August 2020

Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights

Monday, February 12, 2018

'South Dakota Recognizes Treaty of Ft. Laramie' by American Indian Genocide Museum




South Dakota Officially Recognizes the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868
Within the Definition of 'Discovery' is a Mandate for Genocide

By Steve Melendez, Paiute
President, American Indian Genocide Museum
Censored News
French translation by Christine Prat at:
http://www.chrisp.lautre.net/wpblog/?p=4431

The definition of "discovery" per Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition is: "International law, as the foundation for a claim of national ownership or sovereignty, discovery is the finding of a country, continent, or island previously unknown, or previously known only to its uncivilized inhabitants."

With this 1823 law, (Johnson v. M'Intosh), the Supreme Court institutionalized racial discrimination against the Indians. It guaranteed that the Indians would never win their treaty land back in a court of law. In America, not only is justice blind, it is crazier that a bat. The gist of this law says that Indians owned the land right up to the point that Columbus "discovered" it. This law deserves to be dragged from the vaults of America's Freemasonry past and made to stand in the light of day.

 Apparently South Dakotans have had enough of being witnesses to the historic injustices perpetrated  against Native Americans in their state. Too long had white America sat idly by and watched unjust laws that promote racism and instigate wars of genocide continue to happen. On January 25, 2018 the South Dakota Senate passed Senate Resolution 1 which confirmed "the legitimacy of, and South Dakota's support for, the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie"

Most South Dakotans know their history. Who can forget the seizure of the Homestake Gold Mine? As President Grant said at the time, "Gold has been discovered in the Black Hills, a portion of the Sioux reservation"?  Even this event would have been expunged from the history books had it not been for a new technology at the time---photography. The photographs have burned into American memory the images of the dead, piled high and about to be thrown into the mass grave at Wounded Knee.

What must never be forgotten by everyone are the laws that justify land grabbing . The tactics in the past the government used against other tribes with treaties must never be forgotten. Only in the light of past legal precedent can racist colonial law be understood. The chilling lesson to be learned is to never venture into the white man's court seeking treaty rights because you cannot win in a kangaroo court. All that has ever been gained by taking a treaty into the white man's court is not land rights but a tiny monetary settlement dangled in front of an impoverished people for their homeland.

The U.S. Government cited Johnson v. M'Intosh  in 2001 when giving their reason for ignoring the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863 with the Western Shoshone.

In 1955, when the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians of Alaska had their timber sold by the government to a logging company and clear-cut around their villages, the government also cited Johnson v. M'Intosh .  The Supreme Court chiseled this colonial law in stone when Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion which said in part:

"It leaves with Congress, where it belongs, the policy of Indian gratuities for the termination of Indian occupancy of Government-owned land rather than making compensation for its value a rigid constitutional principle."

"…After conquest (Indian tribes) were permitted to occupy portions of territory over which they had previously exercised sovereignty, as we use that term. This is not a property right but amounts to a right of occupancy which…may be terminated and…fully disposed of by the sovereign itself without any legally enforceable obligation to compensate the Indians…This position of the Indians has long been rationalized by the legal theory that discovery and conquest gave the conquerors sovereignty over and ownership of the lands thus obtained."

During World War II, Hitler had a policy of land seizure called "Lebenstrom"--living space.  He justified seizing other peoples lands because the German people needed living space.  Do you know where he got such an idea?  I will give you a hint.  He referred to those people already living in those lands as "natives".  Speaking of the Jews and the Slavs he once said, "The natives will be our Redskins".  This is a direct correlation between the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in America. Genocide began in Germany during World War II with an attitude of "Aryan" white supremacy.  Laws were made which literally took away the homes and lands of Jews and others who were not German. It was this same attitude that was painfully on display for all the world to see in 21st Century  America.  At Standing Rock, Native Americans who had lived on the land from time immemorial were arrested as trespassers and labeled terrorists. Confrontations such as this in the past would have resulted in the Indians being expunged from the face of the earth and American memory had it not been for the advent of videography and social media.

 Apparently South Dakotans have had enough of being part of an American Dream that is an American nightmare for Native Americans.  Living under the rule of law is desirable but witnessing unjust laws that dispossess an entire people in Nazi-like fashion was just too much to bear.

Steve Melendez, Paiute

President, American Indian Genocide Museum
Website:http://www.aigenom.org

Copyright Steve Melendez

NY Attorney General Files Suit Against Weinstein Co. -- Remembering Blackfeet Actress Misty Upham



By Brenda Norrell
Censored News

(UPDATE January 13, 2019) -- The father of murdered Blackfeet actress Misty Upham said evidence was stolen in the case of the rape of his daughter by a Weinstein executive.
Censored News asked Charles whether the family is involved in any of the ongoing lawsuits against Weinstein and Company.
Upham said, "Not at this time. We were approached by a legal firm in a class action law suit against Weinstein and Co. But they were interested in a particular dress that Misty kept that had incriminating DNA on it. This evidence would have bolstered their case but the dress was stolen from our storage unit in Los Angeles."
"We think Weinstein and Co had something to do with the theft but we can't prove it."
Charles said, "Misty's ordeal was not given much attention. Except for a brief reference by Ellen Page, the rape of my daughter by a Weinstein executive was never acknowledged by the MeToo movement."
"There are many indigenous women who experienced sexual predation but are invisible in today's society. Faceless, nameless victims abound and will never find justice. Thank you for your voice. Raising awareness is the best remedy for victims and the best tool to detour these crimes."
Previous article at Censored News(Feb. 12, 2018) The New York Attorney General has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Weinstein Company, to ensure victims of sexual assault will be compensated -- and sexual predators will not.

(Read Attorney's General's statement below.)

Charles Upham, father of Blackfeet actress Misty Upham, said she was raped by a Weinstein executive before she was found dead.
Charles Upham said Misty was raped at the Golden Globes in 2013, but feared the power of Harvey Weinstein. Misty was found dead at the bottom of a ravine on Muckleshoot land in Washington State, after being missing for 11 days in October of 2014.
Charles Upham wrote on Facebook:
"My daughter, Misty Upham, was a victim of rape by a Weinstein Executive in 2013 at the Golden Globe Awards. The rapist forced her into the men’s room and had his way while other men in formal wear cheered him on as if he were chugging a beer in a contest. As Misty made the walk of shame back to the event, the Exec was given high fives, bragging rights and another notch in his Weinstein Co. belt. What should have been an auspicious occasion for Misty turned into a nightmare of pain, humiliation, fear and anxiety? Her mom and I pleaded with her to press charges since she still has the torn green dress she wore (Photo Above) with the DNA all over it. Misty was afraid to pursue charges because she knew Harvey Weinstein could protect his constituency and ruin her existence. Misty’s experience with Harvey Weinstein left her with the impression that he was a powerful man with many influential connections and could make people disappear. Once while riding in a limo with Quentin Tarantino, Harvey Weinstein and his assistant, somewhere between Salt Lake City and Park City, Utah, the assistant interrupted Weinstein and Tarantino’s conversation in a matter of urgent business; at which point Harvey Weinstein ordered the driver to stop and subsequently kicked his assistant out of the car in the middle of no where during a snow storm amidst subzero temperatures. Misty commented, “What if he freezes to death?” Weinstein retorted “ Somebody will come along and pick him up!” How could anyone expect a sincere investigation when the Weinstein’s company commander and chief is also a perpetrator? Misty said to me 'Dad, every time a rape victim comes forward to get justice they become the cause of the matter!'"
Charles Upham's statement:
https://www.facebook.com/charles.upham.9/posts/10208399015972554
Born in 1982 in Kalispell, Montana, Misty was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for her role in Frozen River.
Misty's acting career included her role in August: Osage County.

A.G. Schneiderman Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against The Weinstein Companies, Harvey Weinstein, And Robert Weinstein

Four Month Investigation Reveals New and Egregious Examples of Sexual Misconduct By Harvey Weinstein and Repeated Violations of New York Law By Company Officials That Endangered Employees 
 AG’s Lawsuit Alleges Company Executives and Board Repeatedly Failed to Protect Employees From Then-CEO Harvey Weinstein’s Unrelenting Sexual Harassment, Intimidation, and Discrimination
AG Files Lawsuit to Ensure Victims Will Be Compensated, Employees Will Be Protected Moving Forward, and Parties Responsible For Egregious Misconduct Will Not Be Newly Empowered As Part of Any Future Sale 
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed suit against The Weinstein Company (“TWC”), Harvey Weinstein, and Robert Weinstein for egregious violations of New York’s civil rights, human rights, and business laws. The suit, filed today in New York County Supreme Court, includes new and extensive allegations about longtime company CEO Harvey Weinstein’s (“HW”) vicious and exploitative mistreatment of company employees. Today’s suit includes numerous employee-victim accounts of sexual harassment, intimidation, and other misconduct.
According to the Attorney General’s (“OAG”) lawsuit, despite many complaints to TWC’s human resources department and widespread knowledge across the company’s leadership of HW’s persistent misconduct, TWC executives and the Board repeatedly failed to take meaningful steps to protect company employees or curb HW’s misconduct.
“As alleged in our complaint, The Weinstein Company repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Any sale of The Weinstein Company must ensure that victims will be compensated, employees will be protected going forward, and that neither perpetrators nor enablers will be unjustly enriched. Every New Yorker has a right to a workplace free of sexual harassment, intimidation, and fear.”
Today’s lawsuit is the result of an ongoing four month investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”). The investigation included interviews with multiple company employees, executives, and survivors of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct. The investigation also included an exhaustive review of company records and emails.
Specific examples of HW’s harassment, intimidation, assault, and a hostile work environment alleged in the complaint include, among many others:
  • HW told several employees throughout the relevant time period that, in substance, “I will kill you,” “I will kill your family,” and “You don’t know what I can do,” or words to that effect. HW touted his connection to powerful political figures and asserted that he had contacts within the Secret Service that could take care of problems.
  • At HW’s direction, “TWC employed one group of female employees whose primary job it was to accompany HW to events and to facilitate HW’s sexual conquests…These women were described by some witnesses as members of HW’s TWC “roster” or his “wing women.” One of the members of this entourage was flown from London to New York to teach HW’s assistants how to dress and smell more attractive to HW…”
  • second group of predominantly female employees served as his assistants. HW’s assistants were compelled to take various steps to further HW’s regular sexual activity, including by contacting “Friends of Harvey” and other prospective sexual partners via text message or phone at his direction and maintaining space on his calendar for sexual activity.
  • third group of predominantly female TWC employees– a group of female executives – also were forced to facilitate HW’s sexual conquests. These female employees’ job responsibilities should have been confined to using their expertise to help TWC produce films and television projects. Yet despite their skills and stated job responsibilities, HW required them to meet with prospective sexual conquests in order to facilitate HW’s sexual activity, and to follow through on HW’s promise of employment opportunities to women who met with HW’s favor. This compelled service demeaned and humiliated them, contributing to the hostile work environment.”
  • As one [female] executive reported to TWC’s Human Resources department: “only female executives are put in these positions with actresses with whom HW has a ‘personal friendship,’ which to my understanding means he has either had or wants to have sexual relations with them. Female Weinstein employees are essentially used to facilitate his sexual conquests of vulnerable women who hope he will get them work.” TWC took no steps to investigate these allegations or to prevent future recurrence of such conduct.
  • HW made quid pro quo offers or demands of sexual favors in exchange for career advancement at TWC, or to avoid adverse employment consequences at TWC.
  • On one occasion in 2015, HW asked a female TWC employee to go to his hotel room at the end of the day to set up his phone and devices for the next day or some other alleged work reason (work that TWC employees referred to as “turndown service,” and that was generally assigned to female TWC employees). Upon her arrival at HW’s hotel room, HW appeared naked under a bathrobe and asked the employee for a massage. When the employee said no, HW cajoled, badgered, and insisted until she relented and, against her wishes, submitted to massaging him out of fear of employment-based retaliation by HW. The incident was reported to Human Resources and to executives and Board members of the company in November 2015, but TWC took no action to formally investigate the complaint, to protect employees from HW, or to prevent future recurrence of such conduct. 
  • On other occasions in 2014 and 2015, HW exposed himself to a female employee and made her take dictation from him while he leered at her, naked on his bed. That same employee described how HW would insist that she sit next to him in the back seat of his chauffeured vehicle and would place his hand on her upper thigh and buttocks near her genitalia and rub her body without her consent. When she attempted to place bags or other barriers between them to make it harder for him to reach her, he moved the barriers or repositioned himself so that the unwelcome sexual contact could continue. This employee, and other TWC employees, believed that they would face adverse employment consequences unless they acquiesced to such demands.
  • On one occasion, HW asserted that he might have to fire a female employee because his daughter (for whom the employee was providing assistance at HW’s direction) was angry with her, and he asked the employee what she was “prepared to do” to keep her job – a proposition that the female employee understood was a demand for quid pro quo sexual activity. The employee quit rather than submit to the demand for sex in exchange for continued employment.
  • HW’s assistants were exposed to and required to facilitate HW’s sex life as a condition of employment. 
  • HW required his assistants to schedule “personals” for sexual activity both during the workday and after work. Upon arranging a “personal,” assistants were required to clear or adjust any and all other scheduled plans which potentially conflicted with the “personal.”
  • Assistants possessed copies of a document known as the “Bible,” an assistant-created guide to working for HW which was passed down through Assistants. The document sat in hard copy on several Assistants’ desks, and was accessible to and known to exist by some TWC executives. The Bible included information about HW’s likes and dislikes, and a list of his “friends” with directions for assistants on how to arrange HW’s extensive and frequent “personals.”
  • HW’s drivers in both New York City and Los Angeles were required to keep condoms and erectile dysfunction injections in the car at all times, in order to provide them to HW as needed. 
Specific allegations of misconduct by company management include, among others: 
  • On more than one occasion, upon forwarding a complaint or information about a complaint to the COO, the Human Resources Director was not involved in any investigation or resolution process. Based on documents obtained by the OAG to date, such matters were handled by the COO and other members of TWC senior management, as well as counsel retained to contact victims of misconduct. 
  • On numerous occasions during the relevant time period, victims of HW’s misconduct complained to the Human Resources Director or to other TWC management about various aspects of the conduct described herein. On no occasion was HW subject to a formal investigation, nor to restrictions on his behavior or adverse employment consequences, as a result of any complaint.
  • Evidence gathered during the course of the investigation reflects that the Human Resources Director was not empowered to take any steps address HW’s ongoing sexual harassment of female employees.
  • On certain occasions when individuals did complain to Human Resources, those complaints were not treated confidentially and investigated. For example, on one occasion, an assistant to HW wrote an email to Human Resources complaining of certain misconduct by HW. Soon thereafter, the assistant, who had access to HW’s email account due to her role at TWC, saw that her complaint had been forwarded directly to HW via HW’s email account.
  • On several occasions when TWC employees complained about serious misconduct by HW, TWC took steps to separate the employee from the company while securing an NDA that would prevent the employee from disclosing the misconduct to others or warning others about the misconduct.
  • Robert Weinstein (“RW”), as co-owner, co-Chairman, and co-CEO, was responsible for maintaining a safe workplace, free of sexual harassment and other unlawful conduct. Yet instead of doing so, RW acquiesced in allowing HW to create a hostile work environment and engage in sexual misconduct that was known to him, or which he was responsible for preventing.
  • RW also received by email in late 2014 and 2015, and was otherwise informed of, claims of repeated and persistent sexual harassment and misconduct, yet he took no measures to investigate further the claims of misconduct, to terminate HW’s employment, to restrict or prohibit HW from supervising women or having or seeking sexual contact with TWC employees or women seeking to do business with TWC, from having private meetings with employees or women seeking opportunities in hotel rooms or TWC office space, or any other concrete measure that may have prevented HW’s ongoing misconduct.
  • In response to the information obtained from TWC management, independent Board members sought to obtain access to HW’s personnel file so that counsel representing the Board could use the personnel file and other information to evaluate whether the Board would recommend renewal of HW’s contract.  HW resisted the independent directors’ efforts to obtain a copy of his personnel file and otherwise investigate misconduct, on the purported grounds that the contents of the file would be leaked to the press if disclosed to the Board.  There was no basis for this claim; instead, HW sought to prevent access to his personnel file to avoid discovery of the extent of his own misconduct.  A majority of the Board refused to back the independent Directors’ efforts to obtain HW’s personnel file; thus, efforts that may have resulted in discovery of at least a portion of HW’s misconduct were not undertaken by the Board.
  • HW’s contract extension also contained an unusual provision that effectively monetized, rather than prohibited, ongoing acts of sexual harassment and misconduct. In particular, it stated that, if TWC had to “make a payment to satisfy a claim that you [i.e., HW] have treated someone improperly in violation of the Company’s Code of Conduct,” he would face escalating financial penalties: $250,000 for the first such instance, “$500,000, for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each such additional instance.”
  • This contract contained no provision for any penalties if HW personally covered the costs of any payments necessary to satisfy claims of improper treatment, and it provided for no adverse employment consequences in the event that one, two, three, or even four or more such payments had to be made by TWC and/or HW as a result of HW’s sexual harassment or misconduct. Thus, pursuant to HW’s employment contract, HW could continue engaging in sexual harassment and misconduct with impunity, provided that he paid the costs of any settlements and that he avoided disclosure of misconduct that might risk causing “serious harm to the company.” 
  • Board minutes reflect that the Board ratified HW’s new employment contract unanimously. No future efforts were undertaken by the Board to investigate HW’s misconduct or TWC’s practices concerning that conduct until HW’s termination in October 2017.   
As detailed above, according to OAG’s investigation, none of the voluminous complaints filed with TWC Human Resources resulted in meaningful investigation or relief for victims, or consequences for HW. Instead, TWC Human Resources variously claimed there was “nothing” that could be done to address the misconduct; immediately informed HW of the complaint, thereby facilitating retaliation by HW against the complainant; or helped facilitate swift departure of the complainant from the company in connection with a settlement that contained an NDA at the direction of the HR Director’s superiors.
TWC’s culture of harassment and intimidation remained shrouded in secrecy because of HW’s and TWC’s practice of securing silence through Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) that prohibited individuals from speaking about their experiences at TWC. In October 2017, Attorney General Schneiderman opened an investigation after initial reports regarding HW – using the Attorney General’s investigative authorities, including investigative subpoena power, to begin removing that shroud of secrecy.  
While the Attorney General’s investigation remains ongoing, OAG is bringing suit today to seek court intervention in light of its investigative findings to date and the reported imminent sale of TWC – which OAG has a substantive basis to believe would leave victims without adequate redress, including a lack of a sufficient victims compensation fund. OAG also believes that the proposed terms of the sale would allow the perpetrators or enablers of the misconduct to see a windfall, and allow top officials at TWC who share responsibility for the misconduct to serve in executive positions of the new entity – where they would again oversee the adjudication of HR complaints, including those of sexual harassment, intimidation, and assault.
Those who believe they were victims of or witnesses to the misconduct described in the complaint should call the Civil Rights Bureau hotline at 212-416-8250 or Civil.Rights@ag.ny.gov.
The Civil Rights Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office is committed to combating gender discrimination and sexual harassment faced by women across all industries. The Civil Rights Bureau encourages those who encounter such conduct to contact the office at 212-416-8250 or Civil.Rights@ag.ny.gov.
This case is being handled by Howard Master, Senior Enforcement Counsel, and by Anjana Samant, Assistant Attorney General, and Amanda Addision, volunteer Assistant Attorney General, in the Civil Rights Bureau and Investigator Lina Burgos. Lourdes Rosado is the Chief of the Civil Rights Bureau. The Civil Rights Bureau is part of the Division of Social Justice, which is led by Executive Deputy Attorney General Matthew Colangelo.

Apache Stronghold: March to Oak Flat Feb. 15 --18, 2018 Schedule


Apache Stronghold: March to Oak Flat
Feb. 15 --18, 2018 Schedule
4th Annual March to Oak Flat is this Week

By Apache Stronghold
Censored News
French translation by Christine Prat at:
http://www.chrisp.lautre.net/wpblog/?p=4433


Apache Stronghold will be holding their 4th Annual March to Oak Flat with events beginning on Thursday, February 15 with a Holy Ground Blessing ceremony with 16 songs at the Old San Carlos Memorial. Following the blessing, the Sacred Run will begin with the evening’s end point at the San Carlos Tribal Administration Building.  On Friday February 16, at the San Carlos Tribal Administration Building, the participants will be addressed by the San Carlos Apache Vice Chairman Tao Etpison. The Sacred Run and March, consisting of alternation runs and marches will continue throughout the day. There will be a blessing and acknowledgment of the Crossing of the reservation line at the San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary. The evening’s end point will be near Dollar Tree in Globe, AZ. Dinner is provided.  On Saturday, February 17, the March will continue to the end of Miami and then the Sacred Run will take the staff entering Oaf Flat campground by 12:00 noon.  The Poor Peoples Campaign representative speaks and lunch will be provided. There will be Pomo and Aztec traditional dances to bless the area, Art and Music festival. Dinner will be provided and there will be a Gaan blessing at Dusk. On Sunday, gathering at breakfast provided at Oak Flat. Nature Hikes continue. We will close with Holy Ground Ceremony with 16 songs.


The Southeast Arizona land exchange was one of the bills that was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act and passed by the U.S. House and the Senate. It is a bill pushed by Arizona Representatives Gosar & Kirkpatrick and Arizona Senators McCain and Flake (and prior to Flake, Kyle) which for over the past years was not been able to get enough votes for passage in either the House or the Senate. The Arizona Congressmen could not get the bill to pass using the normal Congressional procedures. This is because the bill gives land at Apache Leap and Oak flat in southeastern Arizona to a foreign Mining Company, Resolution Copper without any environmental impact studies or without consultation with San Carlos Apache and Tribes that consider the area sacred. The last time the bill came up for vote in the House of Representatives it was shut down by New Mexico Representative Lujan who proposed an amendment to the bill that required that Native American concerns regarding Sacred Sites be addressed.
Because Gosar and Kirkpatrick did not want that amendment added to the bill, the vote was delayed and never moved forward. If the Bill was to go to a vote again in the House of Representatives, the Lujan sacred sites amendment could have been added which meant that the sacred site issue would keep the exchange from taking place so it never came up for a vote in the House again. Until it was added to a land package and when introduced on the floor touted the rule that the entire National Defense Authorization Act could not be torn apart and all riders added would go as a package. This bill was then snuck in a land package added to the National Defense Authorization Act that was signed by Obama to fund the U.S. Military. The San Carlos Apache tribe has worked tirelessly to avoid this from happening. The discussions of the land package in the House and the Senate did not cover the bills history, all it covered was “jobs”. The scariest part of the presentation in the U. S. Senate of the land package was the discussion regarding all the land in the Western United States. A map showed that the States in the West had enormous pieces of property what is U. S. Trust Property this includes all reservations in the West and all land that is held by the federal government including numerous Sacred Sites, including Oak flat.  The bill passed and became law, but has many hurdles to pass in order for the exchange to take place.  The March to Oak Flat grew out of recognition that this land was taken by bypassing all environmental and cultural laws and the fact that Indigenous homelands exist beyond the current Reservation borders.  The borders are begin used to keep us in and laws are being bypassed without concern for the environment, the water, cultural properties and much more.


The current happenings with the issue of Oak Flat is that Resolution Copper is testifying in AZ court with regard to the receiving of permits for dewatering the area and the dumping of water into the tributaries. Last week’s testimony was as follows
On Friday, February 9th, 2018, Dr. Casey McKeon, Environmental Manager for Resolution Copper, testified in Arizona State Court about past and current permits and water treatment issues. Dr. McKeon reported on remediation and reclamation of past and ongoing mine tailings and said that pond tailings have been consolidated; actions are being taken to divert storm water in order to prevent water infiltration into tailings ponds. She said that water that infiltrates the mine is piped to farmers, who use the treated water for irrigation purposes at 900 to 1000 gallons per minute. The doctor admitted that she does not personally take water samples, and that the last time she reviewed Resolution Copper's General Plan of Operations was in 2013, when the plan was written.  


The hearings continued on Monday, Feb. 12th at 9:00 a.m., with Dr. Wells testifying as expert witness for the San Carlos Apache Tribe.         


Wendsler Nosie Sr. stated, “I’m really grateful to the Tribe to continue questioning the water issue from ground water to aquifers to deep water which could be detrimental to our future generations if water is depleted and left contaminated. What excites me about the hearing is that Resolution Copper went 11 times for exemptions from the laws, John McCain, Ann Kirkpatrick and Flake all pushed for Resolutions land exchange in the National Defense Authorization Act, which means that the area of Oak Flat never got a fair hearing. With all the exemptions from all the laws, it hid all the buyouts. Now we get to hear who these individuals or corporations are who made approvals without knowing the outcome and approved permits.”(that would allow Resolution Copper to go forward with depletion of water, contamination of water, releasing of hot deep water into the tributaries which kill the area, etc.)

Acoma Pueblo Petuuche Gilbert 'Kaweshti Sacred Mount Taylor' Video in English/French

.
Petuuche Gilbert, Acoma Pueblo

"Kaweshti" par Petuuche Gilbert, Acoma from Christine Prat on Vimeo.

Acoma Pueblo Petuuche Gilbert 'Kaweshti' Sacred Mount Taylor' Video in English/French

Video interview and French translation by Christine Prat
Watch above or at:
https://vimeo.com/254939720

Petuuche Gilbert, Acoma Pueblo, speaks of the sacredness of Mount Taylor, and how Spanish Conquistadors enslaved and cut off the feet of Acoma men who were over 20 years old when they struggled to protect their sacred land from the invaders. Their visitors, Hopi, told them how the Conquistadors cut off their hands. Petuuche said the Conquistadors meant to send a message to others that would resist the Conquistadors invasions into their homelands.
Petuuche speaks of Sky City and Kaweshti in the distance.j
(Video 4 minutes and 26 seconds)

More in English and French:
http://www.chrisp.lautre.net/wpblog/?p=4424

FBI Destroyed Evidence -- Sophia's Arm Blown Apart at Backwater Bridge -- Court Document


Sophia Wilansky after being struck by police projectile
Graphic image of shattered arm here.

(Above and below) Water Protectors at Backwater Bridge



FBI Destroyed Evidence after Sophia Wilansky's Arm was Blown Apart at Backwater Bridge -- Federal Lawsuit Filed in Minneapolis

By Brenda Norrell
Censored News

MINNEAPOLIS -- The FBI has destroyed vital evidence which would have revealed what munition blew apart the arm of Sophia Wilansky, 21, when she stood at Standing Rock in North Dakota, and peacefully defended the Missouri River from Dakota Access Pipeline.
It was just before dawn on November, 21, 2016 when Sophia's arm was blown to pieces.
More than a year has passed since Sophia began a series of traumatic surgeries to save her arm. A piece of shrapnel was found in her shattered arm.
The FBI has refused to return the evidence it took from her hospital room in Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, where she was transferred from Bismarck, for its trauma center.
In Minneapolis, the FBI took clothing that Sophia was wearing when she was struck, and the shrapnel found in her arm that was blown to pieces.
According to the government's own documents, these items of evidence were destroyed during the FBI's testing.
The FBI has refused to return the evidence to Sophia, allow a chemical analysis of it, or respond to the family's requests for the evidence.
A federal lawsuit has been filed in Minneapolis for the return of Sophia's property.
The federal lawsuit, filed in federal court in Minnesota on February 2, 2018, also states that a grand jury was convened in the investigation, and the person who transported Sophia to the hospital was subpoenaed.
However, the government then halted the grand jury. No one has been charged, despite a year long investigation.
The complaint states:


The FBI analyzed these items more than a year ago, and it took only two weeks for the analysis. The testing "degraded and permanently altered" the evidence:
When the FBI showed up at Sophia's hospital room, without a warrant, Sophia's father Wayne Wilansky acted in good faith. Wayne agreed to voluntarily allow the FBI to take the items. The FBI agreed in writing to return those items in a timely manner:


The court document also describes the array of so-called no-lethal weapons fired into the bodies of water protectors, as they stood to protect the drinking water of millions from the oil pipeline.
Pepper spray, sponge bullets, CS (tear gas) grenades, bean bags, stinger ball grenades and flash sound devices (concussion grenades) were fired into water protectors.
Numerous unarmed water protectors were seriously injured when they were hit by these projectiles fired by militarized police.
The court document states:
The court complaint also names those who are responsible, including the federal agencies involved, which includes Homeland Security, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Since the FBI has failed to respond and return the evidence, the family is asking the court to order that the evidence be returned, or make the items available to Sophia's chemist for analysis.


Both the U.S. Attorney's Office and FBI are named in the complaint. The case number is posted below:





Also see:
Dineh Marcus Mitchell 'Morton County shot out my eye at Standing Rock'
https://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2018/01/dineh-marcus-mitchell-morton-county.html


Article copyright Brenda Norrell, Censored News

Apache Stronghold -- Arizona House Bill 2498 Threatens Traditional Cultural Properties in Arizona




Arizona House Bill 2498 Threatens Traditional Cultural Properties in Arizona
By Apache Stronghold
Censored News

Last week, Wendsler Nosie Sr. and the Apache Stronghold put out a call for action to let our legislators know we do not support the House bill 2498. The bill did pass the Arizona House Committee on land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs on February 8, 2018.  Nosie stated, ”The Arizona House is attempting to amend the State Historic Preservation Act. The amendment Includes poorly written legislation that would have significant effects on cultural resources. Proponents of the bill primarily support rangeland improvement projects. Their amendments are ambiguous and often create confusion regarding what is already clearly defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes. Please stand in opposition of the proposed amendment, your support is needed to protect Arizona’s non-renewable resources such as archaeological sites, cultural sites and holy places.”
Members of Arizona’s Archeological Council are also very concerned. David R. Hart AAC President submitted the following statements regarding the bill:
The Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC), a non-profit organization of more than 200 cultural resources professionals, is concerned about House Bill (HB) 2498 and its potential ramifications on sensitive cultural resources in Arizona. Arizona’s heritage sites are finite, non-renewable resources. Their continued protection results in tourism dollars. The proper management of cultural resources also plays a significant role in the economic development of Arizona. The AAC understands the concerns of Arizona ranchers and the costs to have cultural resources services performed on lands that are leased from the State. However, the proposed bill represents a nearsighted and uninformed attempt at a solution. The AAC strongly urges cooperation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for an amenable resolution. It is our position that the current legislation is adequate and no amendment or new legislation is necessary. The Arizona SHPO can address, and has already addressed, the concerns of HB 2498 through the execution of Memoranda of Understanding to streamline reporting requirements and review periods. The concerns of the AAC are outlined below.
General Concerns:
House Bill 2498 reflects minimal understanding of the statutes implementing the State Historic Preservation Act, and the language in the proposed amendment violates the Arizona Antiquities Act. As currently written, HB 2498 would allow for trained amateurs to write survey reports, but does not specify who would conduct the survey. It would also allow volunteers to provide “project reviews” if there is minimal disturbance, but it does not define what that review would accomplish. Currently, there are several large, private ranches conducting rangeland improvement projects in Arizona, and SHPO has been working with them to develop a more streamlined process for cultural resources inventories for rangeland improvement projects that still meet professional standards.
Specific Concerns:
F. THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER MAY NOT IMPLEMENT OR REQUIRE REVIEWS, INVENTORIES OR CONDITIONS OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT EXCEED APPLICABLE STATE LAW.”
This is a vague statement with an unclear message. SHPO does not require reviews/inventories as an advisory agency, but rather makes recommendations.
B. THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY SHALL DEVELOP A STREAMLINED SURVEY REPORT PROCESS FOR RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT ALLOWS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
The term Rangeland Improvement Project is vague and needs to be clearly defined. There is a significant difference between replacing a few fence posts and excavating a livestock tank or blading a new road. The SHPO has agreements in place with the Arizona State Land Department and the Arizona Game and Fish Department to streamline the review process; these agreements also define certain activities that do not require SHPO review. The SHPO has also developed and implemented a Survey Report Summary Form (SRSF) in 2014, and revised in 2016, to facilitate reporting as well as agency review time.
 
1. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS COMPLETED A NATIONAL CULTURE RESOURCES TRAINING PROGRAM OR A SIMILAR COURSE OF STUDY TO PERFORM THE SURVEY REPORT.
This does not define the type of national training program or similar course of study. Language is further unclear as surveys are performed, reports are written and prepared. “Perform the survey report” does not make sense. The proposed training would not provide sufficient local Arizona experience to perform professional surveys meeting current industry standards; allowing unqualified people to perform cultural resources work on State lands is contrary to other Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). Unqualified personnel run the risk of violating Arizona cultural resource laws (e.g., A.R.S. §41- 865), and Federal law such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm; Public Law 96-95 and amendments to it).
2. THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE A SAFE BUFFER ZONE IN WHICH PROJECTS MAY BE MOVED TO AVOID DISTURBING HISTORIC ARTIFACTS.
The purpose of the discussion of buffer zones in HB 2498 is entirely unclear and appears arbitrary. How is the safe buffer zone defined and who makes that determination? An inventory consisting of the identification, recordation, and evaluation of cultural resources would need to be completed prior to defining a safe buffer zone. Why are historic artifacts called out, but not prehistoric artifacts and other forms of cultural materials and places of traditional cultural importance to Arizona’s tribal communities?
3. SUPERVISED VOLUNTEERS TO REVIEW MINIMAL DISTURBANCE PROJECTS.
Who would supervise the volunteers and what are their qualifications? Who is conducting the review? Who determines what qualifies as minimal disturbance? It would seem to be a significant conflict of interest if the individual making improvements was making the determination of what constitutes minimal disturbance on cultural resources.
4. PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT SAFE BUFFER ZONE OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTY FEET TO PROCEED WITHOUT A COMPLETE INVENTORY OF THE SITE THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE SAFE BUFFER ZONE.
How was a 50-foot buffer determined as adequate? This appears arbitrary and does not take into account geography and the variability of cultural resources property types. Who makes the determination of what is a safe buffer zone?
C. THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE OR STATE MUSEUM IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR SECURING, DEVELOPING AND PROVIDING AN INVENTORY AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING SUCH AN INVENTORY RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT PRODUCE MINIMAL GROUND DISTURBANCE.
First of all, this sentence demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the legal roles and responsibilities of SHPO. How can two parties be a sole party? What does securing, developing, providing an inventory mean? This is not standard language in the profession and the addition of this provision demonstrates a poor understanding of current laws and the compliance process. The phrase “minimal ground disturbance” is arbitrary and needs to be defined. Furthermore, how is SHPO supposed to incur costs for this work, when SHPO is currently underfunded by the State? This provision would devastate the SHPO and prevent it from performing the critical work it does to support economic development in Arizona. The only way this would even be possible would be through a substantial diversion of the general funds to SHPO.
D. ALL SURVEY REPORTS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER WITH APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY.
This statement would seem to imply that another state agency director, such as that of Arizona Game and Fish, or the Arizona State Land Department, would have the authority to decide which reports go to the SHPO for review. This completely undermines the statutory authorities of the SHPO and the provisions under current state law, and creates potential to destroy significant resources such as that which occurred at Amity Pueblo, where human remains were desecrated with little to no regard for Native American patrimony.
Summary:
The Mission Statement for the Arizona SHPO states:
The SHPO works in partnership with the federal, state and local governments, Indian Tribes, and private organizations and individuals to assist in planning for the continued use and preservation of heritage resources for the benefit of future Arizonans. In order to fulfill our mission, the SHPO supports educational and outreach activities that bring awareness to Arizona’s rich archaeological heritage and unique built environment resources, provides professional guidance on best practices for preservation and conservation, and manages programs to incentivize preservation activities in the private sector.
The AAC and the cultural resources community strongly oppose this ill-conceived legislation. This appears to be an attempt to appease select lobbyists with no regard to the consequences of such actions or the effects on cultural resources and the statutory authorities of the SHPO. This legislation has the potential to facilitate destruction of sensitive cultural materials and traditional cultural places important to Arizona’s cultural heritage. It opens up the state to litigation and stands in violation of existing State and Federal laws. It demonstrates no regard for Traditional Cultural Properties or Native American concerns and lacks cultural sensitivity. We understand the concerns of Arizona’s ranchers, but suggest they continue to work with SHPO to find productive and cost-effective solutions to streamlining compliance with the State Historic Preservation Act, such as the recent agreement undertaken by the current SHPO with the Arizona State Land Department and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and current efforts to expand this agreement to include all public lands in Arizona.

The passing of this bill may have ramifications that will affect Native Traditional cultural places and open lands to development that would otherwise be saved.

Wendsler Nosie Sr. stated,” What happened in the late 1800’s is no different than now.  As our People began to grow their voice in on and off reservations issues affecting our inherent lands, we learned about indigenous laws, human rights, religious rights and are now questioning the State. This has ignited the States to change their policies that Indian People do not have a say  and this bill is a major example of that.  I hope that our young Native American generations will get involved, because this will affect us now and in the future.”