Federal Court Dismisses Individual Tribal Member’s Attempt to Invoke Treaty Rights

Here are the materials in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

56 DCT Order to Show Cause re Rule 19

57 Plaintiff’s Brief

58 DNR Brief

61 KBIC Letter

62 Fond du Lac Band Letter

63 Red Cliff Band

64 LCO Brief

66 Plaintiff’s Response to Tribes

67 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, Brenda Turunen, is a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), a federally recognized Indian tribe in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula that is the successor-in-interest to the L’Anse and Ontonagon bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. In 1842, the Lake Superior Chippewa  Indians signed a treaty with the United States of America, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty), in which the Indian signatories ceded large portions of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, but reserved “the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy.” 7 Stat. 591.

Plaintiff owns property that is within the “ceded territory” at issue in the 1842 Treaty. Plaintiff asserts that the “the usual privileges of occupancy” reserved by the KBIC on the ceded territory included commercial farming and animal husbandry. Based on that interpretation of the 1842 Treaty, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that she may—as a member of the KBIC—raise animals free from state regulation on her property within the ceded territory.

Plaintiff’s claim rests on the twin propositions that the KBIC retained certain rights in the 1842 Treaty, and that she may exercise such rights based on her membership in the KBIC. Although the Court must determine the scope of the rights retained by the KBIC to resolve Plaintiff’s claim, the KBIC is not a party to this action. Thus, the Court previously sought briefing from the parties regarding whether the KBIC should be joined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and whether the case  should be dismissed if the KBIC could not be joined. After the parties responded, the Court—at Plaintiff’s urging—ordered Plaintiff to notify the KBIC of the pending action and the opportunity to intervene. The KBIC followed up to that notification with a letter to the Court stating that it would not intervene in the action, and further urging that the action be dismissed under Rule 19. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the matter should be dismissed.

We have posted on this matter here, here, here, here, and here.

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Michigan Indian, Research, treaty rights and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Federal Court Dismisses Individual Tribal Member’s Attempt to Invoke Treaty Rights

  1. Reblogged this on Looking Back Woman-Suzanne Dupree blog and commented:
    Are we supposed by this?
    The Treaty Rights were never planned by US Govt to be upheld in the 1st place or they’d of had them signed by 1st Nations, who had the authority to do so!
    Never was done properly, & that was the ultimate plan in the 1st place, by every Free Mason who was behind the Treaties!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s