Tribe Can’t Poach

We should have gave them more blankets…

http://www.startribune.com/local/233328371.html

Judge cites 1837 treaty in throwing out indictments in Minnesota fish poaching scheme

A federal court judge in Minneapolis on Monday threw out the indictments of three men arrested in a major fish poaching scheme on Indian reservations in northern Minnesota, saying the men were protected under an 1837 treaty.

The three were among 10 men who were indicted on a charge of buying and selling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of walleyes netted from lakes on the Leech Lake Indian reservation and selling them in violation of federal, state and tribal law.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim dismissed the indictments against Jerry Reyes, Marc Lyons and Frederick Tibbetts, saying, “The 1837 Treaty protects defendants’ right to fish on the reservation and Congress has not specifically abrogated that right.”

At the time of the indictments, filed April 10, Jim Konrad, enforcement director for the Department of Natural Resources, called it “a very big deal.”

All three men are enrolled members of the Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and Tibbetts is a member of the White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians.

Its not likely tribal court system would have gone any further,double standard. We as a country did a poor job of handing the American Indians, the country needs to get over the special treatment allowed to native Americans.

Can you get mad at people that are just taking advantage of the situation they were forced into? People are going to be buttheads if allowed, I’d rather smack around the judges and politicians backing them up, smack em up real good

What a joke. Now THESE PEOPLE can run amuck in our state harvesting game at their own discretion? Give THEM that luxury and you wont have to worry about APR or doe permits anymore. Talk about third world country medieval BS. #$^%^*@ animals.

I wonder if they reported the income on their taxes! This is really sad!

Taxes, really????

And as a sponsor of the Wisconsin Woods and Waters show (John Gillespie) the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa operating the Black Bear casino in MN introduced themselves as being so big on conserving natural resources, and that was why they wanted to sponsor the show.

I understand it may be a different band of the same tribe, but what a joke.

Next time you (I’m not referring to anyone in particular) want to say that someone should be allowed to keep a fish without criticism because “it’s their legal right”, please think about this issue.

….and in other related news. Tribe votes to end blood line requirments for membership. In the radio interview I heard, they said themselve that in as little as 25 years, there will be no true or “Pure” indian blood lines left in Minnesota. In otherwords in 25 years, the tribes will be no more indian than you or me and have all of these tribal rights. They can’t even meet the 25% blood line requirement they have now. This is [censored] up!!!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/11/20/politics/white-earth-band-votes-to-end-blood-quantum-for-tribal-membership–

Quote:

---

Taxes, really????

---

Do you think a Fed Judge will throw out a tax evasion charge?
Unless they don’t pay taxes!

I’ll bit them three will give that judge a nice Christmas gift .

I wonder if that’s the same 1837 treaty that says “more than 2 tribe members traveling together off from tribal land will be treated as a war party”……can’t change a treaty my

Pathetic

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Taxes, really????

---

Do you think a Fed Judge will throw out a tax evasion charge?
Unless they don’t pay taxes!

---

I think he was saying that they don’t pay taxes.

I hate poachers of all races. The thing that bothers me most is that you were probably taught like me about how the culture respects life, doesn’t waste and uses every part of the animal out of respect.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Taxes, really????

---

Do you think a Fed Judge will throw out a tax evasion charge?
Unless they don’t pay taxes!

---

I think he was saying that they don’t pay taxes.

I hate poachers of all races. The thing that bothers me most is that you were probably taught like me about how the culture respects life, doesn’t waste and uses every part of the animal out of respect.

---

“using every part of the animal out of respect” I had a trailer on Deer lake in WI back in the early nineties and a tribe speared Muskies there. There were huge Muskies in the dumpster at the landing. There were also quite a few washing up on shore during the next week with large holes in them. A lot of them were big pre-spawn females, Really sad.

Sounds like the tribe may have been responsible for the decline of the muskie in Wisconsin. What a shame. We just all need to get along and respect OUR natural resources.

I guess not

Quote:

---

We just all need to get along and respect OUR natural resources.

---

Here’s a new idea, how about all american citizens enjoy equal rights ?

I do not seem to remember our founding fathers endorsing ” extra ” rights under our constitution, but it appears many judges appear to pull them from out of a hat when needed perhaps to protect groups who support those who put them on the bench in the first place …. just a thought as they appear to reading a different constitution then the rest of us …

our rights are all equal
some are just more equal than others

Quote:

---

Here’s a new idea, how about all american citizens enjoy equal rights ?

I do not seem to remember our founding fathers endorsing ” extra ” rights under our constitution

---

Uh, you do remember that whole “women and black folks can’t vote” thing, right?

How does the fact that our country at one time did not allow women and black folks to vote, which was corrected for both well before I was born correlate to ” extra ” rights being given to an Indian tribe based upon a 1837 treaty which on its face is unconstitutional, but we instead choose to selectively apply a few parts as needed ?

I thought it was the role of a judge to determine if a law was unconstitutional. If it violated our constitution, they should strike it down and tell the legislature to do better when a new one.

I did not think it was the role of a judge to make laws as they go ?

Quote:

---

Uh, you do remember that whole “women and black folks can’t vote” thing, right?

---

I think you are comparing apple to oranges. One is a constitutional amendment and the other is the judges discretion. As Paulski said, the judges can’t make it up as they go.

This judge is really opening a can of worms with his recent rulings. It will be interesting to see what pans out over this. I’m afraid that it won’t be good.

Quote:

---

How does the fact that our country at one time did not allow women and black folks to vote, which was corrected for both well before I was born correlate to ” extra ” rights being given to an Indian tribe based upon a 1837 treaty which on its face is unconstitutional, but we instead choose to selectively apply a few parts as needed ?

I thought it was the role of a judge to determine if a law was unconstitutional. If it violated our constitution, they should strike it down and tell the legislature to do better when a new one.

I did not think it was the role of a judge to make laws as they go ?

---

Maybe you should actually read the Constitution before posting about it:

Article VI: all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Treaty is the law of the land. The judge is bound by the law of the land. The decision makes clear that the Federal laws are not explicitly contrary to the provisions of the Treaty.

Quote:

---

I did not think it was the role of a judge to make laws as they go ?

---

This has been a growing trend. There are many judges doing just that. If you don’t like it you need to use your vote to pt those in power who will not appoint such judges.

Maybe you should stop misinterpreting the constitution as used in Article VI to mean our federal constitution versus state constitutions. Hence the reference to “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State” in the Article.

For quite some time it was understood that treaties did not override our federal constitution as was our founding fathers intent.

Now not so much.

This is why every time there is now a federal treaty being considered it concerns so many as judges have established over time that they can override the federal constitution.

No good seems to come of that type of power being given to so few, hence why our founding fathers wanted it to be limited.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should stop misinterpreting the constitution as used in Article VI to mean our federal constitution versus state constitutions. Hence the reference to “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State” in the Article.

For quite some time it was understood that treaties did not override our federal constitution as was our founding fathers intent.

Now not so much.

This is why every time there is now a federal treaty being considered it concerns so many as judges have established over time that they can override the federal constitution.

No good seems to come of that type of power being given to so few, hence why our founding fathers wanted it to be limited.

---

There’s nothing in the Treaty that ‘overrides’ any other provision in the Constitution. The Treaty provisions did come into conflict with Federal law (the Lacey Act), and as the judge points out, the Treaty provisions are ‘supreme’ to the particular law. If you have a legitimate disagreement with the decision, articulate it, be specific, and stop with the generic nonsense about judges making laws and overriding the Constitution.

and it appears to be about time for this again

If you have a legitimate disagreement with the decision, articulate it, be specific, and stop with the generic nonsense about judges making laws and overriding the Constitution.

=======================================================

Yes, I disagree with this decision along with a number of other ones that allow’s the use of the 1837 treaty to appoint a ” special class ” of citizens who for all intent purposes do not have to follow the same laws as you and me.

I will leave it at that. Have a nice night.

there is clearly two definitions of stewards of our resources here. One side blames the other, one side can thumb their nose and claim they are above the law!

Quote:

---

Yes, I disagree with this decision along with a number of other ones that allow’s the use of the 1837 treaty to appoint a ” special class ” of citizens who for all intent purposes do not have to follow the same laws as you and me.

I will leave it at that. Have a nice night.

---

There’s no court decision that does any of those things. None have created special classes based on the 1837 Treaty. The Constitution recognizes the Tribes as sovereign entities (Article I.8). It seems that your problem is with the Constitution and the Framers rather than the judges and their decisions.

Where is the verbiage about “at the pleasure of the President” ??? the issue I have with the supreme treaties is, people using parts of it to their extreme advantage and ignore other parts they have no use for. I realize times change and so do people/circumstances, unless it comes to raping the land, then they run to their treaty… All, regardless of race, know as well as I do, they were poaching walleyes, inconsistent with the law and what the treaty intended.