Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Councilman Gary Loonsfoot Sr. has offered
the following response (below) to charges of "gross neglect of duty and
improper conduct" levelled against him by supporters of federally-indicted
KBIC Tribal Chair Fred Dakota who seek his removal from the Tribal
Council. These include Tim Shanahan, who chairs the Impeachment Committee
and is Dakota's Personal Assistant and Dakota-supporter Ricky Geroux who
circulated the impeachment petition. Geroux and the committee have refused
to allow Loonsfoot to see the names of the 53 individuals who allegedly
signed the petition. Loonsfoot received the largest number of votes in the
1996 Tribal Elections. Dakota's trial on charges of bribery and tax-evasion
will begin in March.
For background on the situation at KBIC, please consult earlier postings to
Native-l ("http://bioc09.uthscsa.edu/natnet/archive/nl/keweenaw-bay.html").
Detailed information, including a chronology of events, can be found at
http://www.edwards1.com/rose/native/ffj/ffj.htm
***************************************************************************
GARY LOONSFOOT, SR.
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER, KBIC
P.O. BOX 488
BARAGA, MI 49908
(906) 353-7847
February 18, 1997
RESPONSE TO RICKY GEROUX'S HEARSAY AND AFTER THE FACT ALLEGATIONS PROFFERED
TO THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE
I. INTRODUCTION
Ricky Geroux has made numerous hearsay allegations of impropriety. It
appears that I will not have the opportunity to confront anyone with facts
or to conclusively demonstrate through direct questioning the falsity and
distortion of these hearsay insinuations. The unfairness of having to rebut
second-hand rumor without the opportunity to demolish these defamations
directly should be apparent to any fair-minded person.
Moreover, most of the allegations ultimately made have nothing to do with
the original assertion on the petition Mr. Geroux circulated of "undermining
a lawsuit filed by the Tribal Council." The unfairness of having to address
matters entirely outside the scope of the original petition should also be
clear to any unbiased decision-maker.
Finally, Ricky Geroux read a letter into the record, ostensibly written by
him, which was and has never been provided to us. The unfairness of having
to attempt to respond to something that one has never seen should likewise
shock this committee.
As I will demonstrate, these and other improprieties by Mr. Geroux,
constitute an attempt to deprive both this committee and me of a fair
hearing. The totality of the circumstances surrounding this hearing violate
due process as guaranteed to me under the Indian Civil Rights Act.
II. I DID NOT UNDERMINE ANY LAWSUIT
First. Mr. Geroux has never been clear about just what lawsuit I am
supposed to have interfered with. He attaches a letter from Malcolm Harris
which only mentions an appeal to the Sixth Circuit which involved the
Marquette Casino. However, that cannot be the lawsuit referred to by the
Petition because it was not filed by the Tribal Council. Moreover, Malcolm
Harris never insinuates anything in his letter about being asked to distance
himself from any lawsuit. Nor does he say anything about it other than that
I asked about the status of the appeal. Obviously, any Tribal Council member
has the right and duty to inquire about the status of an appeal involving
the Tribe. Thus, this cannot be the lawsuit referred to by Mr. Geroux. Mr.
Harris' letter was included in the supposed "evidence" against me as a
red-herring designed to obscure the lack of any real proof of wrong-doing.
In short, Mr. Geroux is either completely confused or is maliciously trying
to invent something evil without the slightest basis. Whichever it is, Mr.
Geroux's behavior as instigator of these slanderous charges is appalling.
Second. At the hearing, Mr. Geroux stated that the lawsuit that I am
supposed to have undermined was the case filed by Joseph O'Leary against the
BIA filed in Federal District Court. No evidence whatsoever is presented in
support of this astounding claim. Mr. Harris' letter fails to even mention
this lawsuit. Likewise, Mr. O'Leary's letter fails to mention it. It is
unclear what if anything I am supposed to have done in relation to this
lawsuit. Moreover, this lawsuit was dismissed by the Tribe. Mr. O'Leary
told the L'Anse Sentinel, December 18, 1996 that it was "dropped for
strategic purposes." We should take Mr. O'Leary at his word. Plainly, there
is nothing in any of this that indicates that I have done anything to affect
this lawsuit. It is impossible to respond to such vague allegations. Since I
did not have anything to do with this lawsuit, I cannot have undermined it
in any way. Moreover, I had nothing to do with its dismissal. Once again,
Mr. Geroux simply throws things up against the wall desperately hoping that
in the confusion he can get something to stick.
Third. Mr. Geroux attempts to make the case that my participation in a
lawsuit against the BIA is somehow a part of this. Since I began that as an
administrative matter before the BIA and prior to my election to the Tribal
Council, it cannot be construed as misconduct. I have a constitutional
right to petition the courts. Such allegations cannot be a part of any
impeachment proceeding. Moreover, legislators frequently sue to test the
legality of governmental actions. I have the same right that any other
citizen or legislator has to petition the courts.
In short, the major allegation against me, and the only allegation set forth
in the original petition that was circulated, is demonstrably false and
appears to be manufactured by Mr. Geroux's confused and malicious mind. It
should be rejected out of hand.
III. JOSEPH O'LEARY'S LETTER IS GROSSLY DISTORTED; HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE
ORIGINAL PETITION; CONTAINS RANK SPECULATION; AND FAILS TO SHOW THAT I DID
ANYTHING WRONG
A. O'LEARY'S ASSERTION THAT I ASKED HIM TO REPRESENT ME PERSONALLY IS FALSE.
Mr. O'Leary notes that I approached him about the fact that I was not
receiving notice of Council meetings. However, he completely misconstrues my
approach to him by suggesting that I was trying to get him to represent me.
I was not seeking personal representation in either my official or private
capacities. Rather, I approached him in his capacity as chief law
enforcement officer of the tribe, occupying a position comparable to that of
attorney general, and requested his action to secure the rights, under the
tribal constitution , not only of myself but of all present and future
members of the Tribal Council. My request that Mr. O'Leary as chief law
enforcement officer of the community, enforce the rights of duly elected
members of the Tribal Council created no conflict with his obligations as
chief law enforcement officer of the tribe. I was asking him merely to
discharge the fundamental obligation of his office, to uphold the tribal
constitution.
Mr. O'Leary did not have the integrity to appear to say this about me in
person. He did not present himself for questioning. One can only assume that
he knows that his distortions would be revealed if he were to answer my
questions.
B. THE SPECULATION THAT I LEAKED MR. O'LEARY'S MEMO TO FFJ HAS BEEN SHOWN
TO BE FALSE.
As Chris Swartz told the committee he was the likely source of the leak.
O'Leary acknowledges that he is simply speculating. Enough said. Evidence
cannot be based upon rank speculation.
C. MR O'LEARY'S HEARSAY AND SPECULATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ORIGINAL
PETITION AND IT IS UNFAIR TO RAISE NEW ISSUES THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO
THE ORIGINAL PETITION
Mr. O'Leary, who is a member of the bar and who should know better than to
pile the irrelevant upon speculation, states in his letter that he is aware
that it will be used in my impeachment proceedings. It should suffice to
point out that none of his comments relate to the petition that was
circulated against me. Mr. O'Leary of all persons should be sensitive to the
unfairness of his irrelevant, speculative and distorted hearsay musings.
D. THE STATEMENT THAT I MADE DEROGATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT FRED DAKOTA ARE
DISTORTED AND EASILY EXPLAINABLE
As I explained to the Committee, Mr. Harris asked me what I thought about
what I felt about Fred Dakota and the turmoil going on. I answered his
question and told him that he did not want to negotiate. That is what
happened and were Mr. Harris here to discuss the matter I am certain that
this would come out. Again, nothing that I did or said was wrong in any way.
And, a careful reading of Mr. Harris' letter discloses that it did not
undermine any lawsuit, nor were my statements intended to undermine any
lawsuit, nor could they have.
E. O'LEARY'S COMMENT THAT HE COULD NOT COMMENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF
ANY BAR COMPLAINT MAKES THAT A NON-ISSUE
Since there is only a non-allegation here there is nothing to defend. If Mr.
O'Leary wants to make some positive allegation I will respond to it.
IV. I GAVE ONLY ACCURATE INFORMATION TO THE PRESS ABOUT THE RETIREMENT PLAN
First, this allegation - that I gave false information about the retirement
account - occurred in Mr. Geroux's letter, read to the Committee, which was
never given to me. So I only have my memory of what was said. I have here to
defend myself against hearsay allegations, read into the record and never
provided to me.
The truth is that the Tribe was considering a retirement plan that would
have allowed withdrawals of up to $180,000. I was advised that, if this were
adopted, it would bankrupt the tribe. There was nothing confidential about
any of this. Moreover, as a Tribal Council Member I had an obligation to
bring this to the attention of the people. I cannot be impeached for doing
the right thing. If I am impeached for doing my constitutional duty, then
something is desperately wrong.
Moreover, nothing was said about this in the original petition. So to use
this is unfair and misguided.
IV. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND VIOLATE MY DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS UNDER THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
These proceedings violate my due process rights for the following reasons:
1. The original petition was only given me 6 days before the hearing. I
did not have adequate notice of the charges and did not have sufficient time
to prepare.
2. The names of my accusers were never given to me.
3. The supposed evidence was entirely hearsay. The distortions,
speculations and defamations contained therein could not be exposed through
questioning.
4. I was not given a copy of the rules of the proceedings until the day
of the proceedings.
5. The less biased press was excluded from the proceedings and only the
press that is beholden to the Tribe and its advertising were permitted to
attend.
6. The names of the Committee members were never given to me.
7. Ricky Geroux's hearsay letter was never given to me. I have to
respond to it from memory.
8. Witnesses called on my behalf were interrupted and not permitted to
speak. Several had pertinent comments that were cut-off by the chair because
he did not wish to hear it.
9. I was not allowed to confront Joseph O'Leary to confront his
distortions, speculations and misleading hearsay comments.
10. Likewise, I was not allowed to confront Mr. Harris. While his letter
was not distorted in the same sense as Mr. O'Leary's letter, it needed to
have been clarified and had he been available - even if by telephone - that
letter could have been clarified along the lines outlined above.
11. The Impeachment Committee is not an impartial body as required by the
Indian Civil Rights Act. Tim Shanahan, Committee Chair, is Fred Dakota's
personal assistant. Clarence Chosa is the father of a Tribal Council member.
V. CONCLUSION
I am being impeached for fulfilling my obligations as a Tribal Council
Member. None of my actions were improper and they have provided no evidence
that I have done anything wrong. An impeachment cannot be based solely upon
hearsay, speculation, distortions and innuendo. As evidence that I have the
support and confidence of those that I represent a petition supporting me
was circulated. In only five hours 83 signatures were obtained. This
petition was presented at the hearing but the Committee refused to accept it.
I have done nothing to deserve impeachment. These proceedings should be
dismissed.
Gary Loonsfoot, Sr.