Onondaga Nation Reports

Outline of the Anti-Sovereignty Actions of Business Owners Veronica and Kenneth Papineau, Oliver Hill and Donald Rockwell in the Year since their Business were closed by the Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs on April 1, 1993:

Introduction:

For ten years these business owners made millions of dollars in profits. Because they were protected by the sovereignty of the Onondaga Nation, they did not pay any state of federal income, sales or excise taxes. It was the government of the Onondaga Nation which provided these millionaires this protection. For the past five years, these business owners have refused to pay the Nation's cigarette tax of $0.25 per carton, unless they could dictate to the Council of Chiefs how the money should be spent.

Last fall [of 1993] one of the business owners' lawyers told the newspaper that one of the businesses' weekly income was "in the ballpark" of 70,000 cartons per week. Since their profit per carton is about $3.00 to $5.00 per carton, it is easy to see that they made hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits every week. At the same time they were refusing to pay the Nation tax.

After making all this money, under the protection of the sovereignty of the Onondaga Nation, these business owners have now turned on the Nation and its government and Council of Chiefs and have spent tens of thousands of dollars mounting legal attacks on the Council, claiming that it has no authority.

Almost immediately after the April 1, 1993 closure of their businesses, the owners brought three lawsuits, which they hoped would result in the state and federal courts ordering the removal of the blockade. The first of these was a civil rights action in federal court in Syracuse, wherein they claimed that their civil rights (as United States citizens) were violated by the county sheriff's policy of getting permission from one of the Chiefs prior to entry onto the Onondaga Nation. They complained that this policy amounted to a refusal to enforce the criminal law of the State of New York. They also claimed that New York State had exclusive criminal jurisdiction over the events on the Onondaga Nation, and that the Onondaga Nation has lost all of it's original, sovereign criminal jurisdiction.

This matter is still pending [as of April 1994] but the judge has denied their request for a preliminary injunction, which would have ordered the sheriff to got to the Nation at his will. The Nation appeared as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) and the judge invited the Unites States Justice Department to file briefs. The Justice Department argued and the judge ruled that the Sheriff's policy was a valid recognition of the residual, sovereign immunity of the Onondaga Nation.

The business owners also challenged the make up of the Council of Chiefs, saying that certain members had not been properly installed and that therefore the Council was illegal and had no power. They invited the court to rule that the Council was not the valid governing body of the nation. The court refused to do this.

The second law suit was filed in State Supreme Court. In this action, the business owners sought an injunction which would declare the blockade illegal, and a court order which would prevent the blocking the entrances to their businesses. They elected to sue only two clan mothers, although they challenged the entire government of the Onondaga Nation. The former business owners argued that New York State had absolute civil jurisdiction for all matters on the Nation.

They argued that there was no civil authority or jurisdiction left in the Council of Chiefs. They also argue that certain of the Chiefs were not valid Chiefs and that the Council was not properly constituted. Further, they argued that the only valid way for the Council of Chiefs to close their businesses was to go into New York State court and request an order of that court. These argument were rejected by the judge on September 15th [1993], when he denied their request for injunctive relief and dismissed their entire matter.

The third lawsuit was also filed in State Supreme Court and requested the same relief as their federal action: that being declaratory relief that the sheriff's policy of getting permission before entry onto the Nation was unconstitutional under New York law. In this matter the business owners claimed that they were New York State citizens. This request was denied and this action was dismissed also.

In another matter, Niagara Mohawk, the local electrical company brought a petition before the state Public Service Commission seeking a declaratory ruling that the Onondaga Nation would have to waive a portion of their sovereign immunity, if they wanted Ni Mo to continue to deliver electricity onto the Nation. Ni Mo was seeking the power to sue the Nation in New York court, if a dispute arose. Of course, the Nation answered the petition and took the position that a state regulatory agency has no authority to rule on sovereign immunity.

The business owners joined with other members of the Iroquois Business Persons Association, who run similar businesses on other Nations, and filed papers in which they supported Ni Mo's request to limit the sovereign immunity of the Nation.

After the Council of Chiefs tightened the physical barrier to their businesses on March 22, 1994, by replacing some of the large concrete block which had been illegally removed by the business owners, their lawyer write a letter, dated March 28, 1994 to the New York Sate Transportation Department, the New York State Attorney General, the county executive and county attorney. In this letter, they complained that then placement of the blockade was in violation of numerous sections of New York law. Obviously this letter was written to attempt [to] intimidate these authorities into taking the position that the Council of Chiefs should remove the blockade. To date, this attempt has not been successful.

Also, these business owners had used the name of the Onondaga Nation without permission of the people of Onondaga or the Council of Chiefs. The best example of this is their "Onondaga Nation Community Development.", which they formed late in 1992 or early 1993. They never asked the people, the Chiefs, or the clan mothers if they could use the Nation's name. Their use of this name was calculated to try and fool people in the peace and environmental movements into supporting them. The Nation was forced to expend valuable time and resources to expose this improper use of the Nation's name.

(Source: Joseph J. Heath, Attorney for the Onondaga Nation, April 4, 1994)

The dissident entrepreneurs in each Iroquoian community have used the same tactics to disrupt the governmental oversight of their illegal activities:

1) Claim that the nation or Iroquois government does not have authority over their enterprises.

2) Claim that the Indian government is illegally constituted and call for an alternative government of their own choosing.

3) Claim that the Iroquois leaders are not empowered to govern.

4) Claim that the Grand Council is dead and non-functioning.

5) Claim that the traditional chiefs are backwards and unable to deal with modern economics.

6) Use outside law to disrupt the Iroquois government.

7) Use smear tactics to attempt undermine support for the chiefs and Indian government leaders.

8) Claim the Indian sovereignty is an individual right that can be manipulated to cover any activity they may wish.