[IPSM] Press Release from Oneida

[antoine libert]

Greetings from the Onyota':Ka Oneida Wolf Clan of the Haudenosaunee Six
Nations Iroquois Confederacy

P R E S S    R E L E A S E: Please Distribute Widely

>From the 32 Territory: April 3, 2004:  On April 2, 2004, the three-judge
panel of the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in New York City,
rendered their decision regarding the appeal filed by the 19 'dissidents'
whose homes have been targeted for demolition by Ray Halbritter.   The
plaintiffs include Maisie Shenandoah, a 72-year-old Traditional Wolf Clan
Mother.   Other plaintiffs include Diane Schenandoah, her three children;
Vicky Shenandoah-Halsey and her two children, and Danielle
Schenandoah-Patterson and her three children including Jolene, age 9, and
Monica Antoine-Watson and her son Kyle.

In their seven-page decision, the three judges unanimously affirmed the
decision by the US District Court in Syracuse that the US Courts do not
have jurisdiction to enter any order protecting these women and children
from the homelessness to be caused by Halbritter's so-called "housing
program".    The three judges did express frustration that in their
opinion, the US Congress had not given them sufficient power under the
Indian Civil Rights Act to do anything to help the plaintiffs.

In one passage, the three Federal judges condemned the conduct and actions
of Halbritter and the other defendants (including the non-Oneida
prosecutor, Peter Carmen, appointed by Halbritter) against these innocent
victims, even going so far as commenting that it would be a "mockery of
common sense" to apply the "name of liberty" to Halbritter's reign over
the Oneida Nation.    The judges stated that "[e]ven though the actions of
the ruling members of the Nation [Halbritter] may be partly inexcusable
herein, we can only remedy wrongs which invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court."

The judges went even further by quoting Alexander Hamilton as saying "If
[a] legislature [referring to the defendants' so-called men's council] can
disfranchise any number of citizens [such as plaintiffs] at pleasure by
general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number
of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it
[Halbritter] may banish at discretion all whom [Halbritter had] render[ed]
obnoxious without hearing or trial, [then] no man can be safe, nor know
when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction."    In
addition to targeting their homes for demolition, Halbritter has cut these
plaintiffs off from any and all participation in the Oneida Nation as well
as any rights or benefits including the payments by the US Government to
the Oneida Nation under the treaties between the two Nations.

The decision concludes with a plea by the judges for Congress to expand
the power of the US Courts in order that they would be able to have
jurisdiction and authority to help victims like the plaintiffs who
suffered disenfranchisement without either a hearing or trial and at the
pleasure of the defendant Halbritter's prevailing faction.

As a result of the decision affirming the district court's decision, the
prior voluntary agreement by Halbritter to not do anything to forcibly
remove the plaintiffs from their homes and destroy them is no longer in
effect.   At this time, there appears to be no legal obstacle to
Halbritter carrying out the orders for plaintiffs' forcible eviction
followed by immediate demolition of plaintiffs' private homes.

The plaintiffs remain steadfast in their rejection of the 1993 action of
the US Bureau of Indian Affairs to force Halbritter into power over the
objection of the 1,000-year-old Traditional Haudenosaunee Confederacy that
signed the Treaty of Canandaigua in 1794.

The BIA effected a coup de tat in 1993 by rejecting the decision of the
Traditional Oneida and Haudenosaunee Leaders to remove Halbritter from any
and all positions.   The sovereignty and unity of the Oneida Indian Nation
and the Iroquois Confederacy was respected until 1993 at which time the US
government violated that sovereignty by appointing Halbritter over the
objection of the traditional leaders. The 2nd Circuit court previously
issued an investigation of the BIA's intrusion regarding the leadership of
Halbritter, which still remains open, and pending today.

New York US Representative Boehlert publicly admitted in 1993 that a good
case could be made that he traded his vote and supported NAFTA in exchange
for then President Clinton ordering the BIA to over-rule the Traditional
Oneida Leaders so that Halbritter could complete secret negotiations for
the Turning Stone Casino with then NY Governor Cuomo, which was never
ratified by the New York State Legislature as required by the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act.

The plaintiffs remain convinced that the US Courts have sufficient
authority under the Indian Civil Rights Act.   The plaintiffs are
concerned that Congress may use the inexcusable treatment of them by
Halbritter as justification to grant the request of these judges and enact
laws greatly expanding the power and authority of the US Courts to further
erode tribal sovereignty.

It has never been the desire or goal of the plaintiffs to undermine tribal
sovereignty, but to always strengthen it and restore it by reversing the
violation of that sovereignty by the BIA in 1993.   However, this court
decision reveals that the sovereignty already violated by the BIA is in
further jeopardy and the plaintiffs are concerned and aware that tribal
sovereignty will be lost because of those like Halbritter who abuse it in
order to create a dictatorship, an aristocracy, and an oligarchy, as
observed by the court decision.

Plaintiffs are preparing their appeal to the US Supreme Court to seek a
ruling that this case is not about safety or economic consequences but
about the exercise and abuse of power to legislatively enact laws
targeting plaintiffs for additional punitive treatment not shared or
suffered by others of the nation simply because plaintiffs continue to
disagree with the legitimacy of Halbritter's power over the Nation.
Plaintiffs will also ask the Court of Appeals to stay any evictions or
destruction of homes while their appeal to the US Supreme Court is
pending.

The plaintiffs remain hopeful that their peaceful refusal to abandon their
traditional beliefs and ways will serve as an example of the Great Law of
Peace.   They give thanks to all who have supported them in any way
whether it be through prayer, phone cards, kind thoughts or food.   They
pray that Halbritter will unlock the Longhouse doors and no longer use it
as a weapon and symbol of oppression.  And they pray that their example of
Peace and Compassion will become contagious.


Ny' Weh- thank you,

Diane Schenandoah (315) 363-6248
Danielle Schenandoah-Patterson


Onyota'a:Ka
PO box 555
Oneida Indian Territory
Oneida, NY-13421-
Fax: (315) 363-1655
Phone    (315) 363-6248

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail