DOUGLAS G. DRY, ROSIE LEE BURLISON, and JUANITA McCONNELL,

Petitioners,

VS.

COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES OF THE CHOCTAW NATION,

Respondent,

and

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA,

Real Party in Interest.

Case. No.
Petition for Writ of
Prohibition

1. Petitioner Douglas Dry resides at Wilburton, Choctaw Nation boundaries. Petitioner Rosie Lee Burlison resides at Atoka, Choctaw Nation boundaries. Petitioner Juanita McConnell resides at Tuskahoma, Choctaw Nation boundaries. Respondent is the duly qualified and acting judge of the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation. Petitioners are defendants named and served in a certain actions entitled Choctaw Nation v. Dry, Burlison and McConnell, Choctaw Nation v. Douglas Dry, Choctaw Nation v. Rosie Lee Burlison, and Choctaw Nation v. Juanita McConnell, being causes Nos. CR-95-01, CR-95-02, CR-95-03, CR-95-04, and CR-95-05, in said court.

2. On September 4, 1995, Douglas Dry, Rosie Lee Burlison and Juanita McConnell were arrested by the Choctaw Nation Police Department and arraigned before Judge James Wolfe, judge for the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation. The charges
were read as disturbing the peace for all the defendants and resisting arrest for Dry and Burlison.

3. On September 14, 1995, Robert L. Rabon, prosecutor for the Choctaw Nation, filed information on the three defendants. Formal arraignment on the information was held on September 29, 1995.

4. On September 28, 1995, Dry, Burlison and McConnell filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Choctaw Nation filed a response on October 19, 1995, and defendants responded on November 13, 1995.

5. A hearing was held on this Motion on March 5, 1996. The witness for the defense was Fred Ragsdale, Jr., chairperson and arbitrator, appointed by a federal judge in the District of Columbia district court in Morris v. Watt. Judge Wolfe requested more briefs to be filed by March 25, 1996. Defendants filed their brief on time, but Choctaw Nation filed its brief a week out of time, on April 1, 1996. Defense advocate Scott Kayla Morrison responded to the brief by letter on April 2, 1996, and objected to the filing out of time.

6. To date, no decision has been made on the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

7. Said court and the judge thereof, respondent herein, did not have and does not now have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action for the following reasons: the Choctaw people never granted the tribal government criminal jurisdiction over Choctaw citizens under the Choctaw Constitution and the court is not a legally constituted court, as set forth more specifically in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

8. Said judge will proceed to try the action now pending before him and render judgement therein unless prohibited and restrained by writ of prohibition issued by this court. Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise for the reason that there is no forum available to petitioners.

Wherefore, petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of prohibition by this court directed to respondent judge and court, directing said judge and court to refrain and desist from any further proceedings in said action Nos. CR-95-01, CR-95-02, CR-9503, CR-95-04, and CR-95-05, and requiring that these petitioners as defendants in said action be thence dismissed.

Date: July 22, 1996.