COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES
FOR THE CHICKASAW AGENCY

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

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Scott Kayla Morrison, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That she resides in Wilburton, Choctaw Nation boundaries, and is attorney for the defendants in proceedings now pending in the Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation, being cause Nos. CR-95-01, CR-95-02, CR-95-03, CR-95-04, and CR-95-05, of said court 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.

2. That the nature of said proceedings is criminal.

3. That on September 28, 1995, defendants in said proceedings filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction based on the following facts: 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 "All attached to the Petition for Writ of Prohibition. Copies of the motion and responses are attached hereto, marked Exhibit 1 through 7 respectively, and by this reference made a part of this affidavit.

4. That said court is without criminal jurisdiction to proceed with said action and the court is not a legally constituted court for reasons set forth in Exhibit A to the
Petition for Writ of Prohibition. Defendants have no plain,, speedy, or adequate remedy at law with respect to said proceedings in Court of the Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation.

Wherefore, affiant prays for the issuance of a writ prohibiting and restraining Court of Indian 0ffenses for the Choctaw Nation from continuing to assert jurisdiction over the defendants in said action, or in the alternative, for the issuance of an order to show cause or an alternative writ, requiring respondent to show cause why such writ of prohibition should not issue.

Dated this 20 day of July, 1996.

Subscribed and sworn before me the 20th day of July, 1996.

My Commission expires:

12-18-96