April 2, 1996

Judge James Wolfe
115 South Broadway
Hugo, OK 74743

RE: Choctaw Nation vs. Dry, McConnell. and Burlison, CR-95-01, CR95-02, CR-95-03, CR-95-04, and CR-95-05

Dear Judge Wolfe:

First of all, I want to memorialize my strong objection to Robert Rabon filing his Supplemental Response Brief past the time ordered by you on March 5, 1995. If he had asked for an extension, I would have been accommodating. As it is, he had one week to read my brief, then respond. Because of this disregard for deadlines, I will reply to his brief in this letter.

I know Indian law, and understand Congress' plenary powers over tribes. I understand Congress can legislate all matters, but this power has not been used to legislate membership and other internal matters. Congress may legislate our form of government, and has exercised its plenary power by passing the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, under which the Choctaw Nation is organized. However, Congress merely legislated the form of government, not the content. That was left up to Choctaw voters and we decided the content of that form. We decided not to create a tribal court with criminal jurisdiction.

I understand Congress has the authority to create Court of Indian 0ffenses (known as "CFR" Courts because their codes are regulated by the Code of Federal Regulations). I understand that some tribes have the authority to create tribal courts under their inherent sovereign, subject to the limitations of the tribal constitution and federal law. However, I have never came across a hybrid CFR/tribal court. Courts are either one or the other, but both types must be consistent with the powers expressed in the tribal constitution.

Bobbie is confused over the nature of this court. I have never asserted this court is the court created by the Choctaw constitution, known as the Constitutional Court. The jurisdiction of that court is merely to interpret the Choctaw Constitution, with no enforcement power. This court calls itself a "Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation." It represents itself as either a tribal court or a CFR court or a hybrid. This court was anticipated by the Choctaw voters in 1983
and we voted against creating such a court with criminal jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court remains the same, as evident by comparing the 1979 Choctaw Constitution and the 1983 Choctaw Constitution. However, this court, whatever it is, was not granted criminal authority under our constitution.

Bobbie has misread my argument regarding the tribe's authority to contract with the BIA. I understand the Choctaw Nation has the authority to contract, however such power is limited by the Choctaw Constitution. I have never denied this. I have merely stated that the BIA cannot create jurisdiction which does not exist under the constitution by contract. If the BIA imposed jurisdiction, over the objections of the Choctaw voters, it would be reverting back to pre-Harjo days of being a imperialistic fiefdom. Times have changed, and the federal policy is self-determination. The BIA, like the Choctaw Nation, is limited by the vote of the Choctaw people, the ultimate source of authority. Without our consent, the BIA cannot confer jurisdiction which we have not approved by ballot.

Again, I strong object to Bobbie filing this Supplemental Brief out of time. I hope this will not happen again. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

cc:Robert L. Rabon