Native American community that becomes national in its scope. A problem that I did not even know existed.

Instead, respondents  urge that such jurisdiction flows automatically from the "Tribe's retained inherent powers of government over the Port Madison Indian Reservation." Seizing on language in our opinions describing Indian tribes as "quasi-sovereign entities...

So the issue really involves: tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians...

And that is a fact. This Supreme Court case is all polished and structured and goes back almost 200 years as far as documenting old treaties that we simply, as a nation welched on anyway. And Renquist knew how to properly structure the statutory and constitutional issues involved.

And I love lines like this:

Indian tribes "hold and occupy [the reservations] with the assent of the United States, and under their authority." Id., at 572

I mean, remember who your daddy is for chrissakes.

We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many *212 respects their state counterparts. We also acknowledge that with the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which extends certain basic procedural rights to anyone tried in Indian tribal court, many of the dangers that might have accompanied the exercise by tribal courts of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians only a few decades ago have disappeared. Finally, we are not unaware of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try non-Indians. [FN18] But these are considerations for Congress to weigh in deciding whether Indian tribes should finally be authorized to try non-Indians. They have little relevance to the principles which lead us to conclude that Indian tribes do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians. The judgments below are therefore

So what exactly is the problem here on the real earth and all:

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, last week voted against a bill making it easier for non-natives who commit rape and other crimes on Native American tribal lands to be prosecuted.

The Tribal Law and Order Act was passed as an amendment to HR 725 by a vote of 326-92. King was the lone member of Iowa's congressional delegation to oppose the measure

A 2007 study by Amnesty International found that one in three Native American women will be raped at some point in their lives, a rate that is more than double that for non-native women. More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department.  http://iowaindependent.com/39760/king-votes-against-bill-to-help-protect-native-americans-from-rape

1/3 folks. My God in Heaven. I had no idea there was this type of problem in 21st century America. And this barbarism is being committed by WHITES for chrissakes.

The article went on to say:

This historic, bi-partisan legislation addresses long-overlooked human rights abuses in Indian Country. It is an important effort to tackle major challenges that allow crimes against Native American and Alaska Native peoples to flourish," Larry Cox, executive director for Amnesty International USA, said in a statement.

"When victims know that their perpetrators will be held accountable for their behavior, they will be more likely to report crimes," said Sarah Deer, assistant professor at William Mitchell College of Law and a consultant for Amnesty International's 2007 report. "Empowering tribal law enforcement personnel to protect their communities is the key."

King voted "no" along with 91 other Republicans. Some questioned the price tag of the amendment: $1.1 billion for five years and $380 million thereafter. King's spokesman did not respond to numerous requests for comment http://iowaindependent.com/39760/king-votes-against-bill-to-help-protect-native-americans-from-rape

Why on earth would you vote against a measure like this?

Don't get me wrong here. Down in the Twin Cities at a place called Mystic Lake, local police are 'hired' by the casino to patrol the area, make arrests...etc...per agreement between the Native American community there and the local county governments.  The Casino of course hires its own guards to help out law enforcement but the casino just would not work without this outside help.

Monies are paid by the casino in its agreements with county government.

In some places accommodations are being made.

The legislation was simply aimed at helping these type of agreements to be worked out throughout the U.S. And as I pointed out at the beginning of this essay, law enforcement costs money.

This is not a partisan issue. Nobody wants to see Native American women be raped by men acting like 9th century Vikings. For heavens sake, I was wondering how these same politicians would act if studies had demonstrated that 1/3 of all women residing in gated communities were being raped.

78 Republicans did vote for this bill. Don't get me wrong. It is not my contention that all repubs are pigs as far as this vote. But can you imagine 92 repubs voting against this attempt to fix a real problem. This is a blood and guts issue. We are talking about protecting our female citizens here.  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll455.xml

Here are some more links that Flower sent me on this issue:

http://64.38.12.138/News/2010/020898.asp

American Dad presented this link at his blog:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/07/29/obama-signs-act-to-empower-native-americans-to-fight-rape/

This next link, believe it or not comes from Glamour Magazine for chrissakes:

http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2008/07/global-diary

At any rate I am a bit embarrassed that I knew nothing about this problem.

It also alerts me to the fact that the fear of rape is certainly not some problem experienced only by Native American Women.

Every two minutes a woman is raped in this country:

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Probably a cheap shot but I would assume Phyllis Schlafly would say that virtuous women do not have such fears.

I don't know. Review this essay and its links and give me your thoughts.