An Open Letter To The BIA & Oneida Judiciary Appeals Court Chief Justice Gerald ‘Jerry’ Hill About The Delayed & Flawed Judiciary Special Election And The Illegal April 11, 2015, Oneida Business Committee Special Election

Posted on April 29, 2015 by the Editors

[The message below is adapted from an email sent today to Oneida Judiciary Appeals Court Chief Justice Gerald ‘Jerry’ Hill regarding the Judiciary Special Election which was delayed due to mistakes and disenfranchising decisions by the Oneida Business Committee with the counsel of the Oneida Law Office, and serious violations of the Oneida Election Law by the Oneida Election Board, and illegal April 11, 2015, Special Election to address the OBC vacancy.]

_____________________________________

The following is in response to an email sent by Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Judiciary Appellate Court Chief Justice Gerald ‘Jerry’ Hill regarding the newly formed Oneida Tribal Judiciary which went into effect on March 1, 2015, and the unconstitutional and unlawful actions of the Oneida Business Committee, the Oneida Election Board, and the Oneida Law Office which resulted in the illegal April 11, 2015, Special Election to address a vacancy on the Oneida Business Committee (OBC) despite the fact that the Oneida General Tribal Council (GTC) never voted to Adopt a Motion to enact that election as is required by the Oneida Tribal Constitution in order for the election to be valid.

The Office of the Secretary of the Interior will be conducting a Secretarial Election this Saturday, May 2, 2015, and among the ballot items are changing the the Secretary of the Interior’s role from oversight to advisory, along with other changes to the Oneida Constitution, such as including the Oneida Tribal Judiciary in the Tribal Constitution.

We are providing this information to Asst. Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn, Secretarial Election Board Chair Scot Cameron, the Office of the Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Sen. Ron Johnson, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, and Congressman Reid Ribble due to that fact that we and other OTIW members as a class believe that the OBC, the Oneida Election Board, and the Oneida Law Office are acting in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25, U.S.C, § 1301–1304), and we ask the recipients to review the attached & linked documents referred to in this email and to investigate the various violations of the Oneida Tribal Constitution and Oneida Election Law as they pertain to violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Leah Sue Dodge
Michael T. Debraska
Bradley Graham
Franklin Cornelius

_________________________

Jerry,

You state in your [Monday, April 27, 2015] email… “[t]he Oneida Code of Laws sets forth…the Judicial Canons of Conduct,” and then you state, “[w]e have been available to the OGTC when we were introduced at the semi-annual meeting[.]”

First, you and all of the other Oneida Tribal Judiciary (OTJ) Judges attended the 2015 GTC Annual Meeting that had been delayed to February 9, 2015, not the GTC Semiannual Meeting which takes place each July.

Second, the Oneida Tribal Judiciary Canons Of Judicial Conduct states in Canon 1.2: “A Judge shall not attend meetings of the General Tribal Council except for the purposes of presenting Judiciary business, presentations, and/or budgets.”

The OTJ made no presentation of any kind to GTC at the February 9, 2015, Annual GTC Meeting nor were there any budget discussions. Therefore, one of the first acts of every inaugural OTJ Judge was to openly violate the Canons of Judicial Conduct.

That not only demonstrates OTJ doesn’t take its responsibilities seriously but also shows – among other actions – that the OTJ is not a court of competent jurisdiction.

For example, both you and OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans signed a Memorandum dated October 17, 2014, regarding “unforeseen delays resulting from two delays in the election of the new judges” in which you which falsely claim that the delays of the OTJ election was “not the fault of the Business Committee or the Court.”

Why would you formally sign that as the OTJ Appeals Court Chief Justice when the transcript of the June 16, 2014 GTC Meeting shows the Judiciary Transition Team leader, Oneida Business Committee (OBC) Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth, asking General Tribal Council to allow OBC to delay the Judiciary election from the 2015 General Election to a later Special Election, saying: “Therefore, the BC, the LRO, my staff, parts of the judiciary team that were responsible for legislation went back and looked through all the documents. …At that time, the GTC intent was that there were 2 sets of qualifications that were distinctly different for chief judges and non-chief judges. The March 26, 2014 action by the BC was nullified this morning by the BC. However, because it would potentially, negatively impact affect the applicants and the candidates that had applied and those who may have applied, it is the recommendation that we motion to withdraw from this election all of the judges positions and that they be rescheduled to a new special election. That would be fair to all the applicants, it would be fair to the GTC and it unfortunately is a mistake and an oversight, we’ll take responsibility for that.”

As for the secondary delay of the Judiciary election, you well know that it was 100% due to OBC’s and the Oneida Election Board (OEB)’s decision with the counsel of the Oneida Law Office (OLO) to arbitrarily and capriciously exclude the Milwaukee-area Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services (SEOTS) polling site from the delayed inaugural election of the Judiciary, thereby disenfranchising Oneida Tribe members.

Documents from Oneida Appeals Commission (OAC) Trial Court Docket 14-TC-173 and Appellate Court Docket 14-AC-012 (both re: Cornelius, Debraska, Dodge, Graham & Orie v. OBC, OEB & OLO) show how the OEB’s & the OBC’s unjust decision to exclude the SEOTS polling site from the Special Election of the Judiciary is what compelled GTC members to file a Complaint with the OAC on August 20, 2014, requesting a Stay against the August 23, 2014, Judiciary Special Election in defense of Oneida voting rights and the Oneida Tribal Constitution which OBC admits “reflects an intent to promote the widest possible participation of Oneida people in their governance” (OBC Resolution 03-13-02-O); the fact that it was GTC’s intent to include the election of the Judiciary in the 2014 Triennial General Election (GTC Resolution 01-07-13-A) which by law required the inclusion of the SEOTS polling site; the fact that GTC voted on October 26, 2013, to maintain the SEOTS polling site in opposition to a petition to eliminate it (sponsored by Trust/Enrollment Committee Chair Carole Liggins and signed by member of the OEB including current OEB Chair Racquel ‘Rocky’ Hill); and the fact that the Oneida Election Law clearly states in Section D., 2.12-2, “All Special Elections shall follow rules established for all other elections.”

[Documents cited herein pertaining to OAC Trial Court Docket 14-TC-173 & Appellate Court Docket 14-AC-012, Cornelius, Debraska, Dodge, Graham & Orie v. OBC, OEB & OLO are available here for download:
https://copy.com/z4aKW6J1lhhfFClR ]

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, the OAC Trial Court denied the request for a Stay of the Judiciary Special Election and failed to address the request for a Declaratory Ruling about the inclusion of the SEOTS polling site in all elections, and unjustly dismissed the case.

On Friday, August 22, 2014, the Plaintiffs appealed in OAC Appellate Court Docket 14-AC-012 and later that same day the Appellate Court accepted the appeal and issued a new Stay on the Saturday, August 23, 2014, Judiciary Special Election.

On August 28, 2014, the OBC passed OBC Resolution 08-28-14-A claiming the right to make a “one-time exception” to include the SEOTS polling site in the Judiciary Special Election, which only proved the arbitrary & capricious nature of their choice to originally exclude it, as well as their intent to retain the power to include or exclude on mere whim.

See also:

On October 21, 2014, the OBC, OEB & OLO’s attorney requested the transfer of Docket 14-AC-012 to the Judiciary despite the fact the case was about the validity of the election of the Judiciary itself, but the November 10, 2014, Appellate Court’s Decision denied the transfer request stating: “This presents a conflict of interest to the new Judiciary adjudicating a case which involved the election of the new judiciary judges.

See also:

The OAC Appellate Court’s December 18, 2014, Decision in Docket 14-AC-012 remanded the case back to the Trial Court stating: “By the Trial Court’s failure to conduct a hearing on issues presented, we find a denial of [Petitioners-Appellants’] due process rights was made. No hearing was held. … In respect to the Appellants (Petitioners’) request for Declaratory Ruling, the Trial Court failed to conduct a hearing, no record was made. Within the founding General Tribal Council Resolution, 8-19-91-A, which established the Oneida Tribal Judicial System (Oneida Appeals Commission) it indicates: “Whereas, the Indian Civil Rights of 1968, 25, U.S.C., 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.””

Given that the true causes of the delays of (and violations of the Election Law witnessed by official observers during) the Judiciary Special Election were being considered by OAC at the very time that you as OTJ Appellate Court Chief Justice and OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans signed the patently untrue and plainly biased October 17, 2014, memo wrongly attempting to exonerate the Respondents in OAC Dockets 14-TC-173 & 14-AC-012 of their failures and disenfranchising decisions, your memo violated the Oneida Tribal Judiciary Canons Of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1.10 which says: “A Judge may not, while a proceeding is pending in any court, make any public comment that may reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter before the Judge or before the Judiciary.”

See also:

Moreover, OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans and Judges Lati Hill and John Powless, III, each improperly entered & exited with, sat behind, and presumably participated in discussions with the OAC Trial Court’s Hearing Officers before and after the January 16, 2015 OAC Trial Court hearing regarding Docket 14-TC-173 & 14-AC-012 during which they were taking notes on the proceeding, which undeniably constitutes grounds for their recusal were the case ever to be transferred to OTJ on appeal or as a de novo filing.

Since the same three OAC Trial Court Hearing Officers who had violated Plaintiffs-Appellants’ civil rights of due process were reassigned to hear the case after the Appelllate Court remanded it back to Tribal Court, on January 14, 2015, a Motion for Recusal of those Hearing Officers was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Predictably, the unethical and incompetent Trial Court Hearing Officers refused to recuse themselves in their February 26, 2015, OAC Trial Court Decision regarding the Motion for Recusal.

The February 26, 2015, OAC Trial Court Declaratory Ruling Decision in Docket 14-AC-012 falsely claims: “[t]he Oneida Election Law is silent if a portion of the general election ballot had to be removed from the ballot and set for a Special Election,” despite the fact that the Election Law clearly addresses the rules for “All Special Elections” in Section D., 2.12-2.

The OAC Trial Court’s unjust dismissal of Docket 14-TC-173, which violated the Plaintiffs’ due process rights and unnecessarily delayed for months the Trial Court hearing and subsequent February 26, 2015 Decision until just three days before the total dissolution of the OAC on March 1, 2015, has resulted in a situation in which there is no other judicial body other than OTJ for Plaintiffs-Appellants’ to appeal the Trial Court’s clearly erroneous delayed decision. Yet, as the OAC Appellate Court’ rightly determined in their November 10, 2014, Decision: “This presents a conflict of interest to the new Judiciary adjudicating a case which involved the election of the new judiciary judges.”

Why would Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the OAC Trial Court’s clearly erroneous February 26, 2015, Declaratory Ruling Decision to OTJ when both the OTJ Trial & Appellate Court Chief Justices are on record unjustly and unethically attempting to vindicate the Respondents who had already admitted being at fault for the delay of the Judiciary election; when the OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice & Judges improperly sat in on the hearing knowing they might later be assigned to adjudicate this same exact case; and when every OTJ Judge violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct by illegally attending the February 9, 2015 GTC Meeting?

Therefore, it would be inappropriate for Plaintiffs-Appellants’ in OAC Dockets 14-TC-173 and 14-AC-012 to file an appeal or de novo with OTJ given the obvious conflict of interest created if OTJ were to receive it as noted by the OAC Appellate Court.

Likewise, it would now be inappropriate and a conflict of interest for OTJ to receive appeals or de novo filings regarding OAC Trial Court Docket 14-TC-190 and Appellate Court Docket 14-AC-018 (both re: Cornelius, Debraska & Dodge v. OBC, OEB & OLO) given the fact that you, Jerry, acting as OTJ Chief Justice unlawfully administered an Oath of Office at the April 22, 2015, OBC Regular Meeting to David ‘Fleet’ Jordan following the unlawful certification by the OBC of the results of the illegal OBC Special Election held on April 11, 2015, despite the evidence proving that GTC never voted to Adopt a Motion to enact it.

[Documents cited herein pertaining to OAC Trial Court Docket 14-TC-190 and OAC Appellate Court Docket 14-AC-018, Cornelius, Dodge & Debraska v. OBC, OEB & OLO are available here for download:
https://copy.com/IoJI7WwKmAgqSSea ]

Plaintiffs in OAC Trial Court Docket 14-TC-190 noted that the Oneida Tribal Constitution, Article III, Section 4, only allows GTC to decide how to address an OBC vacancy and provided the Court with both a copy of the video of the October 26, 2014, GTC Meeting and a copy of that meeting’s GTC Action Report which prove that GTC never voted to Adopt a Motion to enact any election to address the OBC vacancy.

Here are the relevant excerpts of the October 26, 2014 GTC Meeting video which show that GTC did not vote to Adopt a Motion to enact an election:

As the video and GTC Meeting Action Report of the October 26, 2014, GTC Meeting both show, GTC voted against a Motion to Adopt Option B to enact a Special Election for the OBC vacancy. Later GTC vote to approve a Motion to Reconsider Option B, but that was only a means by which to bring Option B back for discussion, and does not equate with a Motion to Adopt Option B as is made very clear by Robert’s Rules of Order as Used by the General Tribal Council which is posted on the Tribe’s website and states: “Motion to Reconsider – This motion is brought forward by a member wishing to bring a matter back before the body. The matter must be on the agenda and the membership must have received reasonable notice. The motion must be seconded, and it requires a majority vote. If the vote passes, the motion or prior action is on the floor as if the prior vote did not occur.”

Further, even if GTC had voted on a Motion to Adopt Option B to enact an election (which it demonstrably did not), the Oneida Election Law at 2.12–1 & 2 requires that a Primary be held 60 days prior to an election “whenever” there are 16 candidates for an at-large OBC member position as were unlawfully caucused and as appeared on the Sample Ballot illegally published on the Tribe’s website.

Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council is very clear that it would require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of GTC to amend or abridge the Oneida Election Law by not holding a Primary 60 days before an election as required whenever there are 16 or more candidates for an at-large OBC member position: “Two-Thirds Vote – used to overturn a previous action as identified in the Ten Day Notice Policy. Requires two-thirds of those voting to take action, excluding those who choose to abstain. The total number of votes, divided by three, multiplied times two. Fragments are included in the ‘yes’ votes as that is where two-thirds of the vote lies.”

The Oneida General Tribal Council Ten Day Notice Policy, III. 1, a, 3 states: “Action to over rule previous past motions or resolutions shall require a 2/3 majority vote.”

Therefore, the Caucus held at the GTC Meeting and the Special Election scheduled by OEB & OBC for November 22, 2014, were both unlawful.

See also:

On November 10, 2014, the OAC Trial Court granted Petitioners request for a Stay against the November 22, 2014, OBC Special Election in Docket 14-TC-190 and a Trial Court hearing was held on November 13, 2014.

Just as they did at the January 16, 2015, OAC Trial Court Hearing, OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans and Judges Lati Hill and John Powless, III, each improperly entered & exited with, sat behind, and presumably participated in discussions with the OAC Trial Court’s Hearing Officers before and after the November 13, 2014, OAC Trial Court hearing regarding Docket 14-TC-190 during which they were taking notes on the proceedings, which again undeniably constitutes grounds for their recusal were the case ever to be transferred to OTJ on appeal or as a de novo filing.

On December 15, 2014, the Trial Court issued a disturbingly absurd Decision claiming that GTC may “trump” Tribal law by a simple majority vote and “has the power to enact law which is inconsistent with or even in conflict with existing law” without having to have a two-thirds (2/3) vote at a GTC Meeting in order to do so, completely ignoring the video and documented evidence which prove that GTC had never voted to Adopt a Motion to enact any OBC Special Election in the first place and completely disregarding Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council and the Oneida General Tribal Council Ten Day Notice Policy which both require a 2/3 vote of GTC to amend, abridge, or act contrary to the existing GTC Resolutions establishing and amending the Oneida Election Law.

Plaintiffs appealed on December 31, 2014, and the OAC Appellate Court declared in their January 5, 2015, Initial Review Decision that the Trial Court’s Decision was “clearly erroneous and is against the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing level,” and also that “there is exhibited a procedural irregularity which would be considered a harmful error that may have contributed to the final decision, which if the error had not occurred, would have altered the final decision.”

The OAC Appellate Court renewed the Stay on the OBC Special Election (which had been unlawfully rescheduled by the Respondents to January 10, 2015), and told Appellants to file their Brief by February 2, 2015, which included a copy of OBC member Ronald ’Tehassi’ Hill’s November 14, 2014, ‘OBC Forum’ column in Oneida Tribal newspaper Kalihwisaks in which he wrote the following about the October 26, 2014 GTC Meeting: “Another irregularity was the vote to reconsider option B (election process). Normally we would have had two votes in the reconsideration process. The first vote would be to see if there is support to readdress the previous action to vote down option B. If that vote, succeeded, then we would revote on option B. We only voted once and it was recognized as the actual vote for option B. I feel this action was out of order.”

On February 2, 2015, the OAC Appellate Clerk mailed a letter which said Respondents had until March 5, 2015, to submit a Reply Brief, but on February 26, 2015, the Appellate Clerk mailed a copy of the Appellate Court’s Dismissal Order which said: “This case will not be concluded prior to March 1, 2015. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 1-7-13B as enacted by the Oneida General Tribal Council this matter is therefore dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.”

On March 3, 2015, citing the disbanding of OAC as the lifting of the Stay, the Respondents unlawfully scheduled an illegal OBC Special Election for April 11, 2015, despite the fact that all evidence shows that GTC has never voted to Adopt a Motion to enact any election to address the OBC vacancy, and that the OAC Appellate Court had simply failed to issue a Decision before being disbanded yet the Appellate Court had already declared in their Initial Review Decision that the OAC Trial Court’s Decision was “clearly erroneous,” “against the weight of the evidence,” and that the hearing had a “procedural irregularity” that could have affected the outcome.

In other words, after the Trial Court had kicked the can by violating the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ rights of due process and helped the Respondents run out the OAC clock on an Appellate Court decision that would have likely found in the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ favor given the Appellate Court’s Initial Review Decision, and given that the OTJ has disqualified itself an appropriate venue to appeal or file de novo, there was a rush by OBC, OEB & OLO to ram through the illegal April 11, 2015, OBC Special Election with an unlawful number of candidates, which GTC never voted to enact to begin with as is required by the Oneida Tribal Constitution for the election to be valid.

As this case was going through the unnecessarily delayed OAC process, Plaintiffs-Appellants were able to bring a Petition before GTC regarding requiring by law the inclusion of the SEOTS polling site in all future Oneida Tribal elections which GTC overwhelmingly approved at the March 28, 2015, GTC Meeting, much to the obvious chagrin of the OBC, especially OBC member Jenny Webster who quickly motioned to not discuss election issues further and to go to other business.

None of the Respondents informed GTC at the March 28, 2015, GTC Meeting that they had already mailed out a flyer to every Tribe member with the wrong SEOTS polling site address which had also been published in the March 19, 2015, Tribal newspaper, and was published yet again in the April 2, 2015, Tribal newspaper, both times accompanied by a Sample Ballot unlawfully listing 16 candidates for an OBC at-large position despite the fact that:

  1. the Oneida Election Law says at 2.12-2, “[t]here shall be a primary for Business Committee positions whenever…there are sixteen (16) or more candidates for the at-large council member positions,” and at 2.12-1, “[w]hen a primary is required under 2.12-2, it shall be held on a Saturday not less than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the election”; and
  2.  all of the evidence proves that GTC never voted to hold an OBC Special Election to address the vacancy in the first place.

It’s important to note that the OEB had previously sent every Tribe member via first-class mail Election Notices for the 2008 General Election which also had the wrong SEOTS polling site address printed on them, but on the 2008election day the OEB didn’t even bother to post the correct SEOTS address at the location where they had misled people to show up, and that Tribe members who had traveled from Madison, Wisconsin and further to vote left without knowing where the polling site actually was in Milwaukee. Also, that Racquel ‘Rocky’ Hill illegally transported a ballot box containing votes in her personal vehicle in violation of the Oneida Election Law.

The illegal OBC Special Election was held on April 11, 2015, and the turnout was very low, perhaps in part due the wrong address being published, or more likely because Tribe members knew by then it was illegal and didn’t want to vote for any candidate who would take office via unlawful means, and instead want the Respondents to finally give GTC a chance to decide if they want to fill the vacancy or not, which the Oneida Tribal Constitution only gives GTC the right to decide.

The illegal OBC Special Election vote was certified by the OBC at their April 22, 2015, OBC Regular Meeting, and you, Jerry, unlawfully administered the Oath of Office to David ‘Fleet’ Jordan despite the fact that all of the evidence proves GTC never voted at the October 26, 2014, GTC Meeting to enact an OBC Special Election in the first place yet the OBC did so anyway in violation of the Oneida Constitution and the Oneida Election Law.

Obviously, Plaintiffs-Appellants could have appealed to OTJ or filed de novo, and they still can regarding the unlawful actions that have taken place in recent weeks.

But – again – why would the Plaintiffs-Appellants ever appeal to OTJ the Trial Court’s clearly erroneous December 15, 2014, Decision when both the OTJ Trial & Appellate Court Chief Justices are on record unjustly and unethically attempting to vindicate the Respondents in Special Election matters; when a Chief Justice & Judges improperly sat in on the hearing knowing they might later be assigned to adjudicate this same case; and when every OTJ Judge violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct by illegally attending the February 9, 2015, GTC Annual Meeting?

Not to mention OTJ Appellate Judge Diane Danforth House having admitted to you, Jerry, when you were the Oneida Law Office Chief Counsel and her supervisor, that she’d lied to the Oneida Tribe about graduating from law school and becoming a member of the Wisconsin Bar Association in order to gain employment as an Oneida Tribal Attorney wherein she represented the Oneida Police Department against Oneida Tribe members in OAC Courts:

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that OTJ Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans is married to a multiple-state felony registered sex offender whose victims included a minor in Alaska (4BE-90-342CR) where the age of consent is 16, and a middle-aged woman in Wisconsin whom court records show that Raymond Beans used force against during his sexual assault (Brown Co. Case No. 05CF171).

WHY SHOULD ANY MEMBER OF THE ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN  – OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER – TRUST THE ONEIDA TRIBAL JUDICIARY TO BE AN ETHICAL, UNBIASED COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION?

Is it any wonder that Oneidas successfully petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to agree this coming Fall to hear Tribe members’ case specifically challenging any claim that OTJ is a court of competent jurisdiction (Rule Petition 14-02: Proposed Amendment/Dissolution of Wisconsin Statue §801.54, Discretionary Transfer of Civil Actions to Tribal Court), which will be heard around the same time the Wisconsin Supreme Court will conduct a general review and decide whether to continue allowing cases to be transferred to Tribal courts?

Instead of filing with the OTJ, which we do not consider to be an ethical, unbiased court of competent jurisdiction, we are instead sending this information to Asst. Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn and ask that BIA attorneys review the linked documents from OAC Dockets 14-TC-173 & 14-AC-012 regarding the delayed Judiciary Special Election, and from Dockets 14-TC-190 & 14-AC-018 regarding the illegal OBC Special Election, and also watch the excerpt of the video of the October 26, 2014, GTC Meeting, to understand what’s happened in recent months regarding the unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, and unjust actions & decisions of OBC, OEB, OLO, OAC & OTJ, in order for the BIA to determine if the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is currently acting in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, and we ask to be informed by Asst. Sec. Washburn how the BIA will address the ongoing violations of the Oneida Tribal Constitution and the Oneida Election Law which have resulted in the illegal April 11, 2015, OBC Special Election and the unlawful swearing-in of David ‘Fleet’ Jordan as an OBC member at the OBC Regular Meeting on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, as performed by you, OTJ Appeals Court Chief Justice Gerald ‘Jerry’ Hill.

No matter the outcome of the May 2, 2015, Secretarial Election, the BIA will maintain its responsibility to address violations of the Oneida Tribe’s Constitution and Laws by the government of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, which may also include violations of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25, U.S.C., Section 1301–1304).

Sincerely,

OTIW Members
Leah Dodge
Michael T. Debraska
Bradley Graham
Frank Cornelius

This entry was posted in 2014 General Election, Appeals Commission, Court, Fmr. OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth, General Tribal Council, Indian Civil Rights Act, Law, OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House, OBC member 'Fleet' David Jordan, OBC Resolutions, Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Constitution, Oneida Election Board, Oneida Law Office, Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI / Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, OTIW / ONWI and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.