BOB BURLISON,

Plaintiff,

No. Civ 96-616-8

VS.

CITY OF ATOKA; ATOKA POLICE DEPARTMENT; ATOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; PUSHMATAHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; CITY OF CADDO; CADDO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF DURANT; DURANT POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRYAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA; BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS;

Defendants.

COMES NOW- the defendant, by and through John Raley, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and Linda A. Epperly, Assistant United States Attorney, and for response to Plaintiff Is Request for Admissions, states as follows:

1. Admit that the defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with the Choctaw Nation for a court program and a law enforcement program.

Defendant admits request number one.

2. Admit that to the knowledge and belief of defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation is a federal administrative court with criminal jurisdiction contracted from the federal government through a Public Law 93-638 contract.

Defendant admits request number two.

3. Admit that defendant Choctaw Nation law enforcement and Choctaw Nation Court of Indian 0ffenses are exercising federal criminal jurisdiction.

Defendant admits request number three.

4. Admit that defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs is required to approve all criminal laws adopted by the Choctaw council prior to enforcement of such laws.

Defendant admits request number four.

5. Admit that defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs did not approve Council Bill 96-113, passed by the Choctaw Council in July 1996, prior to plaintiff Burlison's arrest on September 2, 1996.

Defendant admits request number five. (See Motion to
Dismiss filed February 27, 1997.)

6. Admit that without approval of Council Bill 96-113 by the defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs, defendant Choctaw Nation cannot criminally charge plaintiff Burlison for violation of Council Bill 96-113 in the Court of Indian Offenses for the Choctaw Nation.

Defendant admits request number six. (See Motion to Dismiss filed February 27, 1997.)

7. Admit that defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs cooperated with and assisted the Choctaw Election Commission in the 1983 constitutional reform process pursuant to a Consent Decree filed in Morris v. Watt, Case No. 77-1667, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Defendant objects to request number seven as being irrelevant.

8. Admit that the defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs
assigned a federal observer team during the 1983 Choctaw constitutional reform process, pursuant to Section 6 of the
Consent Degree cited in paragraph seven above.

Defendant objects to request number eight as being irrelevant.

9. Admit that a package of information was mailed to all Choctaw voters in April 19893, pursuant to Section 3 of the Consent Decree cited in paragraph 7 above, as part of the required public education of the constitutional reform process.

Defendant objects to request number nine as being irrelevant.

10. Admit that federal funds were used to cover expenses and mail this public education of the constitutional reform process package, any and all other public education material concerning the constitutional reform process, and other expenses during Choctaw constitutional reform process, as required by Section 1(L) and Section 3 of the Consent Decree cited in paragraph seven above.

Defendant objects to request number ten as being irrelevant.

11. Admit that Choctaws voted 1,161 for and 2,567 against the question "Shall the tribal court's jurisdiction be extended to include general civil, criminal and probate matters?" in the 1983 referendum election prior to adopting the Choctaw Constitution ordered by the Section 7 of the Consent Decree filed in Morris v. Watt.
Defendant objects to request number eleven as being irrelevant.

12. Admit that the 1983 Choctaw Constitution was drafted after the referendum referenced above, incorporating the results of the referendum election.

Defendant objects to request number twelve as being irrelevant.

13. Admit that the draft 1983 Choctaw constitution was submitted to the Secretary of Interior for his approval.

Defendant objects to request number thirteen as being irrelevant.

14. Admit that the draft 1983 Choctaw constitution, incorporating the results of the referendum election and approved by the Secretary of Interior, was adopted by the Choctaw people in a vote of 2,233 for and 789 against.

Defendant objects to request number fourteen as being irrelevant.

15. Admit that the Secretary of Interior approved the 1983 Choctaw constitution after ratification of this constitution incorporating the results of the referendum election.

Defendant objects to request number fifteen as being irrelevant.

16. Admit that the Choctaw Constitution has not been amended or subsequent constitutions adopted by the Choctaw Nation since 1983.

Defendant objects to request number sixteen as being
irrelevant.

17. Admit that under Title 25 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 11, Section 11.1(d) and 11.1(e), in effect prior to and on January 1, 1990 through November 22, 1993, the law and order codes adopted by defendant Choctaw Nation and approved by the Secretary of Interior must have been adopted in accordance with the Choctaw Nation's constitution and bylaws.

Defendant objects to request number seventeen; calls for conclusion of law.

18. Admit that if no law and order code was adopted by defendant Choctaw Nation in accordance with its constitution and bylaws, prior to November 22, 1993, that only violations of regulations enumerated in Part 11 -of Title 25 Code of Federal Regulations could be criminally prosecuted under federal criminal jurisdiction as provided under 25 CFR S11.1(d) and (e).

Defendant objects to request number eighteen; calls for conclusion of law.

19. Admit that if no law and order code was adopted by defendant Choctaw Nation after November 23, 1993, in accordance with its constitution and bylaws, that only violations of regulations enumerated in Part 11 of Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations could be criminally prosecuted in the Court of Indian 0ffenses under federal criminal jurisdiction as provided under Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 11. 199 (c) and (e).

Defendant objects to request number nineteen; calls for conclusion of law.

20. Admit that pursuant to Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, part 11, the Bureau of Indian Affairs superintendent
with jurisdiction over defendant Choctaw Nation shall appoint a tribal prosecutor for the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation.

Defendant objects to request number twenty as being irrelevant.

21. Admit that the Department of Interior and the defendant Bureau of Indian Affairs require that Indian preference applies to the appointment of a tribal prosecutor for the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation.

Defendant objects to request number twenty-one as being irrelevant.

22. Admit that Robert L. Rabon, Jr., is not - an Indian for purposes of Indian preferences.

Defendant objects to request number twenty two as being irrelevant.

23. Admit that pursuant to Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 11, a magistrate for the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation shall be appointed by the Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs.

Defendant objects to request number twenty-three as being irrelevant.

I hereby certify that on the 6th day of March, 1997, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was caused to be mailed postage pre-paid to the following:

Bob Rabon
P 0 Box 726
Hugo, OK 74743

Richard E. Mayfield
P 0 Box 570
Atoka, OK 74525

Greg Jenkins
Assistant District Attorney
402 West Evergreen
Durant, OK 74701

P. L. Pat Phelps
325 Wes Evergreen
Durant, OK 74701

Gary L. Brock
Assistant District Attorney
108 North Central
Idabel OK 74745

Douglas G. Dry
P.0 Box 637
Wilburton OK 74578