Oneida Tribal Appellate Body Remands Judiciary Election Case Back To Trial Body For Its Failure To Conduct A Hearing And Its Denial Of Due Process & Civil Rights

Here is the Oneida Appeals Commission Appellate Body’s Decision in Docket No. 14-AC-012:

On August 20, 2014, the Appellants (Petitioners) filed a request for an Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order against the Respondents to postpone the August 23, 2014 Special Election [of the Oneida Tribal Judiciary until] the inclusion of the SEOTS polling site. They also requested a Declaratory Ruling that all Business Committee and Judiciary elections include the SEOTS polling site. The Trial [Body] answered the Injunction/Restraining Order by denial. The Declaratory Ruling request was not answered by the Trial [Body]. …

The Trial [Body] failed to provide an answer to the Appellants’ request.

By the Trial [Body]’s failure to conduct a hearing on issue[s] presented, we find a denial of their due process rights was made. No hearing was held. …

In respect to the Appellants (Petitioners’) request for Declaratory Ruling, the Trial [Body] failed to conduct a hearing, no record was made. Within the founding General Tribal Council Resolution, 8-19-91-A, which established the [Oneida Appeals Commission] it indicates:

Whereas, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 USC Section 1301-1303 supports the policy that all Indian Tribes exercising powers of self-government shall insure that individual rights are protected and that people have a right to “petition for redress of grievances.”

It is wiser and more judicially sound process for the Appellate [Body] to have the benefit of the Trial [Body] Decision when considering issues that will have impact beyond the specific election in this case. …

It would be a mistake for us to proceed without the benefit of the Trial [Body]’s ruling.

The case is thereby remanded to the Oneida Tribal Judicial System, Trial [Body] in accordance with Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 19 Reversal Affirmance of Modification:

(A) Powers of the Appellate [Body]: Upon appeal from a judgment or order from an original heaing body decision, the appellate [body] of the [Oneida Appeals Commission] may:

(2) Remand the matter to the trial [body] and order a new trial/hearing on any or all issues presented; the order returning a case shall contain specific instructions for the trial [body.]

The Trial [Body] shall conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion within thirty (30) days including issuing a decision on the Appellants’ (Petitioners’) request in Docket No. 14-TC-173 of a Declaratory Ruling that all Business Committee and Judiciary elections (all significant elections) include the SEOTS pollng site.

This is in accordance with Oneida Tribal Judicial System, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 33(B)(1) Declaratory Rule Procedure:

A Petitioner whose status, rights, duties or other responsibilities under any Rule or Ordinance may petition the agency with enforcement authority over the Rule/Ordinance in question or the OTJS trial [body] in order to settle the question raised. Priority of resolution forum shall lie with the agency if the agency has an established hearing body.

It is so ordered.

In other words:

Appeals Commission at work

The Oneida Appeals Commission at work

Unfortunately, the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Trial Body has repeatedly demonstrated that it isn’t fit to judge a pie-eating contest let alone civil & voting rights issues, and that this is the way they treat General Tribal Council members who attempt to defend the Oneida Constitution’s intent to promote the widest possible participation of Oneida people in their governance:

How Oneida Appeals Commission Trial Body treats GTC's civl rights

How the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Trial Body treats those who seek to defend General Tribal Council’s Civil & Voting Rights

See also:

 


Sorry, Comments are closed.

Tags

Abdul Latif Mahjoob / ACTI / AREC / AREI / ARTI ACF Leasing ACF Services Alliance Construction & Design / Alliance GC (Global Conservation) American Combustion Technologies Inc. (ACTI) / American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. (ACTI) / American Renewable Energy Inc. (AREI) / American Renewable Technologies Inc. (ARTI) Artley Skenandore Jr. / Swakweko LLC Atty. William Cornelius Bruce King City of Green Bay Fmr. OBC Chair Cristina Danforth / Tina Danforth Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado Fmr. OBC Sec. Patty Hoeft Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Greg Matson Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth General Tribal Council / GTC Generation Clean Fuels Godfrey & Kahn Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC / GBRE Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Incinerators / Gasification / Pyrolysis / Plastics-to-Oil / Waste-to-Energy Jacqueline Zalim / Jackie Zalim Kelly Van Den Heuvel / Kelly Yessman Kevin Cornelius Mike Metoxen Mission Support Services Nevada LLC / Mission Support Services LLC Nathan King Nature's Way Tissue Corp. OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House OBC Vice-Chair Brandon Lee Stevens / Brandon Yellowbird Stevens Oneida Business Committee / OBC Oneida Energy Blocker Corp. Oneida Energy Inc. Oneida ESC Group LLC / OESC Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin / Indian Country / Thornberry Creek LPGA Classic Oneida Seven Generations Corporation / OSGC Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises / OTIE OPD Lt. Lisa Drew-Skenandore Owen Somers / Oneida Internal Security Director Paul Linzmeyer Pete King III / King Solutions LLC Ron Van Den Heuvel Sustainment & Restoration Services LLC Todd Van Den Heuvel Tsyosha?aht Cathy Delgado Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC

As It Happens

December 2014
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031