Hau, mitakuye oyasin!
I am writing in response to communications posted by Laurie Anne
Whitt on November 15, 1995 and by John Hascall on February 24, 1996
regarding the current unrest on the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Reservation in Northern Michigan. My name is Joseph P. O'Leary.
Although I am a wasicu, I have been in the "trenches" in Indian Country
for the last twelve years of my life. For four years I served as a
teacher on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. For two
years I was the only non-Indian officer of the Indigenous Law Students
Association in Madison, Wisconsin. For the last six years I have served
as the Tribal Attorney for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Those of
you who have worked with me know that my heart is true and that I am a
fierce advocate of the rights of Indian people. You also know that I do
not lie.
I will now offer you a fair and factual account of the controversy
at Keweenaw Bay. What follows is the text of a letter mailed to
President Curtis Tompkins of Michigan Technological University (MTU).
MTU is Ms. Whitt's employer and the purpose of my letter was both to
provide the truth of the situation at Keweenaw Bay and to determine if
MTU stood behind the claims found in Ms. Whitt's "Press Release". By
letter dated February 5, 1996, President Tompkins made the University's
position very clear: "For the record, Michigan Technological University
in no way endorses nor has authorized the statements of Ms. Whitt
regarding the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community." Once you too have learned
the truth of the situation on this reservation, you will understand why
President Tompkins is so forceful in distancing his University from Ms.
Whitt's statements.
Before I share the text of my letter to President Tompkins, I
cannot resist sharing a few personal observations about Fred Dakota,
President of the Tribal Council of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.
Fred Dakota is one of the strongest Indian leaders in the entire United
States. He has been on the front lines of the fight for Indian rights
his entire adult life, fights which range from treaty hunting and
fishing to gaming and taxation issues. Fred has been a thorn in the
sides of the state and federal governments for almost thirty years and,
in his own headstrong and sometimes crude manner, has possibly done more
to advance the cause of tribal sovereignty than any other individual
alive today. Given these facts, one might ask why he arouses such
violent passions and opposition in his own people, some of whom have
publicly stated that they want to see him dead. Those of you who are
familiar with Indian Country know that this is not unusual. Remember,
it was not the federal government which killed Sitting Bull, it was his
own people!
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Indian Country, I suggest
you read pages 125-135 in the book Lila; An Inquiry Into Morals, by
Robert Pirsig (Bantam paperback edition, December 1992). In my opinion
Fred Dakota is remarkably analogous to the brujo Mr. Pirsig discusses
on these pages. Like Mr. Pirsig's brujo, Fred is at the cutting edge of
his people's culture, often displaying personality traits that seem to
be out of step with many members of his tribe. In reality, however,
Fred is breaking new ground, leading his people by example into a new
chapter of American Indian history. For one-hundred and fifty years,
the United States has successfully stripped Indian peoples of their
traditional self-sufficiency and forced them into a life of dependence
on the largesse of the federal and state governments, a largesse which
has led to the deplorable conditions found on most Indian Reservations
today. Fred, however, is an entrepreneur, bound and determined to be
self-sufficient and autonomous. And, like the brujo, many of his people
feel threatened and intimidated by his self-reliance because it is a
departure from what they know and are accustomed to. Thus, Fred is seen
as a threat to what they perceive as "traditional" or "good".
Unlike the brujo, however, Fred Dakota cannot turn to the state or
federal governments for help when attacked by his own people. Both the
feds and the State of Michigan would love nothing better than to see him
go down. Anyone at all familiar with the history of this continent
knows how threatening strong Indian leaders like Fred are to the various
governments of the United States. Fortunately for the Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community, Fred has the unflagging support of the majority of the
Tribal Council and of the Indian people living on this reservation.
They have stood by him and, as was the case with the brujo, history will
reveal the importance of the recent stand taken by the Keweenaw Bay
Tribal Council, both to the outside world and to the people of this
tribe who do not yet grasp the importance of what the Council is trying
to accomplish.
This Tribal Council has looked forward, they have considered how
the unconstitutional enrollment of hundreds of people into the Keweenaw
Bay Indian Community will affect the next seven generations of their
people. They have seen in this constitutional crisis a threat to the
very existence of the tribe. Worried that the federal and state
governments will exploit this gaping hole in their constitutional
foundation, they have resolutely plugged that hole while simultaneously
protecting tribal rights and services for the people who were illegally
enrolled. These Tribal Council members have made this decision even
though it has meant threats of death and physical violence against their
persons as well as incredible emotional pressures from friends, family
and fellow tribal members. Their decision has led to many difficulties
on the reservation, including the fallout from hysterical claims of
short-sighted people like Ms. Whitt and John Hascall, who are not even
members of the tribe. I have no doubts that history will reveal that
Fred Dakota, along with Tribal Council members Isadore (Blue) Misegan,
Rosemary Haataja, William (Gene) Emery, Wayne Swartz, Ann Durant, Amy
St. Arnold, and Michael LaFernier are true heroes. Brave Indian leaders
who made a difficult decision and stuck to it in the face of enormous
adversity in order to protect and preserve their people's sovereignty.
The following, then, is the true story of the Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community's current controversy. I apologize for its length, but the
issues involved are complex and despite efforts to simplify them, they
cannot be accurately described in just four pages. You will notice that
the following letter contains references to some 35 Exhibits which I
have not attached to this posting. More than half of these Exhibits are
statements filed in a court of law and sworn to under penalty of
perjury. All the Exhibits lay a foundation for the truth of the
statements in the following letter. Anyone interested in seeing these
Exhibits can receive a complete copy by mailing a request for the
documents to my office, along with a self-addressed envelope, at least
11" x 14" in size, bearing $3.00 postage. My address is:
Office of the Tribal Attorney
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
795 Michigan Avenue
Baraga, Michigan 49908
**********************************
January 24, 1996
Mr. Curtis Tompkins, President
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive
Houghton, MI 49931
Dear President Tompkins,
I am writing on behalf of my client, the Tribal Council of the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), to address a "Press Release"
published on the Internet and as an inter-departmental communication by
a member of your faculty, Ms. Laurie Anne Whitt, under the name of
Michigan Technological University (MTU). Many of the statements
contained in this "Press Release" do not reflect the truth regarding
recent events on the KBIC reservation. I have been instructed to write
this letter in order to apprise you of the truth. My client is
interested in learning if MTU stands behind this communication and
whether you are willing or able to take action to correct the false
statements contained in Ms. Whitt's "Press Release". While my client
understands your concerns for academic freedom and freedom of speech,
such freedom does not extend to false accusations of criminal and
otherwise infamous behavior by the governing body of the KBIC.
I have attached a number of exhibits to this correspondence which
have been bound and labeled for your convenience. Please review this
information and share it with your legal counsel. I suggest that you
then write to Tribal Council President Fred Dakota at 795 Michigan
Avenue, Baraga, MI 49908, or have your legal counsel contact me. I am
confident that we can arrive at an amicable solution to this problem.
Enclosed as EXHIBIT 1 is a copy of Ms. Whitt's "Press Release"
which was retrieved from the Internet by a KBIC employee. The sender of
this correspondence is listed as both MTU and Laurie Anne Whitt.
EXHIBIT 2 is a copy of a letter written to you by Mr. Dakota which
expresses his dismay that your institution would lend its name to the
efforts of the group "Fight for Justice" (FFJ). This letter has not
been answered. EXHIBIT 3 is a copy of the inter-departmental MTU
communication authored by Ms. Whitt. With the exception of the
introductory paragraph soliciting donations for the group FFJ, this
inter-departmental communication is identical to the "Press Release"
placed on the Internet by Ms. Whitt.
It is very troubling that a member of your faculty would use her
position and the name of your institution to solicit funds for what is
essentially a political organization. This would appear to be a clear
misuse of taxpayer funding for your institution. In addition, Ms.
Whitt's husband, Mr. Alan W. Clarke, has in some instances identified
himself as an attorney for FFJ. It would therefore appear that Ms.
Whitt may have a personal interest in soliciting funds for the
organization in order to defray her husband's expenses and perhaps
afford him a salary.
While the false statements contained in Ms. Whitt's "Press Release"
are numerous, and in some cases hysterical, the most egregious can be
can be separated into five basic categories:
(1) Claims that recent actions of the KBIC Tribal Council
have been undertaken by a "bare majority" of a "rump
council";
(2) Claims that the Tribal Council "dismissed" a judge
"selected by Fred Dakota" to hear challenges to the
actions of the Tribal Council, after promising to abide
by the decision of the judge;
(3) Claims that the Tribal Council has conducted an unlawful
"purge" of the KBIC voter list;
(4) Claims that FFJ's illegal seizure and detention of KBIC's
former tribal center, equipment and governmental files
constitutes a "peaceful protest"; and
(5) Claims that the recent adoption election held on the KBIC
Reservation would be manipulated by "bribery or intimidation".
In the following paragraphs I will provide a brief description of
recent events on the KBIC reservation, with documentation in the form of
numbered exhibits. In the context of this description, I will address
the five categories of claims made in Ms. Whitt's "Press Release".
THE TRIBAL COUNCIL'S DECISIONS TO TABLE AND TO
REJECT THE DECEMBER 1994 TRIBAL ELECTION RESULTS
In early 1994, a group of tribal members from Marquette County
began agitating for the right to vote in KBIC elections. They based
their position on a 1984 Tribal Council action which allowed tribal
members residing in Baraga County to vote in KBIC elections regardless
of whether or not they resided within the exterior boundaries of the
reservation. In November of 1994, the Tribal Council passed a motion
made by Council member Leonard "Bill" Cardinal to follow the residency
requirements of the KBIC Constitution for determining voter
eligibility. Under this motion, tribal members residing in Baraga
County but outside of the boundaries of the reservation were deemed
ineligible to vote, while tribal members residing on the KBIC trust land
in Marquette County were granted the right to vote. The net result of
the motion was that there were approximately 90 individuals deemed
ineligible to vote in the December 1994 tribal election. EXHIBITS 4-5.
Four Tribal Council seats and the position of Chief Judge were on
the ballot in the December 1994 election, as was a referendum question
regarding the formation of a gaming corporation intended to distribute
casino gaming revenues to tribal members living on the reservation.
Several candidates, who are now members of FFJ, campaigned against the
proposed gaming corporation. One of these candidates claimed that the
proposed corporation was illegal because it violated provisions of the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2700 et seq. He based
this claim on a misguided reading of the outside management contract
provisions of IGRA which were irrelevant to the corporation under
discussion. In addition, numerous distortions as to the nature of the
proposed corporation were printed in local papers shortly before the
December 1994 election in the form of letters to the editor. EXHIBIT
4.
On the day of the December 1994 election, some of the candidates
opposed to the corporation proposal and their supporters used
questionable tactics at the polls, including parading children with
signs through the polling places and verbal and physical harassment of
voters arriving at the polls. EXHIBIT 6 - 7. These tactics secured a
victory for the anti-corporation Tribal Council candidates, and the
defeat of the corporation referendum question. The contest for the
position of Chief Judge resulted in a tie.
Despite the removal of voters occasioned by the passage of Mr.
Cardinal's motion in November of 1994, more ballots were cast in the
December 1994 election than in any election in KBIC history. EXHIBIT
8. There were reports that many people who did not reside on the
reservation came to the reservation shortly before or on the day of the
election in order to vote. EXHIBIT 9 -10. There were also inquiries
from concerned tribal members about ballots cast by individuals who did
not meet the residency requirements set forth in the membership
provisions of the KBIC Constitution. EXHIBITS 4 & 11-12.
In response to these concerns, the Tribal Council voted in January
of 1995, by a 7-4 majority, to table the results of the December 1994
election, and to have an independent audit conducted to determine if
ineligible voters had cast ballots in the December 1994 election. Only
one of the seven council members who voted in favor of these measures
was up for re-election in December of 1994. Tribal Council President
Dakota, who also was not up for re-election, supported these measures,
but is only allowed to vote in cases of a tie. EXHIBIT 4.
The independent accounting firm of Anderson, Tackman & Co.
performed the audit requested by the Tribal Council, EXHIBIT 13, and
determined that at least 97 individuals who did not meet the residency
criteria set forth in the membership provisions of the KBIC Constitution
cast ballots in the December 1994 election. The audit also revealed
that the enrollment files of numerous other persons who voted in the
December 1994 election contained insufficient information to make a
determination. EXHIBIT 4.
Based upon the results of the audit conducted by Anderson, Tackman
& Co., the Tribal Council, by a 7-4 majority, voted in February of 1995
to reject the results of the December 1994 election, and to establish an
Enrollment Committee to review and update the tribe's voter list based
upon the criteria set forth in the membership provisions of the KBIC
Constitution. EXHIBIT 4. Again, only one of the seven Council members
who voted in support of these measures was up for re-election in the
December 1994 election.
Ms. Whitt in her "Press Release" claims that the decisions to table
and to reject the results of the December 1994 election were made by a
"bare majority" of a "rump" Tribal Council. These characterizations are
not sustained by the facts. The decisions complained of by Ms. Whitt
were made by a 7-4 majority of the Tribal Council. Only one of these
Council members was up for re-election. Tribal Council President Fred
Dakota supported these decisions, but was not called upon to vote.
Thus, eight of the twelve sitting Council members, a two-thirds
majority, supported the decisions to table and to reject the December
1994 election results. This certainly does not constitute a "bare
majority" of a "rump" Council.
THE KBIC ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE
The Enrollment Committee established by the Tribal Council consists
of twelve individuals, ten of whom are respected elders of the
community. During the months following the Tribal Council's decision to
reject the December 1994 election results, the Enrollment Committee
examined the files compiled by the former enrollment clerk, updated
those files, and made individual determinations as to voter eligibility
based upon the criteria set forth in the membership provisions of the
KBIC Constitution. During this process, the Enrollment Committee
contacted every person whose file either indicated that they did not
meet the constitutional requirements, or whose file contained
insufficient information to make a determination. Numerous follow-up
letters were mailed to these individuals requesting supplemental
information, and affording them the opportunity to provide documentation
demonstrating that they do meet the constitutional criteria. EXHIBITS 4
& 14-15. Despite the efforts of the Enrollment Committee, many did not
respond or provide documentation. Some who did respond submitted
statements which the members of the Enrollment Committee knew to be
patently false.
In May of 1995, the Tribal Council adopted Resolution KB-467-95,
which guarantees that all persons who were unconstitutionally enrolled
in the tribe will retain all of the privileges of tribal membership,
except the right to vote and hold public office, and calls for a
constitutional convention to be held in order to formulate amendments to
the KBIC Constitution. It was adopted in part to counteract FFJ claims
that the members of Tribal Council intended to remove people from the
tribal membership rolls in order to keep and split gaming revenues among
themselves. The resolution was also intended to protect the interests
of those who do meet the constitutional requirements for membership, and
whose vote had been diluted by the enrollment of persons who do not meet
those requirements. EXHIBIT 16.
The Enrollment Committee concluded its initial review in August of
1995. On August 19, 1995, the Tribal Council certified the voter list
compiled by the Enrollment Committee, and set the date of September 16,
1995, for a re-election to replace the invalidated December 1994
election. Based upon the work of the Enrollment Committee, 184 names
were removed from the voter list used in the December 1994 election.
These individuals were removed from the voter list either because they
did not meet the constitutional criteria for membership, or because they
failed to provide documentation to the Enrollment Committee. No one has
been foreclosed from presenting documentation to the Enrollment
Committee. To this day the Enrollment Committee is accepting
documentation, and reviewing past determinations as to voter eligibility
in light of new information received.
The September 16, 1995, re-election occurred as scheduled. Over
80% of the eligible voters turned out to cast their ballots. FFJ's
political candidates actively participated in the election, and, in
every instance, were defeated by wide margins. EXHIBIT 17 - 18. In
her "Press Release", Ms. Whitt repeatedly speaks of a political "purge"
of the KBIC voter lists by "the Dakota faction". The truth does not
support this assertion. First, it is a fact that the majority of active
FFJ members are eligible to vote in tribal elections. These people
certainly would have been removed from the voter list if there had been
a "purge" of that list. Second, all of the Council members who voted to
establish the Enrollment Committee have relatives and political
supporters whose names were removed from the voter list by the
Enrollment Committee. This fact is not consistent with a "purge" of the
voter list. In reality, the Enrollment Committee based its
determinations on the information contained in each individual's
enrollment file, together with any additional documentation supplied by
the individual, and the criteria set forth in the KBIC Constitution.
Ms. Whitt also claims that the Tribal Council fraudulently removed
people from the voter list despite having formerly approved them with
full knowledge that they did not meet the membership criteria of the
KBIC Constitution. The truth belies this assertion. The vast majority
of past and present Tribal Council members have given sworn statements
in which they indicate that they were not aware that Myrtle Tolonen, the
former KBIC Enrollment Clerk, was enrolling people without regard to the
requirements of the KBIC Constitution. EXHIBITS 4,6,7,10-12,14,15,19 -
24.
Finally, Ms. Whitt argues that those who were removed from the
voter list were not afforded due process. Contrary to Ms. Whitt's
protestations, procedural fairness was provided at every step of
enrollment record audit. The criteria employed by the Enrollment
Committee is explicitly set forth in the KBIC Constitution. The
Enrollment Committee sent multiple mailings with specific requests for
information to each person whose voting status was in question.
EXHIBITS 4,14,15. Many simply did not respond to these requests for
information. In some instances, statements were submitted which the
members of the Enrollment Committee recognized to be fabrications from
their own personal knowledge.
FFJ'S LAWSUITS AND THE DECISIONS OF JUDGE THORNE
The Tribal Council's decisions to table and to reject the results
of the December 1994 election led to the formation of the political
group FFJ. Since January of 1995, FFJ has attempted to undo the actions
of the Tribal Council, and to have the December 1994 election results
reinstated. Their initial efforts in January of 1995 consisted of
public accusations that Tribal Council President Dakota embezzled
$500,000 from the tribe. These accusations were investigated by
Detective Sergeant Dennis Habedank of the Grand Traverse Band of
Chippewa Indians Police Department and retired Professor of Law
Frederick Ragsdale, and found to be entirely without merit.
EXHIBIT 9,25.
In February of 1995 members of FFJ filed numerous lawsuits in the
KBIC Tribal Court requesting a preliminary injunction enjoining the
actions of the Tribal Council. FFJ members also filed two lawsuits
against Chief Judge Bradley Dakota. The Honorable William Thorne, a
Pomo Indian and a sitting state court judge in Utah, was selected by
Chief Judge Dakota and Associate Judge William Jondreau to hear these
cases. EXHIBIT 26.
The Tribal Council has always maintained that the KBIC Tribal Court
does not have the authority to review actions of the Tribal Council.
Under the KBIC Tribal Code, the Tribal Court does not have jurisdiction
to entertain cases against the Tribal Council. EXHIBIT 27. In
addition, under the KBIC Constitution and Tribal Code, the Tribal
Council is the Appellate Court which reviews and may reverse decisions
rendered by the Tribal Court. EXHIBITS 27 - 28.
In June of 1994, Judge Thorne issued an opinion in the cases filed
against Chief Judge Dakota. In that opinion, Judge Thorne ruled that
Judge Dakota was acting legally in the capacity of "holdover" Chief
Judge since the date of the invalidated December 1994 election. Judge
Thorne also opined that a re-election should be held for the position of
Chief Judge using the disputed 1994 voter list. At the same time,
however, Judge Thorne indicated that he was not making a decision as to
the validity of the December 1994 voter list. EXHIBIT 29. Judge
Thorne's decision in the cases against Judge Dakota had no binding
effect on the Tribal Council, because the Tribal Council was not a party
to those actions. EXHIBIT 26. In addition, as discussed above, the
KBIC Tribal Court does not have the authority to review the actions of
the Tribal Council or issue orders to the Tribal Council.
In August of 1995 Judge Thorne issued an opinion in the cases filed
against the Tribal Council. In this opinion, Judge Thorne refused to
grant a preliminary injunction to FFJ because the FFJ litigants had not
demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their
claims. EXHIBIT 30.
In her "Press Release", Ms. Whitt claims that Judge Thorne was
selected by Tribal Council President Fred Dakota. She also claims that
the Tribal Council "voted to ignore the decision that they had only
months before agreed to abide by", and suggests that Judge Thorne was
prepared to rule against the Tribal Council. The truth is that Judge
Thorne was appointed to hear FFJ's lawsuits by Chief Judge Bradley
Dakota and Associate Judge William Jondreau, not the Tribal Council
President or the Tribal Council. The Tribal Council never agreed to
abide by or voted to ignore the decision of Judge Thorne. Rather, the
Tribal Council sought the dismissal of FFJ's lawsuits on the grounds
that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. Finally,
in his last decision in August of 1995, Judge Thorne ruled against FFJ,
denying their request for a preliminary injunction. EXHIBIT 30. This
decision was released shortly before the FFJ takeover of the KBIC Tribal
Center, and may well have been a motivating factor for that illegal
action. Interestingly, it finds no mention in Ms. Whitt's "Press
Release".
FFJ'S TAKEOVER OF THE TRIBAL CENTER AND SUBSEQUENT VIOLENCE
In the early morning hours of August 22, 1995, members of FFJ
illegally entered the KBIC Tribal Center and eventually gained control
of the building and all of the governmental files and equipment located
in the building. On August 24, 1995, tribal officials and employees
attempted to remove governmental files, equipment and personal
belongings from the building. Four trucks were loaded with equipment
and files. Before they could leave, however, members of FFJ rioted, cut
large trees across roadways, used children as shields and detained the
tribal officials and employees against their will. EXHIBITS 31. After a
number of hours an agreement was reached under which the tribal
officials and employees were allowed to leave without any of the
governmental files and equipment. EXHIBIT 32. To this day, FFJ remains
in control of the building, and the files and equipment that were
located in the building. At enormous cost, KBIC has re-established
governmental operations at other sites.
In her "Press Release", Ms. Whitt asserts that FFJ is involved in a
"peaceful protest". Since the date FFJ first occupied the KBIC Tribal
Center, however, numerous instances of violence and vandalism have been
directed at members of the Tribal Council, their supporters, and their
property. Based upon my own personal knowledge as the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer on the KBIC Reservation, members of FFJ are known to
have committed or are suspected of having committed the following
criminal offenses:
(1) illegal occupation of KBIC Tribal Center and illegal
detention of governmental records and equipment;
(2) destruction of a number of beautiful, century-old, white
pine trees with a life expectancy of an additional 150
years;
(3) illegal detention of tribal officials and employees on
August 24, 1995 by intimidation and threats of physical
violence;
(4) vandalism of four trucks left on the premises of the
Tribal Center on August 24, one is a semi-tractor/trailer
owned by the tribe, the other three are U-Haul rental
trucks;
(5) firing ball bearings from a slingshot device at the homes
and vehicles of tribal officials and other tribal
members;
(6) stabbing a tribal member numerous times in the back with
a tire iron;
(7) death threats and firebomb threats against Tribal Council
President Fred Dakota and other tribal officials;
(8) attempted arson of a tribally owned well-drilling rig;
(9) attempted arson of lumber at the construction site of
KBIC's new Health Clinic building;
(12) detonation of home-made bombs in front of the home of
Tribal Council President Fred Dakota.
THE ADOPTION ELECTION
In November of 1995, the Tribal Council adopted Resolution
#KB-501-95, which invoked an adoption ordinance previously approved by
the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs and incorporated into the
KBIC Constitution. EXHIBIT 33. In resolution #KB-501-95, the Tribal
Council afforded those who had been unconstitutionally enrolled in the
tribe the opportunity to be adopted into the voting membership of the
tribe. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has found that Resolution
#KB-501-95, together with Resolution #KB-467-95, which is discussed
above, constitute a legal temporary solution to the problem of
unconstitutional enrollment. EXHIBIT 34.
The adoption election called for in Resolution KB-501-95 was held
on December 14, 15 and 16, 1995. 87 individuals placed their names on
the ballot to be considered for adoption into the voting membership of
the tribe. Over 67% of the eligible voters cast ballots in the
election. Of the 87 persons seeking to be adopted, 73 were approved by
the electorate, 13 were rejected, and one person received an equal
number of yes and no votes (this tie was broken by the Tribal Council
which approved the individual in question for adoption). EXHIBIT 35.
The 74 individuals approved by the electorate will be entitled to vote
in tribal elections, and at the upcoming constitutional convention.
EXHIBIT 33.
In her "Press Release", Ms. Whitt claims that the adoption election
was proposed to "selectively" adopt persons into the voting membership
and "weed out" undesirables. She also states that the electorate will
be manipulated, "whether by bribery or intimidation". These, and other
more hysterical claims, are entirely unfounded.
The adoption election was proposed as a means to allow the
constitutionally enrolled electorate to decide who should participate in
tribal elections and at the constitutional convention. The only
selectivity involved was that exercised by that electorate. Obviously
neither my client, nor FFJ, nor Ms. Whitt can or should be able to
dictate what occurs in the ballot box.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please inform either
Mr. Fred Dakota or myself of any action you intend to take with regard
to the false information circulated by Ms. Whitt.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. O'Leary
Tribal Attorney
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
cc: Fred Dakota
Frederick J. Dobney
MTU Board of Control