CIV-96-06

RANDLE DURANT,
BOB PATE, LESLIE JAMES,
BERTRAM BOBB, CHARLEY JONES,
LOIS BURTON, E.J. JOHNSON,
TED DOSH, JAMES FRAZIER,
CHARLOTTE JACKSON AND PERRY THOMPSON,

PETITIONERS,

V.S.

DOUGLAS G. DRY,
BOB BURLISON,
JUANITA McCONNELL
AND ROSE BURLISON,

RESPONDENTS.

(1) Pursuant to Article XIII, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, this court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes arising under any provision of the constitution or act of the Tribal Council.

(2) The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility to provide law enforcement on Indian country. On August 14, 1991 the Tribal Council through Council Bill 138-91 approved a contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to perform the federal governments law enforcement responsibilities.

(3) On June 19, 1992 the Tribal Council of the Choctaw Nation enacted Council Bill 111-92 which approved contracting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for operating the CFR Court, Court of Indian 0ffenses within the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Pursuant to that approval, the Choctaw Nation entered into said contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and presently operates the CFR Court of Indian 0ffenses for the federal government.

(4) The validity of the aforementioned contract has been attacked in the CFR Court by tribal members Douglas G. Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosa Burlison in a case wherein they stand charged with committing certain crimes under Choctaw law. The claim being made is that operating said court is unconstitutional because the Choctaw Nation's constitution does not provide for law enforcement or a court with criminal jurisdiction in the Choctaw Nation. Such claim is absurd and the CFR Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation has rejected this position. Because respondents continue to challenge the CFR -Court's legality this action is brought t o finally resolve the matter.

(5) On September 18,1996, tribal member Bob Burlison represented by tribal member Douglas G. Dry, filed an action in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma against the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and others seeking a different ruling than that entered by the CFR Court, i.e. That the Choctaw Nation cannot contract for law enforcement or to operate the CFR Court. This action by Dry and Burlison seeks to have a state district court exercise jurisdiction of the government of the Choctaw Nation. and to regulate its internal affairs. In short, said action is a direct assault on the tribal sovereignty of the Choctaw Nation and is tantamount to treason in that success by Dry and Burlison would seriously diminish the tribe's sovereignty causing it to be subservient to the State to Oklahoma.

(6) This court, having exclusive jurisdiction over such matters should adjudicate that

(a) That Council Bill 138-91 and 111-92 are constitutional.

(b) The CFR Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation is a federal court being operated by the Choctaw Nation on behalf of the United States Secretary of Interior pursuant the authority of Congress and the Choctaw Nation Tribal Council; that said court is not being operated under Articles XII and XIII of the Constitution of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and is not a tribal court.

(c) That the approval of the contract to provide law enforcement and operate the CFR Court for the United States government is within the constitutional authority of the tribal council of the Choctaw Nation and its operation is within the constitutional authority of the executive branch
of the Choctaw Nation.

(7) The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma has been a great, unbent Nation of Native Americans for centuries. Even after the terribly demeaning period of removal to Indian Territory pursuant to the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, the Choctaw fought back during the nineteenth century and carved out a sophisticated sovereign government in what is now known as southeast Oklahoma. The Nation even survived the shameful periods of land theft under the Dawes Act and the termination period during the first half of the twentieth century. During these infamous periods the tribe continued to maintain its sovereign status. The Choctaw Nation remains unbowed and during the last twenty years has regained much of its glorious past. The unlawful actions of the respondents Douglas G. Dry and Bob Burlison are designed to destroy the Choctaw Nation.

(8) The respondents have unlawfully offered up the Choctaw Nation's sovereignty on the white man's alter by asking the Oklahoma County District Court to exercise its power and perceived authority over the Choctaw Nation and its entire government by seeking injunctive relief against the Nation in Burlison vs. Keating, et al, C-96-641 0. Such conduct shows contempt for the Choctaw Nation and its courts and places the tribal government's sovereignty at risk of being greatly diminished in the event the state district court attempts to exercise jurisdiction.

(9) This court should adjudicate that the respondents Bob Burlison and Douglas G. Dry are without authority to seek decisions in the state district courts concerning the internal affairs of the Choctaw Nation; and respondents should be ordered and directed to refrain from such activity on penalty of being held in contempt of this court.