Band responds to countyís suit

By DAWN SLADE
Mille Lacs County Times
Posted 4/11/02

The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe responded to Mille Lacs Countyís federal lawsuit on March 29, 2002. The lawsuit is about whether the 61,000 acres of northern Mille Lacs County, which includes Isle, Wahkon, and most of Onamia, is once again part of the Indian reservation.

The State of Minnesota and Mille Lacs County each maintain that the 1855 reservation was disestablished by later treaty and federal laws.

In its 19 page response to the lawsuit, the band addresses each item line by line.

The first paragraph of the lawsuit states, "This is an action by the County of Mille Lacs against individual officers and officials of the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians seeking a declaratory judgement that the exterior boundaries of the 1855 Mille Lacs Indian Reservation were disestablished/diminished by specific federal treaties and statutes, as the United States Supreme Court has held. United States v. Mille Lacs Chippewas, 229 U.S. 498, 507 (1913) (ëthe relinquishment of that reservationí)."

In response to that statement, the band states, "The first sentence in paragraph 1 contains a description of the Countyís case, to which no response is required. If a response is required, defendants deny that the exterior boundaries of the Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (ëReservationí), as established in 1855, were disestablished/diminished by specific federal treaties and statutes, and further deny that the United States Supreme Court has so held. The second sentence in paragraph 1 is a citation to and quotation from a United States Supreme Court decision. In response, defendants allege that the Courtís decision speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents."

The response continues with the band stating often that "no response is required," but "if a response is required..."

In paragraph 37 of the lawsuit the county states, "Non-Indians are also of the view that reservation status is a very serious and unsettling issue. Some have publicly acknowledged considering selling their property and moving else-where. Others, on both sides, have discussed the issue in terms that increase divisiveness and animosity, creating an atmosphere of extreme distrust and social unrest in this rural area."

The bandís response states, "Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the first and second sentence in paragraph 37. In response to the third sentence in paragraph 37, defendants admit that some individual may have used the reservation boundary issue to express animus to the Band and its members, and that such statements have increased divisiveness, animosity and social distrust in the region. Defendants deny all other allegations in the third sentence in paragraph 37."

The band also states near the end of the response under the heading "Affirmative Defenses," the following: "Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:

"1. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

"2. The complaint does not present a justiciable case or controversy within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

"3. The county lacks standing to assert the claims set forth in the complaint.

"4. The claims set forth in the complaint are not ripe.

"5. The county has failed to exhaust administrative and other remedies.

"6. Some of the claims set forth in the complaint are moot.

"7. The county failed to join indispensable parties.

"8. Defendants are immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity."

Finally, the band dismisses the countyís claims for relief and requests the court award the band their costs and disbursements and other just relief.

At the Mille Lacs County Board meeting on Tuesday, April 2, commissioner Frank Courteau told the other commissioners that he received the response and said, "Itís 20 pages of admit this, deny that." Courteau also stated, "It appears to me they do not want to have a hearing. They want this dismissed."

In part of a three page letter to the Times, Courteau states, "Tribal officials have reacted by labeling the county board as racist Indian-haters." He adds later in the letter, "Tribal officials have somehow got to get themselves beyond playing the ërace cardí anytime and every time they encounter serious challenge or questions."

Tadd Johnson, special counsel on government affairs for the band, said "I think in this whole debate, intolerance is the elephant under the table. They [the county] take a completely different view of that issue. I think we need to take a look at that."

Johnson adds, "Unfortunately, the county is appealing to some of the worst feelings of their constituents. The net result is a lawsuit that takes away peopleís rights and their homeland."

Courteau also states in his letter, "If a government does not defend its jurisdiction it will lose it. Likewise, if a government does not assert its jurisdiction - its sovereignty, if you will - then it can hardly hope to maintain it... Isnít the stateís sovereignty important too?"

Courteau adds, "Mille Lacs County is not out to hurt the band and/or its members. It is not out to destroy Indian identity and culture, both wonderful and to be respected by all, in many, many ways. Current county officials, however, have been charged by tribal officials with attempting to destroy Indian culture. If preventing reservation status from re-happening is destructive to Indian culture, is it then likewise destructive that the attempt to re-convert the disputed territory to reservation status will somehow destroy the culture of non-Indians living in the affected area? Why is the argument being made only one way? Under county jurisdiction everyone is equally represented; under tribal jurisdiction everyone but one race is excluded."

Johnson said, "The whole crux of the lawsuit is basically to destroy the Indian culture and traditions. The band is very much tied to this land. This land is their homeland, itís sacred to them and this is where they fought and many of them died in the 1700s to get this land that was promised to them by the U.S.

"Itís where they have lived and died, and are buried and this reservation means everything to these people. Having the reservation protects their culture, their traditions, their language, their unique style of crafts and the way they live. Itís part of them and is one of the most important parts of them. Essentially, itís their homeland.

"To say theyíre not out to hurt the band or its members, is, to say the least, disingenuous."

Whatís next?

Briefings are now being established by the federal court and the attorneys so both parties can argue their case in front of the court. Courteau said heís hoping for a fair hearing, based on merits, to take place mid-summer.