Human Rights Blog

Published: August 26, 2009, 12 am
Revised: May 15, 2012, 11 am
Author(s): Harold Shepherd
Topics: Regions, Watershed Management Planning, Projects, Cases & Victories, Environmental Justice, The Arctic, Energy Development, Campaigns

5/15/12

Tribes as Trustee again

http://adr.uoregon.edu/assets/facultydocs/mwood/tribesone08.pdf
 

12/12/11

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-natives-have-right-self-determination

Alaska Natives have right to self-determination

Ian Erlich | Dec 10, 2011

Alaska News & Features

Editor's Note: The following speech was delivered by Ian Erlich to Human Rights Council of the United Nations on Sept. 21, 2011.
The right to self-determination is an inherent right that can never be redefined or limited by domestic law. The declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples can in no way reduce the scope and application of the right to self-determination.
While we support the rights in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this declaration cannot erase the existing obligations to the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska and Hawaii or any Indigenous Peoples who are subjects of international Law under existing international treaty rights. The report on extractive industries must include the recognition of the right to self-determination.
In the case of Alaska and Hawaii, it is our assertion that the United States of America, as signatory to the Charter of the United Nations, must fulfill its inter national obligations under Article 73 and other provisions of the Charter.
Our right to subsistence and our right to our territory and resources must be addressed in accordance with these international obligations.
Poverty exists in our world for a variety of reasons, one of the most egregious of which is poverty due to the exploitation and colonization of lands and resources which rightfully belong to the local peoples. Alaska's Indigenous Peoples are being denied the right to protect our culture and way of life and the right to develop our own resources for our social and economic wellbeing. My people, the Inupiaq people, were blessed with abundant natural resources, yet many of us struggle to even survive while witnessing billions of dollars of wealth taken before our eyes.
The only honorable and rightful way to remedy this injustice is to recognize the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska's right to self-determination. The Territory of Alaska was unlawfully removed from the list of non-self-governing territories, and the United Nations, when it voted, neglected to ensure that the United States followed the proper rules and procedures outlined in Article 73 and in the General Assembly resolutions.
Clearly the vote for statehood was not a free and informed expression of the political will of the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska for many reasons, the most obvious of which is the majority of voters were not in fact Indigenous Peoples of Alaska. To correct this gross violation of the International Law, Alaska must be re-added to the list of non-self-governing territories.
Ian Erlich is a Kotzebue resident and CEO of Manillaq Association. He can be reached at ierlich@maniilaq.org. His views are his own. This op-ed was first published in The Arctic Sounder.

From: "Paul Garwood" p.d.garwood@gmail.com
To: waterlaw@uci.net
Sent: Fri 07/10/11 8:51 AM
Subject: Fwd: subject Human Rights Council takes strong action on water, climate change and toxic waste
 

Blocked imageBlocked image

Human Rights Council takes strong action on water, climate change and toxic waste

7 October 2011/Geneva: The United Nations Human Rights Council has taken great strides to ensure national water governance better considers human rights, and has also taken into account national concerns over the effects environmental degradation is having on human rights, according to environmental nongovernmental organizations Green Cross International and WaterLex.

Among resolutions adopted in Geneva last week by the Human Rights Council at its 18th Session, three were passed dealing with water, climate change and toxic waste. “Considered all together the three resolutions contribute to a more integrated approach to water governance through a human rights perspective,” WaterLex  and Green Cross International said in a joint statement issued today.

The resolutions share common concerns, raised by Member States, on the impact environmental degradation is having on human rights, including access to safe-drinking water, which the Human Rights Council recognized as a basic human right in 2010.

- Resolution L.1 on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation1 calls on States to adopt a human rights-based plan of action for the implementation of the rights to water and sanitation. The Resolution builds upon the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water and Sanitation2 : it encourages States to adopt a holistic and integrated approach that clarifies responsibilities of all stakeholders, including those of the private sector, 3  in the different steps of national and local planning from the elaboration of evidence-based policies on the supply of water and sanitation to their implementation and monitoring. The resolution also stresses the importance of having the vision and political will to sufficiently prioritize water and sanitation,4 helps ensure more sustainable results, and strengthens participation, transparency, non-discrimination and equality, and accountability. 5

- Resolution L.26 on Human Rights and Climate Change6 calls upon the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a seminar addressing the adverse impacts of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights, “with a view to following up on the call for respecting human rights in all climate change-related actions and policies, and forging stronger interface and cooperation between the human rights and climate change communities”.

Higher water temperatures and changes in extremes, including floods and droughts, are projected to affect water quality and exacerbate many forms of water pollution. Changes in water quantity and quality due to climate change are expected to affect food availability, stability, access and utilization. Population growth and migration interrelate with climate change and water issues. Climate change and natural disasters may displace up to 200 million people by 2050, Refugees International estimates.

- Resolution L.6 on hazardous substances and waste7 adopts a more holistic approach to waste treatment covering the life cycle of dangerous substances and waste from production to elimination. 8 It strengthens the focus of the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights, while changing its name.9 It also calls upon the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur to compile best practices on the human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of waste. 10

Pollutants such as sludge, sewage, garbage and toxic wastes such as oil spills have damaged water supplies. The 2011 report of the Special Rapporteur highlights that 20%-25% of all waste generated by hospitals and other healthcare facilities are regarded as hazardous.11 Such waste may create a variety of health risks if not managed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. Water pollution is a crucial issue in countries with weak or non-existent regulations to protect their water supplies.

Each resolution points to a water-related issue on which States must focus, while adopting a holistic and integrated approach to water and sanitation. The resolutions consist of non-legally binding political commitments that aim to guide States on implementing international law. As such they serve as a reminder that international human rights law is the pivotal axis of the international law system and that all international treaties must be interpreted in the light of it. 

About WaterLex

Founded in 2010, WaterLex is an international think tank, specialized in the field of water governance. A legally registered public interest association in France and Switzerland, WaterLex intends to play a facilitating role in governance processes, while providing the various stakeholders with reports and tools developed on the basis of the current state of knowledge, training activities adapted to their needs, and mediation and counseling services in the field of human rights, particularly the right to water and sanitation. For further information on a human rights-based approach to water governance: www.waterlex.org

About Green Cross International
Green Cross International, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev, is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization working to address the inter-connected global challenges of security, poverty eradication and environmental degradation through a combination of high-level advocacy and local projects. GCI is headquartered in Geneva and has a growing network of national organisations in over 30 countries.   For further information on Green Cross’s work on toxic waste: http://www.greencross.ch/en/projects/water-life-peace.html

Contacts:
Hélène Boussard
Research Coordinator
Waterlex
h.boussard@waterlex.org
Mob: +41762406399
Off: +41227982479
Website: www.waterlex.org
Follow WaterLex on Facebook and Twitter

Paul Garwood
Director of Communications
Green Cross International
paul.garwood@gci.ch
Mob: +41797760454
Off: +41227891662
Skype: paul.garwood
Website:www.gci.ch
Follow Green Cross on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr

1Resolution A/HRC/18/L.1on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
2The third report presented by the Special Rapporteur, Ms Catarina De Albuquerque, on 15 September 2011 was dedicated to national plans of action for the realization of the rights to water and sanitation. All reports are available from :http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/iexpert/
3OP 7 (i) of the Resolution L1 provides that: [The Human Rights Council calls upon State] To provide for a  regulatory framework aimed at ensuring that all water and sanitation service providers respect and protect human rights and do not cause human rights violations or abuses, and to ensure that national minimum standards, based on human rights criteria, are in place when water and sanitation services are decentralized, in order to ensure coherence and countrywide compliance with human rights;
4OP 7 (j) of the Resolution provides that: [The Human Rights Council calls upon States] To provide for a  framework of accountability that provides for adequate monitoring mechanisms and legal remedies, including measures to overcome obstacles in access to justice and other accountability mechanisms and lack of awareness of the law, human rights and opportunities to claim these rights”
5OP 7 (j) of the Resolution provides that: [The Human Rights Council calls upon States] To provide for a  framework of accountability that provides for adequate monitoring mechanisms and legal remedies, including measures to overcome obstacles in access to justice and other accountability mechanisms and lack of awareness of the law, human rights and opportunities to claim these rights”
6Resolution A/HRC/18/L.26/Rev1 on Human Rights and Climate Change
7Resolution A/HRC/18/L.6 on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste
8OP3 (c) of the Resolution A/HFRC/18/L.6 provides that the information compiled by the Special Rapporteur covers “[t]he scope of national legislation in relation to manufacturing, trade, transport, distribution, use and final disposal of hazardous substances and waste”.
9The "Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights" has become the "Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes"
10OP5 of the Resolution A/HFRC/18/L.6.
11The 2011  report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Calin Georgescu, focuses on medical waste. All reports are available

 

 

6/21/11

 

From: nikos pastos [mailto:nikospastos@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:02 PM
To: Nikos Pastos; walter parker; Carl Wassilie
Cc: Wedemeyer, Kate
Subject: Center for Water Advocacy www.centerforwateradvocacy.org To:National Ocean Council Strategic Action Plan on the Alaska/Arctic Region Comments to the National Ocean Council listening session

To:National Ocean Council Strategic Action Plan on the Alaska/Arctic Region

Comments to the National Ocean Council  listening session

From: 

Center for Water Advocacy

Alaska Office

P.O BOX 2069
HOMER, AK 84532

submitted by Nikos Pastos 

-Indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments of Alaska will all be impacted by the National Ocean Policy. The failure of the State of Alaska to recognize the sovereignty of indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments accentuates the real need for research funding and inclusion of Tribal Government and Tribal Community authority in every phase of the National Ocean Council Strategic Action Plan

1. Since time immemorial the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic and sub--Arctic have used and occupied all of the  waters (marine, coastal, in-land waters) for customary and traditional hunting, fishing, gathering, harvesting, bartering, commerce and navigation

 

2. Fish allocations  and management of Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska should be particularly emphasized.

 

3. Government to Government consultation pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and Executive Orders mandating overnment to Government consultation and environmental justice must include all tribal governments in Alaska, as the National Ocean Council strategic policies will impact all indigenous peoples and Tribal governments in Alaska

 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has pre-cluded and left out , not included tribal governments in any management programs that impact tribal governments and tribal peoples.

4. Federal funding to Tribes must be fully allocated  to begin tribal scientific assessments of the health of oceans, and ocean resources.

5.

 

A commercial fishing moratorium and industrial development moratorium must continue to the north of the northern Bering Sea Research Area, until such time as the commercial fishing industries can demonstrate through independent, peer reviewed scientific studies that include Traditional Ecological Knowledge that no negative impacts to the Benthic habitat.

 

6. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is the best available science for thousands of years.

 

All tribal governments  and especially  Coastal tribal governments and coastal tribal communities must fully seated  be included in advisory councils, and fully funded for research and implementation for Coastal Zone Management Planning and Coastal Marine and Spatial Planning in the National Ocean Council Strategic Plan.

9/30/10

Today, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has launched a new
information portal on "Human rights impacts of oil pollution: U.S. Gulf
Coast, Ecuador, Nigeria" - see the announcement below. Please consider
forwarding this to any of your contacts who may be interested.

Best regards,

The team at Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

PRESS RELEASE
(for immediate release - Tuesday 28 September 2010)


Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launches online hub:
"Human rights impacts of oil pollution: U.S. Gulf Coast, Ecuador,
Nigeria"

Today the non-profit Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launched a
special online information hub on the human rights impacts of oil
pollution in the U.S. Gulf Coast, Ecuador, and Nigeria:

www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/Oilpollution


Christopher Avery, Director of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre,
said:

"Massive oil spills create human rights disasters as well as
environmental catastrophes. As media coverage of the Gulf spill
subsides, and people in the Niger Delta and eastern Ecuador continue to
live in the midst of decades of oil pollution, we decided the time was
right to create a platform that keeps an ongoing focus on the human
rights impacts."



The new portal impartially presents reports, articles and videos from
all sides. What are the victims, advocates, companies and commentators
saying? Are the abuses continuing? Are past abuses being addressed?
Are steps being taken to prevent further spills? Do victims have
effective remedies? What is the latest news about lawsuits and
compensation claims?



The Ecuador and Nigeria briefings include articles raising concern that
the impacts of oil pollution in those countries have received very
little attention and remedial action in comparison with the U.S. Gulf
Coast spill. For example, a July 2010 Agence France-Presse report
commented:



"An oil spill may be a rare disaster off the coast of the U.S., but here
in the Niger Delta, they stopped keeping count long ago...It's an
ecological disaster, but rarely makes the headlines."



Human rights impacts:

"We are a subsistence community. We have been here for centuries...We
make our living from the harvest of the waterways and this is also where
we get our food that we eat. The oil spill has the potential to imperil
all of us."

Rosina Philippe, Atakapa-Ishak Tribe, Grand Bayou Village, Louisiana, in
"Oil Spill Threatens Native American 'Water' Village", National
Geographic, 8 Jun 2010


"We had absolutely no idea what was going to happen the day we filmed
with the Quichuar people in Ecuador...They were angry with the oil
companies for polluting their lands and ruining their lives. After they
showed us around, we could see why. Several large pits full of oil and
toxic waste are scattered throughout their land. They told us that toxic
substances from these pits regularly flow into their water supply and
have also polluted the food chain, which the Quichuar rely on for their
survival. All this has made them sick, they said, and very, very angry.
After standing next to one of the pits for a short while I began to feel
dizzy. The smell was overpowering and my stomach churned...What it must
be like to live there, with the fear of contamination ever-present, I
can't even begin to imagine."

"Filming with the Quichuar in the Ecuadorian Rainforest - The Curse of
Oil: Producers' Diary", Rebecca John, BBC, Jun 2005



"It kills our fish, destroys our skin, spoils our streams, we cannot
drink. I have no livelihood left."

Saturday Pirri, palm wine tapper, village of Kpor, Niger Delta, in
"Nigeria: 'World oil pollution capital'", Caroline Duffield, BBC News,
15 Jun 2010



The human rights impacts of oil pollution may include displacement, loss
of livelihoods, damage to physical health, damage to mental health,
abuses of cultural rights, differential access of various ethnic groups
to remedies, workplace deaths and injuries, and alleged complicity in
the ill-treatment or killing of protesters. Internationally-recognised
human rights standards relating to each of these impacts are included in
the portal.



The companies covered in the briefings are:



a) U.S. Gulf Coast: BP, Anadarko Petroleum, Cameron International,
Halliburton, MOEX Offshore (part of Mitsui Oil Exploration), Nalco,
Transocean

b) Ecuador: Chevron and Texaco (now owned by Chevron), Petroecuador

c) Nigeria: Shell, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Total, Nigerian National
Petroleum Corporation (NNPC)



Before launching the new portal, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
invited each of those companies to contribute any further information or
statements they wished to send.



The portal includes links to reports about Ecuador and Nigeria tracked
by the Resource Centre over many years of contact with affected people
and their representatives, and with companies operating in those
countries. NGOs and companies have sent reports over the years to,
respectively, the Centre's Head of Latin America (Mauricio Lazala, a
Colombian national based in the UK) and Anglophone Africa Researcher
(Abiola Okpechi, a Nigerian national based in South Africa). Resource
Centre staff travelled to the U.S. Gulf Coast in July 2010 to collect
information from a number of affected communities, from BP, and from
health, environmental and human rights experts. Greg Regaignon, the
Centre's Head of Research, commented:



"Among others, we met BP representatives, and Native American, African
American, Vietnamese American and Croatian American fishing communities
whose livelihoods were impacted by the spill. In addition to collecting
reports about a range of widely-reported concerns, we received many
reports about the spill's impact on mental health."



The right to mental health is a human rights issue that rarely receives
the attention it deserves. Dr. Arwen Podesta, Assistant Professor of
Psychiatry at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans,
remarked in July 2010:



"I have seen a new group of people coming into mental health in-patient
hospitals for treatment since the beginning of the oil disaster. The
new cases I have seen include fishermen and others with jobs on boats,
seeking treatment for substance abuse, severe depression, anxiety and a
host of other mental health problems; some are suicidal... The available
mental health infrastructure is simply insufficient to treat all those
who need it."



The purpose of the briefings is to keep an ongoing focus on these
important issues, and to provide a platform to reflect the continuing
public debate.



All three briefings - U.S. Gulf Coast, Ecuador and Nigeria - will be
kept updated over the coming months and years. Any company,
organization or commentator wishing to submit a clarification, response
or further information is welcome to do so - see contact details below.
When concerns are raised about the human rights impacts of a company,
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invites the company to provide a
public response to the allegations. This allows companies to put
forward their views, and encourages companies to address important
concerns being raised by civil society.



In coming years the Resource Centre will consider expanding this
information hub to cover oil pollution in other countries.



________________________________________________________________________
______________





Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
<http://www.business-humanrights.org/> tracks the human rights impacts
(positive & negative) of 5000 companies in over 180 countries. The site
is updated hourly and receives 1.5 million hits per month.



Mary Robinson chairs its 80-member International Advisory Network. Its
20 Academic Partners include leading institutes in Africa, Asia, Europe,
Latin America and North America.



For further information about the Resource Centre, see the "About us
<http://www.business-humanrights.org/Aboutus/Briefdescription> " section
of the website.
________________________________________________________________________
______________



If you have questions about this new portal, or would like to submit
further information for the portal, please contact:



* U.S. Gulf Coast:

o Greg Regaignon, Head of Research (
regaignon@business-humanrights.org
<regaignon@business-humanrights.org> ), phone: +1 909 626-0260 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +1 909 626-0260      end_of_the_skype_highlighting



* Ecuador:

o Mauricio Lazala, Head of Latin America (
lazala@business-humanrights.org <lazala@business-humanrights.org>
), phone: +44 20 7636 7774 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7636 7774      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

o Annabel Short, Head of Programme (
short@business-humanrights.org), phone: +1 212 564 9160 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +1 212 564 9160      end_of_the_skype_highlighting



* Nigeria:

o Joe Westby, Researcher (westby@business-humanrights.org
<westby@business-humanrights.org> ), phone: +44 20 7636 7774 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7636 7774      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

o Abiola Okpechi, Anglophone Africa Researcher (
okpechi@business-humanrights.org), phone +27 21 531 2855 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +27 21 531 2855      end_of_the_skype_highlighting



See the Resource Centre website for contact details
<http://www.business-humanrights.org/ContactUs> of our UK and US
offices, and of researchers based in India, Senegal, South Africa and
Ukraine.



SUPPORT THE RESOURCE CENTRE: Please consider making a donation
<http://www.business-humanrights.org/Aboutus/Makeadonation> to help us
continue to provide these resources for free. To avoid any possible
perception of a conflict of interest, the Resource Centre does not
accept donations from companies or company foundations. Donations from
individuals and independent foundations are therefore essential for our
work to continue.



 

 

9/22/10

The  2 goals developed at the North American Indigenous Caucus (Western Mining Action Network) meeting in Denver, September 17-19m 2010 are:

 
  • ASSERT OUR OWN INDIGENOUS NATURAL WATER LAWS & INITIATE A NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO HAVE WATER RECOGNIZED AS A SPIRITUAL ENTITY ESSENTIAL TO ALL LIFE ON MOTHER EARTH
  • HOLD CORPORATIONS & GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE TO CLEAN CONTAMINATED WATER
The Alaska Region of the Indigenous Caucus participants CAN use this as a platform in addressing Alaska specific water issues; and also pursue an Alaska Regional Meeting on water justice for our future generations, emphasizing mining impacts and community-to-community networking (local, national and international case studies). 
 

 

 

 
PS    After speaking with the Alaska Big Village Network steering committee and advisors, I would also like to offer Alaska's Big Village Network blog as a space where indigenous voices may be heard regarding any of the multitude of human rights issues, not limited to social justice, environmental justice and climate justice.  ABVN is working on developing information justice and democratic, community-based participatory research for more inclusion in healing our communities; and voicing concerns to empower people for informed decision making as individuals and/or collectively to provide guidance for tribal leaders and other public servants.
 
 
 
--
Carl Wassilie
Yup'iaq Biologist
907.382.3403
 
INDEGINOUS CAUCUS REPORT

1/4/10

December 28, 2009

 

 

The Honorable Ken Salazar

Secretary of the Interior

Department of the Interior

1849 “C Street, Northwest

Washington

District of Columbia

20240

 

RE:  “Subsistence” Comments and a Request for Tribal Governments to be provided ample opportunity to provide their Comments and Solutions for the issue of Fishing, Hunting, Gathering, Harvesting Traditional and Cultural Resources in Alaska

 

Dear Secretary Salazar:

 

These comments are submitted as you requested.  The news release of November 18, 2009 on the matter of Traditional and cultural uses of resources is of great importance to me and my family and our future generations.  I submit these comments with respect for my ancestors and Elders and my traditional and cultural lifeway.  Thank you for taking the time to read and understand and assist Alaska’s First Nation peoples and their communities to cope with the on-going problem.

 

Subsistence  Background:

 

1.      I protest, deny and object to several Executive ACTS and ORDERS and PROCLAMATIONS that are all without a referendum vote of the First Nations and Peoples of Alaska (Statehood and its Constitution; Alaska Native Claims Settlement ACT and Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands ACT).  The State of Alaska Constitution has a Disclaimer that is agreed to bythe state and its people :

Article XII § 12. Disclaimer and Agreement

The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the Union. The State and its people further disclaim all right or title in or to any property, including fishing rights, the right or title to which may be held by or for any Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or community thereof, as that right or title is defined in the act of admission. The State and its people agree that, unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States. They further agree that no taxes will be imposed upon any such property, until otherwise provided by the Congress. This tax exemption shall not apply to property held by individuals in fee without restrictions on alienation.

And in the Alaska Statehood Act, a Compact with United States:

Alaska Statehood Act

Compact with United States

               Section 4

 

           As a compact with the United States said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States, and to any lands or other property, (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts (hereinafter called natives) or is held by the United States in trust for said natives; that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United States or which may belong to said natives, shall be and remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the United States until disposed of under its authority, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall recognize, deny, enlarge, impair, or otherwise affect any claim against the United States, and any such claim shall be governed by the laws of the United States applicable thereto; and nothing in this Act is intended or shall be construed as a finding, interpretation, or construction by the Congress that any law applicable thereto authorizes, establishes, recognizes, or confirms the validity or invalidity of any such claim, and the determination of the applicability or effect of any law to any such claim shall be unaffected by anything in this Act: And provided further, That no taxes shall be imposed by said State upon any lands or other property now owned or hereafter acquired by the United States or which, as hereinabove set forth, may belong to said natives, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation.

 

2.       I protest, deny and object to the term “aboriginal” used in ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement ACT).  That term should never have been allowed to be used, especially on defining peoples of Alaska.  My peoples are not from Australia nor from Canada/England/nor under any Vatican law.  The University of Alaska Fairbanks Native Language Center has a map outlining the 22 distinct languages of Alaska (you can go to :  www.uaf.edu/anlc/).   My original rights, my allodial rights, my customary and traditional rights of fishing, hunting, gathering and harvesting including bartering and trading….I maintain them and I retain them and I am standing on the ground on these rights.  My ancestors nor I have ever givenup, nor traded, nor ceded our original rights to our lands, to our cultural and traditional resources of fishing, hunting, gathering and harvesting. 

 

Other jurisdictions, other governments employees/agents have used various terms to NOT recognize my original rights that have been manipulated as if they were wiped out by using mere terms that express other functions, other governments attempts to “own/manipulate/micromanage Alaska’s First Nation peoples and traditional lands, territories and cultural resources.”  The “aboriginal” term is a gross manipulation of the truth of my status as a First Nation indigenous individual/as a real human being of Alaska. 

 

______________________________________________________________________________

Definitions of aboriginal on the Web:

1.       of or pertaining to members of the indigenous people of Australia; "an Aboriginal rite"

2.       Aborigine: a dark-skinned member of a race of people living in Australia when Europeans arrived

3.       native: characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from the beginning; "native Americans"; "the aboriginal peoples of Australia"

4.       native: an indigenous person who was born in a particular place; "the art of the natives of the northwest coast"; "the Canadian government scrapped plans to tax the grants to aboriginal college students"

5.       having existed from the beginning; in an earliest or original stage or state; "aboriginal forests"; "primal eras before the appearance of life on earth"; "the forest primeval"; "primordial matter"; "primordial forms of life"

3.      I protest the term “subsistence”.  Alaska’s First Nation peoples have ancient and historical rights to their cultural and traditional sources of fishing, hunting, gathering and harvesting.  Our commerce of bartering and trading is still intact.  We have not ceded our rights for mere “subsistence”.

 

4.      I remind everyone of the 3 attempts by the Russians, during their Fur Trading Days, to further their trading areas up the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers.  Every attempt was met with Tribal forces.  The Russians were killed both times and on the third attempt, the Russians lost again, but this time the Russian Fur Traders handed over their pistols to Chief Larrion in the Village of Nulato. (Read the Book:  Chief Larrion which tells the story of these events and how the Russians gave up their fight to Alaska’s First Nations Tribal Forces.) 

 

So there is a treaty between Russia and Alaska, that has not been acknowledged by “mainstream” educational systems, by foreign governments, by foreign oppressors.   Alaska Inter-Tribal Council Chair this year is from the Tribe of Chief Larrion, Chief Michael J. Stickman.

 

5.      Statehood attempts had failed 14 or more times prior to the “outgoing” President Eisenhower when PROCLAIMED  Alaska to be the forty-ninth state---- in his last 4 hours as a “President”, as he is walking out the White House door essentially (what? After Pardons comes Proclamations??). 

 

6.      Statehood vote was not allowed to my peoples.  My ancestors were threatened with jail for a year and/or a $500 fine if they had tried to vote.  Article V Section 1. Suffrage in the Constitution for the State of Alaska….was not “removed” until October 1970. 

 

7.      My ancestors rights were not acknowledged in the 1920’s with the Indian Citizenship ACT; nor were they recognized in the 1968 Civil Rights ACT. We were precluded and excluded in the voting and issue of statehood. 

 

8.      We, the First Nation Peoples, could have and still can vote for independence.  The voting of making Alaska a state of the Union is a violation of the  1945 United Nations Charter Article 73 and enabling Resolution 66I.  The United States is signatory to the United Nations Charter, along with over 150 other Nations.  After the Statehood Proclamation (which is only a President ORDER), the United States then lied to the International community saying that we – the First Nations and peoples had voted on “statehood” and quit submitting the required/agreed to yearly report on Alaska’s First Nations and  peoples’ “advance” in “Self-Governance”  of our lands, territories and peoples. 

 

9.      During Territorial times, United States citizens et al were “treated” as foreigners and were required to have “green cards” as all good aliens/foreigners are required to have.  The foreigners/aliens were never given “dual citizenship” here in the territory of Alaska and therefore the miners, trappers and military – they are NOT the inhabitants (see Treaty of Cession).  They should not  have been allowed to “vote for Alaska to be a state of the union”.

 

10.Russia couldn’t sell what Russia did not own, see ERIC et al v. HUD and the United States of America. No. A76-276 Civil. 464 F. Supp. 44; 1978; August 28, 1978.   Russia did not own us, nor our lands and territories.  Russia could not claim dominion.  The United State Supreme Court Justices have affirmed that there are “no treaties”…. with Alaska’s First Nations and peoples (www.alaskansfirst.org/Eric_v_Hud.pdf).

 

11.Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sac & Fox Nation (No. 92-259.  Argued March 23, 1993 – Decided May 17, 1993):

 

“Our decision in McClannahan relied heavily on the doctrine of tribal

sovereignty, We found “deeply rooted” policy in our Natoins history

“leaving Indians free from State jurisdiction and control”.  411 U.S., at 168

(internatl quotation marks omitted).  Indian nations, we noted, long have

been “’distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within

which their authority is exclusive.’” Ibid. (quoting Worcester v. George, 6

Pet. 515, 557 (1832) (Marshall, J.J.)).

FURTHER LACK OF “DUE PROCESS OF LAW”:

12.I object to Federal Notices that do not give proper amounts of time on matters that affect our First Nations and peoples, lands, areas, territories, natural resources and lifeways that have been practiced and lived in peace regardless of the wars of attrition from the various state and federal governments and their agents.

 

On this “subsistence” comment period which was released on November 18. Which provides approximately 6 weeks to get in comments within a 6 week deadline.  Alaska Federation of Natives was heard on the radio this morning saying we had a deadline of today (Dec. 31). 

 

13.There was no “due process of law” when the tribal citizens were told to sign up for federal ids.  These Certificates of Indian Blood have somehow created us as “U.S. CITIZENS”.  There was no fully informed consent provided.  There was no information relating our true status and asking us to give up our sovereignty to become a “corporate citizen of a corporate state”.  There was no information, no vote, no letters explaining and asking us to vote to give up our original titles and original status for corporate status by Return Receipt Requested to each and every eligible individual that should have been able to vote on this question.

 

 

14.All tribal citizens of Alaska have ancient rights, traditional and cultural rights to fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting, bartering and trading.  The ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement ACT) corporations are “artificial persons” and have “no standing” on fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting, bartering and trading rights of First Nations and peoples of Alaska.  You don’t see “the artificial person/corporation”  going to jail for our rights, or getting illicit tickets by foreign jurisdictions and demanded to appear in foreign courts, nor does it put in nets into the oceans and rivers of Alaska, nor does “the artificial person” put-up fish for it’s elders and families.  A corporation is words on a piece of paper.  (See definitions attached)… “a corporation is legally recognized as an artificial person whose existence is separate and distinct from that of its shareholders who are not personally responsible for the corporation’s acts and debts.”

 

15. ANCSA shareholders are now outnumbered by those that are born after Dec. 18, 1971.  They outnumber ANCSA shareholders 2 to 1.  ANCSA Corps/artificial persons only re-present shareholders, who had no referendum vote on the matter of ANCSA to begin with.  ANCSA was enacted without a referendum vote to every eligible individual (Eskimo, Indian and Aleuts ONLY).  Executive ACTS and Executive ORDERS are done with ONE signature:  the President of UNITED STATES (THE CORPORATE entity, not the de jure, not the real peoples).  Alaska’s First Nation Peoples have been marginalized, precluded and excluded all by Executive Orders/ACTS/Proclamations.

 

Another issue with the Executive ORDER of ANCSA is the money figure that is claimed we received.  Last years Alaska Magazine (Dec.-Jan) issue had a small column noting all the amounts the ANCSA corporations received of the $962.5 million dollars.  I added those number up.  They only added to $444 million approx.  There has been no forensic audit on the monies that were to be distributed.  To date, I personally, have never received ONE PENNY of that money the ANCSA ACT claims.  The only distributions from the ANCSA corporation has been off business profits.  ANCSA distribution checks are required to state where the money is coming from.  None of my distribution checks have ever said I was receiving payment for my lands and rights being taken.  This does not add up.  I’ve never been paid for my rights being taken away, nor for my land rights being taken/hidden/stolen thru bogus corporate contracts.  I affirm that all my rights are intact.  I suspect that other persons, individuals/corporate fictions are attempting to obscure the fact that shareholders have not been paid for loss of inalienable/unalienable rights.  Telling a cover-up story does not make a cover-up story the truth, no matter how many times it is told or written.  A lie is still a lie.  The solution to this issue is to have the GAO conduct a forensic audit of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Alaska Native Fund from day one to the present.

 

16. I object to Alaska First Nation Peoples receiving any fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting, bartering and trading violation tickets/court cases from these foreign jurisdictions.  Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O’Connor opinion in the Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation (92-259), 508 U.S. 114 (1993) said very succinctly:  there are three jurisdictions:  the federal, the tribal and the state. 

 

17.Congress amended Pub. L. 280 with the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Publ. L. 90-284, 82 Stat. 78-80 and among other changes, added a requirement that the tribes involved consent before a State can assume jurisdiction over Indian Country.  The state of Alaska is known to argue that there is no Indian Country in Alaska.  Indian Allotments are valid existing rights especially those Allotments that were approved before the PROCLAMATION of Statehood for Alaska.  The Tribes of Alaska and their citizens have not consented to state jurisdiction over any of their traditional and territorial lands.  The Tribes of Alaska have never ceded their lands and territories to the State of Alaska.  They have not consented to State of Alaska jurisdiction.

 

18.Another matter concerning the Constitution for the State of Alaska….the United States Constitution does not require reading and writing English, nor to be sponsored by 5 white people who have to swear that the “alien/foreigner” gives up all their original rights forever.  Why was the State of Alaska Constitution allowed to be a legal constitution requiring MORE THAN it’s parent corporation does?

 

19. The 1976 Voting Rights ACT…provided One Million Dollars to the State of Alaska to put their voting matters in Alaska Native Languages.  The state did not do this.  Instead they would return the million dollars back to the Fed’s every year.  This is an obstruction to our languages being perpetuated.  The state education system teaches all sorts of “other languages” but not one of our 22 languages is taught in their system.  Even despite the $33 million that is provided yearly to the state to “teach natives”.

 

20.I object to Alaska First Nation peoples being forced to appear in foreign court systems, who hear and have juries that are not our peers.  Those juries are filled with foreigners/ aliens of Alaska First Nations and peoples.  Many court cases of hauling our First Nation peoples into their foreign court system have criminalized our peoples for feeding their families and elders.  The fines and jail sentences are stiffer and longer for Alaska’s First Nation peoples than for the foreigners and aliens residing in Alaska.(Attach Study).  This is a major miscarriage of justice, a miscarriage of due process of law. 

 

Solution:  Transfer these cases to the individual’s Tribal Court for a hearing, for the Tribe to decide if a violation has occurred.  I refuse to enumerate my inalienable/unalienable rights to be a mere “us citizen, state citizen, corporate citizen, etc. etc. et al” especially to some government who does not protect and promote my inalienable rights, my original rights.

 

21. I stood along with approx. 30 other First Nation peoples on the banks of the Kenai River in the summer of 1990 as we fished with a set-net.  Some of us were arrested, some received violation tickets.  When I appeared in the state court I noted that I appeared as a courtesy only, I appeared under Special Appearance, I gave the “the state et al” no venue or jurisdiction and demanded that the state show  jurisdiction over us and this matter.  We invited a United Nations Rappatour, Russell Means attended the “Fish-In”.  Our cases were dismissed about a year later.  I was pregnant with my last son at the time.  Four grandmothers joined us last minute.  I refused to leave until the bail money was collected to bail the grandmothers from jail.  We were released that evening.

 

ISSUES OF TODAY….

 

22.The “Subsistence review” has been taking place along with other Grant Driven/approved by the Federal Government grants/budgets meetings and conferences this fall.  This deadline of December 31, 2009 during Tribal Council and staff vacation time is very oppressive in nature.  Many villages in Alaska are isolated communities.  Travel is costly and sometimes not even available especially between November and December when winter storms are prevalent.  Short timelines diminish Tribal input and many times Tribal Council members have complained that they received NOTICES after the deadline. 

 

23.Currently, over 50 villages/tribal communities lack computer hook-ups for Tribal Council/citizen use.  Alaska Inter-Tribal Council forwards Notices from federal and state agents by email.  Also by fax, as those other villages do have phone and fax capability. 

 

24.My Tribe/Village/Community contact list includes “non-recognized” tribes that we recognize despite foreigners who censor who is and who isn’t going to be “recognized” by foreign jurisdictions.  (I have a copy of the 1890 Census and it describes that there is 511 villages …”but for purposes of enumeration, they are only reporting 309.”

 

25. Tribal Governments have been experiencing higher costs of fuel (The oil industry charges less than a $1.00 for fuel, yet the Federal and State Governments are charging taxes that nearly triple the cost for fuel in Anchorage (yesterday I paid $3.259 per gallon for gasoline.  Approx. a dollar goes to the oil industry and the federal/state entities gouge another $2.259 in taxes). 

 

26.Alaska’s First Nations and peoples are being ripped off by having to pay those taxes on the fuel.  No Tribes/Villages/Reservations in the Lower 48 pay fuel taxes (Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Sac & Fox Nation (92-259), 508 U.S. 114 (1993), yet Alaska’s First Nations and Peoples have  been paying taxes for fuel. 

 

Solution:  These illicitly received taxes should be returned to the Tribal Governments of Alaska, plus interest.  Alaska First Nation Peoples should be able to present their FEDERAL CARD:  Bureau of Indian Affairs Certificate of Indian Blood and not be taxed when purchasing fuel of any kind.  Just like I would get when I traveled to Washington state, I received a tax exempt card to use while in Washington state.  The same same should be available to Alaska’s First Nation/indigenous peoples and all foreign/alien businesses should be honoring tax exemption for Alaska’s First Nations and indigenous peoples.

 

27.This high cost of fuel has affected the ability of families to fish.  The fuel costs of transportation:  vehicles, boats and airplanes affect the ability of families to fish.  This is a war of attrition, slowly starving our peoples from their communities.

 

State of Alaska Fishery Management:

 

28.  The State of Alaska ignores it’s own Constitution (Article XII. Section 12 Disclaimer Clause )and Art. 4 of the Statehood Compact.  The state and its people disclaimed FOREVER our lands and our fishing rights.  To this day the state has not lived up to its own constitution.  This is an unmet contract item. 

 

29.The State of Alaska refuses to comply with Federal laws that recognize our inalienable rights of fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting, including bartering and trading rights.  The state of Alaska has been ticketing our First Nation/indigenous peoples regardless of Federal laws and court cases.

 

30.The State of Alaska has been provided a seat on the Federal Subsistence Board and even “being significantly involved” has not changed the policies of the state.

 

31.The State of Alaska management was shifted from a focus of protection of fishing resources under the Fish and Game Office to a different Department of Natural Resources whose focus is to develop mining interests of the state and its people.

This management plan is a miscarriage of justice whereby mining industry concerns are first and foremost and place over protection and promotion of fish and their habitats.  These two activities work against each other.  This is a war of attrition.

 

Federal Management of Fisheries

 

32.ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation ACT) is another Presidential ACT/ORDER.  Instead of protecting and promoting and bringing Alaska’s First Nations and Peoples up to a standard of self-governance especially concerning our traditional and cultural resources of fishing, hunting, gathering and harvesting

President Carter’s ACT “takes” our ancient and historical,  traditional and cultural resources areas and made them into Parks and Refuges.  This is a “taking” of our lands without our consent.  President Carter was going to go to war with Alaska’s First Nations and Peoples and instead by President ORDER “took” our lands. 

 

How many tickets have been administered to Alaska’s First Nation peoples since ANILCA was created.  How many have been criminalized?  How many families do not have their boats, their fishing gear, their means of feeding their family “taken” from them?  How many appeared in “the state/foreign court”?  How many were judged by “foreigners”….they are not our peers.  We are a political reality.  We are not a “minority”.  This is a war of attrition.

 

33.The Federal Subsistence Board has consistently taken the advice of state employees/agents who are well-known for their stance against Alaska’s First Nation peoples rights of fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting, bartering and trading rights.  Both the Federal employees and the state employees have taken stands against our rights, which is in violation of Article XII. Section 12. ; the Statehood Compact, Article 4; this matter has been affirmed in the Edwardsen v. Morton case.  The Federal government used the Disclaimer clause in this case.  Just recently former Gov. Palin requested that cases be overturned concerning our rights.  This attempt was a violation of the Constitution she swore to uphold.  The Disclaimer Clause is “the price” for “statehood”. 

 

34. Racial discrimination has been exposed from the top managers of the Federal Subsistence board.  Slurs upon First Nation peoples were said in public forums and the make-up of the Board has not shifted despite the complaints from the Tribal citizens, who do have standing on this matter.  There are many federal seats and a seat for the State.  We are 22 distinct nations and peoples in Alaska, why are we diminished to have 1 seat on this Board.  How significant is that type of involvement?  Then that one indigenous seat is the chair, how significant is that type of re-presentation, who can break a tie vote???

 

35.The Federal Government sits by while the state and its employees ticket our First Nation/indigenous peoples for feeding their families on ancient and historical, traditional and cultural resources we have lived off of since time in our memories.

 

36.Our peoples are again violated when they are summoned to the foreign court system and sent to foreign jails and ordered to stiffer and longer sentences than violaters.   Even the “outsiders” who travel to Alaska, that have received tickets, have ended up with insignificant fines and told that they can’t fish in Alaska for 10 years or sometimes its only been 3 years. 

 

37.Our peoples have been witness to boxes of frozen and canned fish being shipped daily during the fishing season,  back to the states.

 

38. In the meantime the mere “subsistence” “take” of only 2% is argued against by many other peoples and foreign governments.  Our fishing seasons are micro-managed.  Our resources are intercepted, then thrown overboard with approval of the Federal government’s council:  North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.  Where is the representation of Alaska’s First Nations and peoples on that Council?  This is a war of attrition.

 

Solutions to the Fishing, hunting, gathering and harvesting Matter:

 

1.       Direct funding of management of fishing, hunting, gathering, harvesting of traditional and cultural resources to Tribal Governments, the First Nations and peoples of Alaska.  Include direct funding for Tribal Enforcement systems also.  Other jurisdictions can receive transfer orders of when their peoples are caught violating and charged forwith.  Guilty offenders will have to pay Tribal fines on top of any state/federal fines if applicable.

 

2.      Tribal Governments enact their laws according to their traditions and culture and overseen by the Elders.  If the Elders final say is given, this is a reflection of the whole Tribal community.  Many of the Tribal communities defer to their Elders when speaking about traditional lands, territories, customs, language, culture, education.  In fact, you can’t raise the issue without the Elders being present.

 

3.      Translators and translation equipment is very needed.  The Elders are teaching our young and new concepts, new ideas need to be told to the young from the Elders viewpoint.  So we need translators for the elders and also translators from the Elders to the Youth. 

 

4.      High carbohydrate diets do not make healthy bodies, esp. when you live in cold climates.  Many studies have recognized the value of high Omega 3 oil foods in our body .  Studies have show  that we are prone to diseases once you start eating the high calorie and high carbohydrate diets (The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People:  A Preliminary Report by Kari Marie Norgaard, Ph.D.; August 2004.  Alaska’s First Nation peoples are new to sugar.  We see the effects of sugar products on indigenous populations most especially.

 

5.       Solution:  We need to teach about the dangers of these types of diets and veerying away from traditional and cultural diets.  Hands on training, teach about what foods are dangerous and why they are dangerous.  We need the translators assisting this education.  We need to show how the alcohol is broken down by your pancreas within 20 minutes.  We see “sugar highs” immediately, kinda like a blackout, a sugar coma…only they are “awake” and unaware of their actions. he Elders have the last say and they have warned us about not eating our foods.

 

6.      Fish travel through an area within 2 weeks.  They come and they are gone.  This cycle is short and cannot be put down on a calendar.  Fish don’t come on a certain day established by state employees/agents.  These cycles need to be respected by all jurisdictions.  Alaska’s First Nation peoples should be unfettered by other jurisdictions threatening or ticketing our peoples for feeding our families and Elders.

 

Solution:  Alaska’s Tribal Governments can and should and some are issuing their own “”Fishing and Hunting” Card.  First Nations and peoples fishing times should be taking place before Commercial interests.  This is about feeding families.  This is not about making money.   Many times these food caches of families are used to assist others make it through the winter. 

 

7.      The Federal government has a law that says that corporations cannot donate food to Tribal governments.  Tribes have been told to create a non-profit so they can receive donated food.  Yet the IRS has advised us that Tribal consortium entities are essentially a 501(a) (like a Church is treated) and State non-profit entities are 501(c) (3)’s.  So how do churches have food banks? 

Solution, change this law to reflect that First Nations and peoples of Alaska can receive donations of food, without receiving a violation charge or the giver is given a violation charge.

 

8.      Alaska Tribes passed a Resolution in 1995 that states only the  Tribes speak for themselves (www.aitc.org then go to the Resolutions page).  Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc. et al,  mere fictions, do not speak for Alaska Tribes/First Nations and peoples in their individual or collective capacity.  ANCSA Corporations presidents/boards/staff have no standing on this issue.  As First Nations peoples they do have standing.

 

I reserve the right to add to my comments.

All rights expressly reserved.

My hand.

 

 

 

_______________________________________           _______________________

Non-treaty Sugpiaq natural woman and                                                 (date)

grandmother  of Afognak Island (Kodiak Island area)

 

PS.  My contact information:  c/o General Delivery in Sutton, Alaska   [99674]

 

Attachments: 

1.        Definitions

2.        The Effects of Altered Diet on the Health of the Karuk People:  A Preliminary Report by Kari Marie Norgaard, Ph.D.; August 2004

 

12/8/09

The IRS wants to action off a portion of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribes reservation to pay alleged back taxes debts.

Jeff Martin can be reached at 605-331-2373 or 800-530-6397.

To All Tribal Leaders Accross Indian Country,

We haven't given up, the Tribe has 180
days yet and Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and I and our Pro bono Attorney are
still working on this. Starting Mon. we are setting up Tipi's and having
Han Blece'Yapi on the land. It is bitterly cold here with snow flurries. It
is prime land overlooking the Missouri, the Tribe wanted to use for wind
energy. It was not held in trust, but fee land. The Sioux Tribes are
supporting Crow Creek.

It is time to make a stand once and for all! Make a statement that our land
never will be for sale!


EVERYONE PLEASE CONTACT
RANDY SIELER, FROM THE SIOUX FALLS US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 605-330-4400 RIGHT
AWAY.
HE IS THE TRIBAL LAISON IN THE US ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND REQUEST A DELAY IN
THE AUCTION OF LAND ON BEHALF OF THE CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBE
YOUR SUPPORT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

Please help Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Below are the contact numbers for the
SD Congressional Delegation and the article in USA Today.

Adrian_Arnakis@thune.senate.gov
kenneth_martin@johnson.senate.gov
Neal.ullman@mail.house.gov
Allison_Binney@Indian.Senate.gov

A. Gay Kingman, M.Ed. Executive Director
Member, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association
1926 Stirling St.
Rapid City, SD 57702
Cell: 605-484-3036
Fax: 605-343-3074
E-mail: KingmanWapato@rushmore.com

Please read the Article about the Crow Creek Tribe at: http://www.trunity.net/cwa/news/view/143101/?topic=24721

11/30/09

Hi Colleen,
 
We are not "Public Participants", we are TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS!  With the new Presidential Order, we have an opportunity to fix that up here or else we lose the unique opportunity we have until January.  After that, I think that opportunity will shrink due to the campaign mode that the Congress and the Administration will begin.  We need to roll back what we have lost int he past 8 years.  QUYANA!
 
Mike
 

11/27/09

Absolutely. Too many times our Tribes have been regarded as "Public Participants" in these important processes. Every Tribe needs to have their own consultation policy, otherwise these important processes are controlled by the agencies.

 
Colleen E. Swan

Hi All,
 
Alaska Tribes have unique opportunity on Monday and Tuesday to begin to address these bad decisions that affect our way of life in Alaska.  AITC, NCAI, and others have consistently oppose the transfer of NPDES to the State and I would think that the Tribes have that window of opportunity to right the wrongs by the previous administration VIA the Presidential Memo on Nation to Nation consultation policy, ONLY with the Tribal Governments!  We must press that up here.  Quyana.
 
Mike

--- On Fri, 11/27/09, Colleen E. Swan <colleenekc@aol.com> wrote:
 


Oh lucky you, Nikos: The announcement said they're working with "Tribal Organizations."

Colleen E. Swan
907-645-2153 (wk)
907-645-2123 (hm)
“I see my path, but I don’t know where it leads. Not knowing where I’m going is what inspires me to travel it.”
―Rosalia de Castro

Sent: Fri, Nov 27, 2009 12:01 am
Subject: FW: Alaska awarded $160,000 for Environmental Justice Project

Hello Mike,
Please see the attached press releases. 
I called Alaska DEC Commissioner Larry Hartig's secretary for this information.  
 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation obtained $160,000 grant from the  EPA Environmental Justice program for tribal consultation. 

 
 It is sickening to include the words environmental justice  with any kind of pollution permitting scheme that comes out of the industry dominated State of Alaska DEC. I wonder if any tribes will be included in this project, or if it will all be spent internally? I guess the NPDES permitting process primacy transfer to Alaska DEC will make the water better to drink and traditional and customary foods such as fish, birds, berries and plants  cleaner safer foods for human consumption and the Emperor's corporate clothes so much more transparent.
 The State of Alaska is one big crime scene.

 
Sincerely, 
Nikos Pastos

Hello Nikos,
 
As promised here is the EPA’s press release on the grant.  I will ask Katharine to give you a call on Monday.  Thanks, Claire
 
Subject: Alaska awarded $160,000 for Environmental Justice Project
 
 

11/4/09

After President Obama's speech to tribal leaders today, Caroline Cannon - President of the Native Village of Pt. Hope, was able to address issues facing arctic tribes with Obama in the Q&A.  Later during the day, George Edwardson - Vice President of Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, raised the issue of offshore drilling in the Arctic and Lease Sale 193 to Secretary Salazar.  Salazar's answer was cut off during the live feed, but his answer was similar to Obama's.   Way to go George and Caroline!
 
Here's a link to the transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-opening-tribal-nations-conference-interactive-discussion-w
 
THE PRESIDENT: All right, this young lady right here.  Yes.
Q    Thank you.  Thank you for this opportunity.  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm so privileged and honored to be here.  My name is Caroline Cannon, president for the Native Village of Point Hope.  I came here with a message from my tribe, that we are impacted with the offshore drilling, the decision that's been made on behalf of our tribe during the Bush administration.  And we would like you to overturn that. 
I live in the coastal village, and exactly where climate change has a big impact.  We are a whaling community, and we need help.  It's happening so fast that last year -- a couple of years ago, there were some incidents that occurred because of the ice condition during the whaling season, so I would like help.  And I think that -- we also are around the coast of the Red Dog Mine, and they have decided that they're going to have a discharge pipeline to our ocean, where we highly rely on our food resources.
So thank you, again.  And my seven-year-son says a big hello.  He said I should give you a hug, but I know that's not an opportunity right now.  (Laughter.)  But thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:  Maybe after the Q&A, I'll get that hug in.  (Laughter.)  I want you to know, just with respect to offshore drilling, Secretary Salazar is in the process of reviewing some of the directives that were issued under the previous administration.  And I am confident that as part of that overarching review, that consultation with potentially affected nations will be part of Ken's process.

8/31/09

 In a small, spare courtroom in the Amazon region of Ecuador, Chevron Corp., California's largest company and one of the world's largest oil producers, will soon face a day of reckoning. After 16 years of litigation, a case the company inherited in a merger, Aguinda vs. Texaco Inc., is nearing an end. The legal battle that began in the United States in 1993 and resumed in Ecuador in 2003 has pitted the multinational against an unlikely adversary, a coalition of indigenous tribes and communities. A verdict is expected early next year. The plaintiffs are poised to prevail, and Chevron acknowledges that it is likely to lose.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-chevron28-2009aug28,0,6949161.story
 

8/31/09

I have permission to share the following.  It originated on another list where the topic was right to food, health etc.  Should the government provide it.  This is a long piece but well worth the read in terms of today's political climate.
Colleen
 
Colleagues,
 
The conversation about rights--generally "human" rights although the non-human has been interjected--has been fascinating.  I have been encouraged to go beyond my usual knee-jerk reactions when I hear something I disagree with.  So I've done a little research on the subject through religious and secular sources, namely the Social Principles of the  United Methodist Church, The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights  of the U.N.  Interestingly, none of them gives a theoretical definition of "rights" or "human rights."  Each of them gives their list of human rights -and- each of them in one form or another proclaims human rights to be rooted in human dignity  which, in the religious tradition is because of the belief that humans are created in the image of God.
 
The Methodists say, "We support the basic rights of all persons to equal access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal redress for grievances, and physical protection."  They then get more specific about the rights of particular groups--racial and ethnic persons, religious minorities, children, etc.
 
In the case of Catholics one must search a little more diligently since every time a new Pope comes along he appears to write something somewhere that implies directly or indirectly a new stance on the subject.  The latest list of specific human rights I could find comes from the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II and includes food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.
 
The UN Declaration has several very abstract human rights listed and reads in part a little like the American Bill of Rights enumerating a several items of "freedom from."  The more practical, material ones that compare with the Methodist and Catholic lists are found in Article 25 and include food, clothing, housing, medical care, security during unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age "or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."  Article 26 includes education as a right.  You really have to read the entire document to get the full impact.
 
These three sources, but especially the Catholic one, relate rights to responsibilities, insisting that every person has the responsibility not only to provide for his or her brothers and sisters but also, and perhaps first, for himself or herself.  When we hear strident voices that seek to deny basic material human rights to anyone and claim that all should make their own way, I believe they have the view that most people who lack basic necessities simply have not worked for them and therefore do not have a right to them.  The facts do not bear this out.  For example, nearly 50% of the 39 million Americans who live in poverty work at full-time jobs, some more than one job, and still are impoverished.  Others are the very young, the very old or the chronically ill.  When you put such faces on the need, what are their rights?
 
The issue, as I heard Susan  raise it, was not whether people in dire circumstances should be provided a safety net, but who should provide it, and whether government has a role to play.  I appreciated Marsha's reminder that our government is "by the people, for the people and of the people," "we the people."  We and our government are not adversaries.  I believe it is naive to think that those in need can be provided for without government mandates in the form of legislation, funded by our taxes.  I believe the business and social sectors, including certainly faith-based groups, have an obligation to participate but for better or worse we cannot rely on the voluntary good will of the people anymore than we can rely on the trickle down of Reaganomics.  Not that legislation changes anyone's heart and mind, but where would we be today in terms of race relations and the practice of racial equality without the  Civil Rights Act of 1964?
 
Each of us in deciding what we believe are inalienable human rights must rely on some kind of input to help us decide responsibly.  In the Christian faith, depending on the flavor we rely on some combination of Scripture, tradition, experience and common sense (reason.) Whether this or something else, I would encourage those ranters at the healthcare town meetings, etc., and each of us as well, to rely on something other than our own immediate emotional reactions.
 
Randy Williams

I  had to forward this information since it's reverberating across 'indian country'.  My paragraphs are reflective of systematic oppression (includes politics) and not meant to harm Ms. Gusty.

 
The anti-Tribal Government campaign is going well for Alaska  while the perpetrators have a clean slate.  No wonder a village sinking into permafrost can't access THEIR own money to build a house in their traditional homelands....seems like apartheid eh?
 
It is not much different than blaming indigenous hunters on species declines; while allowing for free toxic dumping by the biggest campaign contributors (including State-chartered Alaska Native Corporations, NOT TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS).  Instead of finding out why the animals are sick, all parties are blaming the indigenous peoples.
 
Ted Stevens did mention in 2005 that the growing population of Native children is a threat to the State of Alaska; thereafter, he directed federal monies away from the Tribes and Villages (public safety and tribal courts) and filled the State of Alaska with 'indian money'. 
The 2007 Amnesty report on widespread sexual violence on Alaska's Indigenous Women refers to testimony from Alaska about a woman that was raped, then called the police, a State Trooper came and raped her too (who is she suppose to call: GHOSTBUSTERS?).  What's the difference between this action and the one 45 years ago by the religious factions 'saving native savages' by sexually abusing little boys and girls in the name of 'god'. 
 
So indigenous children in Alaska are under State jurisdiction that is trying to destroy subsistence fishing and hunting rights in the name of 'constitutional equality'.  The Alaska Constitution that ignores all historical relevance of the indigenous peoples in this 'great land'.  The villages and tribal governments don't get anything from the BIA, the BIA has all their employees in Anchorage and Juneau sucking up money that should go to Tribal Governments and villages to build their own sovereign capacity and infrastructure needs.   Honey Buckets should go the the BIA and the State of Alaska, not the tribal governments. 
 
Another missing indigenous person, just blame alcohol.  I don't think there is a media outlet that would blame the racist system and fucked up colonial apartheid.  Indigenous Reporters that speak against the STATUS QUO are booted, including at KNBA.   Who is handing over the beating sticks to whack up some bad Natives when they speak their language or ask to go the bathroom?  English Only law?  It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of proud boys and girls called 'indians' were gathered into colonization schools operating to make savagery and suffering the norm of modern Alaska 'civilized' society.  Stripped naked and destroying of all 'traditional' clothing and toys would probably put a damper on most cultures and peoples' children that endured the indignity of religious savagery.  Taking away ancestral names and putting on inmate clothes with official numbers would seem to be out of Nazi Germany, but it happened in ALASKA- to little children!.  Notice that most all place names in the cities are former military colonist.   I wonder how much of those natural resources the colonist will secure before dignity is restored to the indigenous peoples?   How many Billions of dollars must leave the State before the State has enough backbone to subsidize the villages, let alone a single tribal government????   Rape? Resource colony?  Apartheid?  State of Alaska?  What's really going on?  Medical experiments:

(1955 - 1957) In order to learn how cold weather affects human physiology, researchers give a total of 200 doses of iodine-131, a radioactive tracer that concentrates almost immediately in the thyroid gland, to 85 healthy Eskimos and 17 Athabaskan Indians living in Alaska. They study the tracer within the body by blood, thyroid tissue, urine and saliva samples from the test subjects. Due to the language barrier, no one tells the test subjects what is being done to them, so there is no informed consent (Goliszek).

I'd say there is some work to be done....only if the public is educated enough to know the truth.  Perpetrating racism and discrimination is all too common here in Alaska.  The best war tactic to get resources under another persons house, river or mountain is to remove them.  The State is removing indigenous peoples out of villages to get to the resources.  Palin even sent out a State address to the villagers to 'move away and get a job.'  Who is perpetuating this and why?  New experiments on psychotic drugs are up for grabs, Alaska is leading the way......check out Alaska Native Medical Center.  Who might be 'involuntarily' placed next? 

Silence the knowing populations is a power trip for those in control.  Just ask Ted Stevens about blowing up Point Hope Inuit with nukes for an industrial port?

in awareness,

Carl Wassilie

Alaska's Big Village Network  

 
As I suspected, the Channel 11 News Report, that has been picked up by Indian Country publications around the country, incorrectly characterized our Tribal governments as perpetrators rather than the victims of mismanagement. The thrust of the report is that the BIA and the IRRP program mismanaged the funds, failed to fill technical positions despite the availability of funds and failed to provide the oversight required as the fiduciary agency. As a result, needed Tribal infrastructure has not been built. I will call and get details on the $14 M fiasco but, I suspect, it wasn’t a single Village, although it was characterized as such.

Channel 11’s presentation of the finding was misleading.

Channel 11 states...
“In the federal audit- of $32 million D.O.T. dollars handed out to Alaska Native communities every year only $3 to 4 million worth of road projects were actually verified as completed.”

...While the Report states
“While 32 million in program funding was distributed to approximately 230 Alaska Native communities each year, only about $3 to $4 Million in road projects had any physical oversight or verification of work completed.”

The first implies that only 3 or 4 million were completed. That is NOT true; the Report says that there was oversight provided on $3 or $4 Million dollars worth of projects meaning that we DO NOT KNOW the status of the other $28 M worth of projects. The point being NOT that $28 M worth of projects were mismanaged or incomplete but that the OVERSIGHT over $28 M in projects was not provided.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT difference. The Channel 11 spin implies that there is $28 M in failed projects and that is not what the report says.

One of the specific instances cited in the report involves a $2 M unauthorized road project where the BIA itself was responsible for the directing that unauthorized use not the Tribe.

The most egregious error in the Channel 11 report, however, is the following statement: “The letter from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Interior to Secretary Ken Salazar warns; give Alaska Native tribal governments money and they will likely misuse it.” [Emphasis added]

NOWHERE in the IG’s transmittal letter to Secretary Salazar was this stated. This conclusion was fabricated by Ms Gusty or her staff.

Finally, the Report is, itself, not the source documentation and raises as many questions as it answers.

1. The $14 M conversion of funds to support tourism is vague. How exactly were those funds expended? Was it on a related road project or was it spent on non-transportation services? If it was the former, then there is some mitigation of value and benefit; if not, then the misuse is even more eggregious;
2. The “overtime” may have been a result of severe winter weather conditions required airport/road maintenance and the absence of qualified personnel. It may have been associated with emergency erosion or flooding. Again, there is insufficient data to judge. It is neither surprising or shocking to me that the bureaucrats in charge of the program were unable to explain the circumstances.

Having said all this, there appear to be at least one real instance of misuse/fraud on the local level; namely, the $500,000 used to purchase a restaurant/bar. Mismanagement, including failure to complete timely reports, is also doubtless rife throughout the villages. This speaks to the issue of  capacity-building and local project management support.
 

Elstun W. Lauesen, 

I'm very excited.  Say a little prayer and smile.  I keep thinking of my grandparents and great-grandmother and her third husband, Mr. Myles.  I think they are all very happy today.


As we slept, Mary Ann Mills, Olga Malutin, Ron Barnes are meeting with the CERD Committee (United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) and the results of the meeting are extremely important for us all.

 
The United Nations decolonization process requires that we be educated in our own languages, fully capable of running a nation before we determine by vote (plebisite) whether we remain a territory, become a part of the US (state) or become like Greenland an independant nation.  Mary Ann Mills called late last night to tell me that they need all the support from tribes they can get.

 
Please note - this is not an attack on the ANCSA corporations, non-profits or anyone else.  This is simply an attempt to have the proper procedures followed and allow us to go through the process.  This is an obligation the United States assumed when it listed Alaska under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.

 
We have been called dreamers and many have accused me of wasting my education, training for a 'pipe dream.'  I've never been ashamed of our attempts to have the obligations the United States placed upon itself met for future generations will benefit greatly from having the opportunities provided in the decolonization process.  Dreams allow us the possiblity of something beyond what is.  Quyaana.
 
 

  Victoria Hykes Steere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8-27-09

 

 

Looks like Tim is up for the "Grant for Change" and needs help. Also, if the Court's accept his lawyer's argument that climate change can be judicially noticed in court it would be a major win for enviros and human right litigants as, in many cases, climate change would be considered an accepted fact and we would no longer have to prove it's existance.

Harold

Click Here to See Tim's Letter


How much longer will the hunters take the racism????
>
> We now have the evidence of racism and discrimination by all colonial parties involved.
>
> Here is the newest article blaming Native Hunters again....
>
>
>
> This does relate to the charges against Point Hope hunters......
>
>
>
> Environmental RACISM. Purely environmental injustice. Fueling hate toward the indigenous peoples. This is documented in the public through the 'blogs'....extreme HATE and racism directed at indigenous hunters as a result of previous arcticles on Cook Inlet Beluga Whales. The same is happening with the Point Hope hunters.... dump your nukes, drill for zinc and blame the natives
>
>
>
>
> Meanwhile in Cook Inlet CHEVRON gets a clean toxic dump slate, ANCHORAGE dumps raw sewage and the MILITARY continues to do whatever sonar testing they want.......
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.adn.com/3246/story/909567.html
>
>
>
> Belugas stranded on Knik Arm mud flats swim free

 



 

 

carl

Add Comment

Comments

There are no comments.

Add Comment



You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to login.