Good Luck

Today Mr. Fellegy is scheduled to appear in Aitkin County Court. Good Luck Steve and remember many of us are standing behind you. Let us know how it goes please.

>>> Support Steve <<<

Thank you!

Just to clarify……

The “trial” today is anything but an “end game” event. The trial today is only a process that will lead to an end. No matter the outcome of the event today, the process to reach our goals is much more complex and is only initiated by tomorrow’s effort. The actual closed season walleye case is not the issue we are addressing in the end.

I can’t see how they could find me not guilty or dismiss the case. But then how do they find me guilty if they didn’t charge the Band members who obviously broke state law last and again this spring?

Interesting? LOL I think it will go to higher levels…..and eventually to Congress.

So THANK YOU to everyone for support. Your help (and from many others!) is much needed down the road….even more so than the past few weeks and months.

Good Luck

Good luck Steve!

Good Luck Steve!!

Well, in nutshell, even though the dust has yet to settle, the “trial” went as expected. I was found guilty and ordered to pay the fine. Our counsel was satisfied on how the hearing went and what came out on the record ( and what didin’t) and is confident as we enter the appeals process/time frame. Our goals have been met to this point and will continue to be pursued at the next level.

What’s next? Appeal will be filed asap. Next event will be in St.Paul per the appeals court process.

“We got’em!” was our words…….

So—now we start over in a sense. That means we just invested all of our funding and need to cover the next process level of legal costs.

WE need EVERYONE against the tribal netting to invest at least $20 per person, in themselves, asap. Legal counsel works on a “retainer”–upfront. We now need to retain that counsel for the next step……please!

We will get the job done. But only with everyone’s $$ help. The rest I will hande!………but not the money aspect. If I could, I would.

http://www.casstoday.com/

We need the 5000 people that voted for Linda Eno in last year’s Governors race to step up with that $20 bill.

We need fishing clubs, as a group or individual members, to step up with real $$.

We need Lake Mille Lacs resorters to step up. 10 of the bigger operations on the lake should surely put $500 each into this effort –on THEIR behalf. Understandably, the smaller operations should give less. And it all is done privately via the Trust/CASSTODAY system.

http://www.casstoday.com/

WE can get this job done TOGETHER! I will run the ball…..no problem. I will take the hits and the sleepless nights….no problem. The only thing you all have to do is invest a $20 bill or more.

So—I can’t say THANK YOU enough to all who have helped and supported our efforts to this point. And will say THANK YOU in advance to everyone who continues to help and even more so to those who now come onboard with “new” $$.

The door is now open! Now is the time to pay the price of admission.

“we got’em”

http://www.casstoday.com/

I put money in the other day. Thank you.
DT

Thanks Steve glad it went well, I see my check for $200.00 finally got cashed. I wonder how many people on IDO and other sites have sent money? If everyone who supports this would send just $10.00 sure would help Ill send $20.00 to add to the pot this week. Anyone else

Whatever happened to multiculturalism? Why do people get so upset over fishing or hunting? What is wrong with specific cultural rights?

Continued “Assimilation” in the United States will change this country.

I am a college educated, professional, business owning US citizen that is also part Native American (Sioux).

There are over 10,000 lakes in the state of MN and most of them have walleye in them.

Steve,
I wish you luck in your pursuit to convince the US Government they need change the specific rights of Native American Tribes beliefs and culture.

“You can take the boy out of the country but you can’t take the country out of the boy”
[1938 ‘B. Baer’ in Baer & Major Hollywood (caption to caricature of James Stewart)]

Quote:

---

Whatever happened to multiculturalism? Why do people get so upset over fishing or hunting? What is wrong with specific cultural rights?

Continued “Assimilation” in the United States will change this country.

I am a college educated, professional, business owning US citizen that is also part Native American (Sioux).

There are over 10,000 lakes in the state of MN and most of them have walleye in them.

Steve,

I wish you luck in your pursuit to convince the US Government they need change the specific rights of Native American Tribes beliefs and culture.

“You can take the boy out of the country but you can’t take the country out of the boy”

[1938 ‘B. Baer’ in Baer & Major Hollywood (caption to caricature of James Stewart)]

---

My culture also includes “subsistance fishing and hunting”. My ancestors didn’t shop at Cub in 1837, 1854 or anytime during the Treaty making era. Should we all practice our “culture” using our natural resources? Maybe this “equal rights ” thing should go the other way…giving everyone their cultural rights instead of taking them away from the one group that has them now. Would that work?

“Cerimonial ” fishing that started this mess at Lake MIlle Lacs in the early ’90’s was not denied. (a couple dozen fish per year to reflect their cultural background) Subsistance fishing has no place in this modern day world–at least in the lower 48. If food is the issue…$150,000 buys fillets that equate to 60 tons of whole netted Lake Mille Lacs walleyes. Does anyone think the Casino dollars or the multi millions that fund GLFWC can buy the walleyes? Instead of being in everyone face about the fillets with gill-nets and abusing the resource–contrary to 100 plus years of Mn. fishery management philosophy?

Is the free license plate on Tribal cars and trucks about culture too? Did my Brown County ancestors have to license their horses and buggy in the 1800’s and not the Sioux?

Should I be in court pushing my cultural rights to hold public hangings because my people did it 150 years ago?

Any card anyone plays here using 150 plus year old cultural history as a reason to allow this ongoing and potentially more widespread exclusive rights game to continue will get trumped by modern day common sense. Modern day civil rights philosophy. Modern day United States of America culture!

http://www.casstoday.com/

I think my “specific culteral rights” involve swarming in on Mille Lacs, taking over boat ramps as a “camp”, even though over night camping is strictly forbidden. As the sun is going down set my nets for spawning walleye with hopes my family be able to have enough to eat. I will then pull the nets, as long as they have not been swept away by ice, and toss the half dead pike back, who wants to clean those slimy things anyway, go back to camp and clean my catch and toss the entrails on someones property, cause who cares right? Oh,,,did I tell you, I don’t even need to purchase a license to do all this. My ancestors worked hard to make a living, so should I. Multiculturism is what I call this, honoring what those with another color of skin are allowed, by trying it myself. And those who have not completed assimilation are still out there in their canoes.

all of this over a walleye? I don’t get it?

Just remember what you are asking. People who support this are asking the Government to go back on a Treaty that was signed in 1837. Steve, I agree things are different in “Modern day United States of America culture”.

But, this is and could be just the beginning of other laws/rules that could change. Some of which could affect you, me, and others that support this movement in a negative way.

Hell, let’s go back to Dec. 15, 1791 and take away the 2nd Amendment because of the following:
“Any card anyone plays here using 150 plus year old cultural history as a reason to allow this ongoing and potentially more widespread exclusive rights game to continue will get trumped by modern day common sense. Modern day civil rights philosophy. Modern day United States of America culture!” ~Steve Fellegy (June 8, 2011)

Ultimately, I can guarantee if Steve Fellegy had the right to net walleye on Mille Lacs that Steve would be out there netting walleyes. And there would be a different activist trying to take his rights away. That’s just “Modern day United States of America culture!” Steve Fellegy (June 8, 2011)

So, please continue to support taking away the rights for Native Americans to net walleye in Mille Lacs. As soon as it passes, we are only opening the doors for Congress & Legislature to pass laws that will change other rights like the 2nd Amendment.

Gobbler,

As long as you mention the US Constitution. Where does it provide for treaties, reservations or any other special right for native Americans? Last time I checked, the entire document applied to ALL Americans.

-J.

In case some of you have not heard, there has been a fight over the 2nd Amendment for some time now

You can spin it how ever you like Gobbler, but this treaty is outdated and did not take future variables into consideration. Ceremonial/ritual events are one thing, raping a resource is another. If it’s just a fish, why are you worried about it?

JJ,
Good one!!! When is the last time you checked? i have my doubts that you could even name the original 10 amendments without looking. Did you ever look at the 11th Amendment? Didn’t think so.

I can fish on 1000’s of other lakes in the state and catch a walleye.

Typical of people to pipe in when they don’t even know their own rights??? unreal

hc,

I’m not worried about it. I say net let the tribes net all they want and net every walleye in the lake. (that way there won’t be a debate) Obviously a bunch of people who support this don’t even fish the lake. I happen to be a person that does and live with the fact that Native Americans have rights just like everybody else in this country. However, they happen to have the right to net fish on Mille Lacs, I don’t. It’s not my responsibility to tell them what they can and cannot do. It’s the Governments and this was settled on a Treaty from before our time and we have to live with it.

Quote:

---

all of this over a walleye? I don’t get it?

---

This has little to do specifically with walleyes or a single lake. The issue at hand is special rights for select groups.

If you pay attention to anything Steve says he is NOT and I repeat IS NOT trying to take anything away from any natives, what he is in fact trying to do is change the season that these fish are netted. Instead of being allowed to net fish during the spawn when fish are congregated in mass quantity they should be allowed only to net fish in July or August when the fish are more spread out. It’s good to have an opinion which in fact everyone is entitled to but to assume without researching the facts (which JJ was accused of, by the way JJ knows without a doubt without having to look what he is talking about) is a pointless rant. I support the fact that Steve is trying to change the season on netting and in turn can hopefully end the netting of fish all together. My tax dollars pay for everyone of those fish harvested by net

Quote:

---

hc,
I’m not worried about it. I say net let the tribes net all they want and net every walleye in the lake. (that way there won’t be a debate) Obviously a bunch of people who support this don’t even fish the lake. I happen to be a person that does and live with the fact that Native Americans have rights just like everybody else in this country. However, they happen to have the right to net fish on Mille Lacs, I don’t. It’s not my responsibility to tell them what they can and cannot do. It’s the Governments and this was settled on a Treaty from before our time and we have to live with it.

---

Maybe your too young to relate to this Gobbler, but the last thing I will say here is ponder these words, think about ALL American history(civil rights related) for the past 235 years, and conclude what you want. Many cases in YOUR American history, much more complex than race based netted walleyes, have been changed–mostly for the better of ALL Americans. So–sit back and say “it’s not my responsibility” or step up and say………

“Our Lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” MLK

The 11th ammendment applies to states, not tribes or individuals.

-J.

Steve,
once again I agree with you about MLK and what he said. The problem is that this “matter” was settled back in 1837 and stems off of the 11th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Amendment XI(Ratified February 7, 1795)

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

It’s gonna be a hard sell to make the Government overturn an amendment. I’m just saying and just playing the devils advocate with all of this. Often times so many people in “Modern Society” are willing to agree and support a cause or movement. I just happen to believe that if someone has a right to net fish, in this case Native Americans, and it doesn’t affect 99.9% of USA that it’s not something worth chasing.

However, I get that fishing is a big part of your life and probably a way for providing food for your table and paying the bills. It’s your right to do what you want on this subject. Just like it’s my right to question it.

11th Amendment
Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity.

I don’t want to get technical and I’m not a lawyer but in a nutshell, yes it does include “Sovereign Immunity”

Its the immunity of STATES. The amments recognizes STATES sovern immunity. Not any other party.

I can even use the 11th ammendment against your argument. States have sovern immunity. Therefor the Federal government has no authority to allow (mandate) reservations or treaties inside the borders of sovern STATES.

-J.

your right.

i see what you are saying. the federal government doesn’t have the right to tell the Tribes and Native Americans what they can and cannot do on Reservations. Which happens to be a part of Mille Lacs.

Reservations and treaties that the Constitution does not allow for.

By the way. The Supreme Court ruling on the 1837 treaty only clarified that the treaty exists at the “Pleasure of the President. And that no sitting president has ever cancelled the treaty. Therfore it still stands as valid. In other words, the treaty was allowed via a presidential order. Not a constitutional or legislative one. The Presidendt can (as confirmed by the Supreme Court) negate the treaty at any time.

Keep on with your research and history. I have done a little on my side.

-J.

The United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.” It is no surprise that American Indian tribes are mentioned in our Constitution. Indian tribes have always played a major part in the non-Indian exploration, settlement, and development of this country. When Christopher Columbus thought he had discovered the “New World” in 1492, it is estimated that 10-30 million native people lived in North America, that is, in the present day countries of Mexico, United States and Canada. These millions of people lived under governments of varying sophistication and complexity. These native governments were viable and fully operational political bodies which controlled their citizens and their territories and were an important factor in the development of the United States government we live under today.

The European countries that colonized North America dealt with the native tribal governments as sovereign governments, that is, as governments that had independent and supreme authority over their citizens and territories. Especially in the area of the present day United States, the European powers interacted with American Indian tribal governments through official diplomatic means. Starting with England as early as 1620, and France, Spain, and Holland, the European powers negotiated with Indian tribes through official government to government council sessions and by entering treaties which recognized tribal governmental control over the territory of this “New World.” The European countries had a selfish motive for dealing with American Indian tribes in this fashion. The European governments wanted to legitimize the transactions they entered with Indian tribes to buy tribal lands. Thus, they wanted to make the transactions look official and legal by buying Indian lands through governmental treaties so that other European countries could not contest or object to these land sales.

The United States adopted this tradition of dealing with Indian tribes as sovereign governments from the European powers. From the very beginning of its existence, the U.S. dealt with Indian tribes on an official governmental and treaty making basis. Political involvement in Indian affairs was a very important part of governmental life in early America. Indian tribes were very powerful in the 1700s and early 1800s in America and were a serious threat to the new United States. Hence, the United States government was heavily involved in negotiating and dealing with tribes as part of its governmental policies. The United States ultimately negotiated, signed and ratified almost 390 treaties with American Indian tribes. Most of these treaties are still valid today. The United States did not give Indian tribes anything for free in these treaties. Instead, the treaties were formal government to government negotiations regarding sales of land and property rights that the tribes owned and that the United States wanted to buy. The United States Supreme Court stated in 1905 that United States and Indian treaties are “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted.” Thus, while tribal governments sold some of their rights in land, animals, and resources to the United States for payments of money, goods, and promises of peace and security, the tribes held onto or reserved to themselves other lands and property rights that they did not sell in the treaties. The United States Supreme Court has likened these Indian treaties to contracts between “two sovereign nations.”

When the thirteen American colonies decided to rebel against England and seek their independence, they formed the Continental Congress to manage their national affairs. This Congress operated from 1774-1781 and dealt with Indian tribes on a diplomatic, political basis and signed one treaty with the Delaware Tribe in 1778. The political interest of the United States at that time was to keep the tribes happy with the new American government and to keep Indian tribes from fighting for the English in the American Revolutionary War during 1775-1781. This Congress engaged in diplomatic relations with tribes by sending representatives to the tribes bearing many gifts and promises of peace and friendship to keep the tribes neutral in the United States’ war with England.

The thirteen American colonies then adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and convened in a new Congress to manage their affairs on the national level. This Congress also had to manage Indian affairs and keep the tribes from fighting against the United States. The new Congress also sent diplomatic representatives to the tribes and promised friendship and peace, and ultimately it signed eight treaties with Indian tribes between 1781-1789, including treaties with the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cherokee Tribe, the Shawnee Tribe and numerous other tribes. However, this Congress’ power in Indian affairs was limited because the Articles of Confederation did not clearly give this Congress the exclusive power to deal with tribes. Thus, various states meddled in Indian affairs and actually caused wars between tribes and Georgia and South Carolina, for example, because the states were trying to steal Indian lands. The problems caused by states getting involved in Indian affairs led many people to call for the formation of a new and stronger United States government wherein the exclusive power over Indian affairs would be placed only in the hands of the national government and would be taken completely away from the states.

When the representatives of the thirteen colonies/states started drafting the United States Constitution, to form the United States government we now live under, the “Founding Fathers” of this nation had to carefully consider the role of Indian tribes in the political arrangement of the new nation. As James Madison pointed out, much of the trouble that England and the thirteen colonies had suffered with Indian tribes from the 1640’s forward arose when individual colonists or colonial governments tried to greedily take Indian lands. In those instances, the colonies and individual colonists would negotiate with tribes without the permission or the involvement of the English King or the American national leadership. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution tried to solve this problem by taking Indian affairs out of the hands of the colonies/states and individuals and placing the sole power to deal and negotiate with tribes into the hands of the U.S. Congress. Thus, Indian tribes and their people, and the United States relationship with tribes are addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

In Article I, the United States Constitution accomplishes the goal of excluding states and individuals from Indian affairs by stating that only Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . .” The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean that the Congress was granted the exclusive right and power to regulate trade and affairs with the Indian tribes. The very first United States Congress formed under our new Constitution, in 1789-1791, immediately assumed this power and in the first five weeks of its existence it enacted four statutes concerning Indian affairs. In 1789, the new Congress, for example, established a Department of War with responsibility over Indian affairs, set aside money to negotiate Indian treaties, and appointed federal commissioners to negotiate treaties with tribes. In July 1790, this Congress passed a law which forbids states and individuals from dealing with tribes and from buying Indian lands. This law is still in effect today.

Indian tribes are also referred to, but are not expressly designated, in Article VI of the Constitution where it is made clear that all treaties entered by the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” In 1789, the United States had only entered a few treaties with European countries while it had already entered nine treaties with different Indian tribes. Consequently, this treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government’s treaties with Indian tribes are the supreme law of the United States.

Individual Indians are also mentioned in the Constitution of 1789, Article I, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified in 1868. In counting the population of the states to determine how many representatives a state can have in Congress, Indians were expressly not to be counted unless they paid taxes. In effect, Indians were not considered to be federal or state citizens unless they paid taxes. After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,” that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of other sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. This view was correct because most Indians did not become United States citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. For many years after 1924, states were still uncertain whether Indians were also citizens of the state where they lived and in many states Indians were not allowed to vote in state elections.

American Indian tribes have played a major role in the development and history of the United States and have engaged in official, diplomatic governmental relations with other sovereign governments from the first moment Europeans stepped foot on this continent. Indian tribes have been a part of the day to day political life of the United States and continue to have an important role in American life down to this day. Tribes continue to have a government to government relationship with the United States and they continue to be sovereign governments with primary control over their citizens and their territory. It is no surprise, then, that the relationship between Indian people, tribal governments and the United States is addressed in the provisions of the United States Constitution.

Where did you cut and paste that from? Either one sided or edited to leave out court rulings and many other important facts.

Remeber, we didn’t allow women to vote. Even after blacks were freed, thay had no rights such as land ownership for many years. As recently as the 1960’s many of these injusteses existed openly. This injusts will fall too.

-J.

I once looked up the definition of “steward”, there are some people who I can and can not classify as stewards of these resources. Judge for yourself.