https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/u...ek-nation.html
Not saying it was a great case to be heard. Child Sex case that the guy claimed only the government could try.
Wonder if the Indians will go for statehood next?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/u...ek-nation.html
Not saying it was a great case to be heard. Child Sex case that the guy claimed only the government could try.
Wonder if the Indians will go for statehood next?
My Squaw just said UGH.
There is so much factually wrong with EVERYTHING you wrote, I don't know where to start. They did not rule it is an "Indian Reservation ". Do you read what you post? Garbage posts like this are why I don't. :flip:
I thought that is what the NYTs told us too, so I read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CactusCurt
A side affect of retiring from law practice is the abhorrence of reading lengthy court rulings, so I did not read this one, Curt. I assume you true Westerners have an abiding interest in this subject and might have digested the meaning here. What distinction on what Fred wrote and what I quoted from the opening sentence should we draw from what you are saying. Didn’t SOTUS rule that the treaty from the 1800’s granting a reservation to a tribe is still effective and the state in which the area is located cannot police members of the reservation for activity in the territory, only the feds can?Quote:
A 5-4 decision declaring that much of eastern Oklahoma is an Indian reservation could reshape criminal justice in the area by preventing state authorities from prosecuting Native Americans...
I didn't pay very close attention to the sensational reporting I read, but I recall the decision being over the applicability of laws in the case they overlap - common in Indian country. I don't remember the circumstances in this case, but a good example is whether wages of tribal members on "tribal lands" could be garnished by a State court for such as child support. A very common problem.
As for whether all the Okies are now captives, I call BS. Although the federal goobermint uses multiple different definitions for tribal lands, the most common definition of a Reservation is when the land is "tribal trust land". This is the famously bad policy that disallows private ownership, and ultimately makes the BIA your landlord.
The IRS uses the term "external boundaries " when they talk about whether transactions are tribal, whatever that means.
It will be fun to watch how this unfolds. My money is on the lawyers to win again. No offense.
There was an article saying Indians and oil. They might have a say in taxing oil and getting that. Again lawyers and years from now.