Posted on 07/23/2005 9:08:06 AM PDT by SmithL
FARGO, N.D. - A judge has rejected an appeal by imprisoned American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who argued the U.S. government had no right to try him for crimes that occurred on a South Dakota reservation.
Peltier, 60, is serving a life sentence for killing two FBI agents during a 1975 standoff on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. He was convicted in 1977 and has filed numerous appeals.
U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson ruled that the government has the right to prosecute and imprison anyone who kills federal agents, no matter where the crimes occur.
The Pine Ridge shootout left three people dead amid battles between federal agents and the American Indian Movement in the 1970s.
FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler were shot in the head at point-blank range. Also killed was AIM member Joseph Stuntz. The Justice Department concluded that an FBI sniper killed Stuntz.
Peltier has claimed the FBI framed him, which the agency denies.
Peltier's lawyer, Barry Bachrach, argued in the appeal of Peltier's life prison term that federal courts had no jurisdiction over Indian land and Williams and Coler were killed on a reservation.
Peltier, who suffers from diabetes and other ailments, spoke briefly by speakerphone at Wednesday's hearing. He complained that the government has changed its story about his role in the killings.
Government prosecutor Drew Wrigley said he expects more appeals from Peltier.
"We're going to continue to fight the baseless claims to turn back the conviction that was a just one," he said.
*snapping fingers* That's so original! I'll bet a lot of convicts would like to use that one!
I just had to check and yep, a common sense and CONSTITUTIONAL ruling from a Federal Judge was by a Republican appointee (Dubya).
IIRC the score is about 963 gazillion to 1.
It's clear another agent killed his two fellow agents and then framed Peltier. Happens all the time. Now give the guy a break. He's just another oppressed victim of the Man.
No blood for casinos!
Gotta watch that Fire Water!
It sometimes gives you visions and sometimes you just forget all about killing 2 FBI agents.
Yes, maybe some Canadian military might troop down and kidnap him back, Naw, Canada is too busy marrying homosexuals to worry about a murderer. (I wonder if he claimed he was Gay, might that one work?)
I've always found this confusing. Are Indians who live on reservations US citizens, or citizens of their nations, or both?
Since they vote in US elections it seems to me they're US citizens. But are Indian lands part of the US?
Can anyone help explain this?
They are citizens of their Indian nations AND US citizens. The history behind this is long, ugly, and sometimes bizarre, but there are benefits to be had for being an indian, as well as the benefits of being an American.
I'm just wondering what part of the Constitution you think it is that gives Congress the power to make the murder of a federal agent, or anyone else, a crime? (Unless you want to call it treason.)
ML/NJ
They belong to both Nations. They were given the right to vote in 1924. That was the year they were made "citizens" of the US. Indian lands are part of the U.S. because they are withing the borders of the U.S. They have their own courts but their laws are US laws. The US law enforcement agents can go onto a reservation and arrest an Indian for a crime. The Indian courts usually deal with local issues such as poaching and other crimes more of the domestic type. For instance when I am fishing up on our reservation, the California fish and game wardens have no jurisdiction over me but the tribal police do.
You got me, I have not followed this case either.
Can you take a non-Indian fishing on your reservation ? If you owned a cabin in the reservation woods, could you rent it to a non-Indian ?
I did have a cabin on the reservation and did rent it out to a non-indian. Actually there are some privately owned parcels of land within our reservation boundaries. Owned by white people fee simple too. If they ever sell the tribe tries to buy the property but other whites can buy it if they want too.
PL280 applies to Indian Country in several Western States: (Alaska- almost all; California -all; Minnesota - almost all; Nebraska - all; Oregon -almost all; Wisconsin -all.) It establishes that the State has criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. The tribe retains other non-criminal regulatory jurisdiction over tribal members. With almost no exception, the county and States retain regulatory jurisdiction over non-tribal members within Indian Country. Montana v. United States, 450 US544 (1981)
Status of tribes is not the same throughout the US. PL 280 is one reason, another is the eighth Article of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California was acquired by treaty with Mexico. The Lands Commission was created by the California Land Settlement Act of 1851 to implement the treaty. The Commission heard and ruled on claims concerning lands previously granted/confirmed by the Mexican government. In Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1900), the Supreme Court indicated that the Indian right of occupancy should be considered as a "right or title derived from the...Mexican government" even though that right may have antedated the establishment of the Mexican government. The Indians' right of occupancy was deemed abandoned for failure to present it to the land claims commission. Twenty-four years later, the Supreme Court declined to overrule Barker because of the unsettling effect it would have upon vested property titles in California. United States v. Title Ins.& Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472, 486 (1924). See also Summa Corp. v. California Ex Rel. Lands Comm'n, 466 U.S. 198 (1984)
Ergo, while eastern tribes had ceded territory to the U.S. through treaty, reserving or retaining aboriginal lands in reservation, in California, "reservations" were granted by Executive Order, having the same status as Forest Reserves. Although it has not been challenged in court that I know of, it would appear unlikely that aboriginal rights of "time immemorial" would not exists for California Indian Country.
Your lawyer and law book post was very lawyer and law book. It always makes the simple seem complicated. After reading all you wrote, I fail to see that anything I said was wrong. Am I wrong? I only have reservation experience and not law experience. The things I mention have happened on my reservation.
At this point, Leonard Peltier's guilt or innocence is irrelevant. He's being made an example of what happens when FBI agents are shot. Unless someone else volunteers to replace him by confessing to the killings, the only way he's getting out is with a 'pine box parole'.
If it is a criminal violation, the DFG and the County Sheriff have jurisdiction, unless the tribal police force has been deputized.
In the case of Peletier, if it had happened in California, the Sheriff would have jurisdiction. Because it did happen in a non-PL 280 State, I believe it would be considered a federal enclave subject to federal jurisdiction for criminal matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.