By Mary Garrigan
Duane Martin Sr. of the Strong Heart Civil Rights Movement and the Black Hills Sioux Treaty Council say they will file a complaint in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Neb., next week naming four Whiteclay beer sellers: Mike's Pioneer Liquor, State Line Inn, Arrow Head Inn and Jumping Eagle Inn, and the Christian nonprofit 555 Whiteclay, which operates a soup kitchen and other ministries in Whiteclay.
The "bad man" legal argument was successfully used by Lavetta Elk, another Oglala Sioux, in a lawsuit alleging that a U.S. Army recruiter had violated the "bad man" clause when he sexually molested her while transporting her to a military recruiting appointment. Elk recently won a $650,000 settlement that left intact a federal judge's ruling that said the treaty language requires the government to reimburse Sioux tribe members who are injured by "any wrong" done by "bad men among the whites, or among other people subject to the authority of the United States."
This reminds me of a line from Archie's Grand Opening--All in the Family's seventh episode of its eighth season (airdate: 10/30/77). Archie Bunker has just reopened Kelcy's Bar as Archie's Place and was serving his first customers. Michael says they should cut off one bar patron who is already drunk. Archie asks if the man is driving home and if he's an Indian. The answers are no, so Archie says to serve him.
For more on Whiteclay, see Whiteclay Needs Creative Thinking and Whiteclay = Genocide?
6 comments:
I don't understand... Why was the treaty relevant in the molesting case? I mean, this is a crime no matter what. Good that she won though!!!
Whiteclay is also in this article: "Obama's Indian problem".
I presume the woman invoked the treaty's "bad man" clause because she couldn't get justice any other way. I.e., because the evidence wasn't conclusive enough to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt.
@ Rob: "because the evidence wasn't conclusive enough to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt."
I hope you don't mean that as a general rule... Misogyny comes into play usually in the justice system as well, given the 5% rate...
I was speculating about her particular case, not generalizing. In her particular case, I'm guessing the evidence wasn't conclusive enough to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Misogyny--e.g., taking his word over hers--may have played a role. But whatever the reason, she didn't win her case and had to rely on the treaty's "bad man" clause.
No need to speculate any longer. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against the government and for Lavetta Elk in the following case:
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/81723752.html
When Staff Sgt. Joseph Kopf, an Army recruiter, was supposedly taking Elk, then 19, to a military entrance processing center in 2003, he instead stopped in a remote area of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and kissed her and touched her breasts against her will, according to court records.
A military proceeding determined Kopf had committed indecent assault against Elk, and he was reduced in rank and removed from recruiting duties, according to court documents.
In responding to the lawsuit, the government acknowledged that Kopf had assaulted Elk. However, the government argued Elk was entitled only to damages for her actual expenses for treatment.
"The government argued Elk was entitled only to damages for her actual expenses for treatment."
That's just gross.
Post a Comment