From: CanUCee@aol.com

Note: The Navajo Hopi Observer News online does not archive.
The URL/link below will be active only through March 26, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

<A HREF="http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/news3.htm">Navajo Hopi
Observer
News</A>
http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/news3.htm

March 20, 2000

Hopi Exclusion Ordinance Upheld

KYKOTSMOVI, Ariz. -- During the first morning of the Hopi Tribe's
administrative hearing to exclude Arlene Hamilton from the Hopi Reservation,
Hearing Officer Coochise denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
proposed exclusion. In addition, the motion to strike Hopi Tribal Ordinance
46 known as the "exclusion ordinance" on the grounds that it was vague was
also denied.

In his opening statement of March 15, John Trebon, attorney for Arlene
Hamilton stated that Ms. Hamilton's actions on the Hopi Partitioned Lands had
"no detrimental effect on the Hopi" and that Ordinance 46 constituted cruel
and unusual punishment for his client.

General Counsel for the Hopi Tribe, Scott Canty, stated that Ms. Hamilton
should not be allowed to hide her unlawful behavior behind the First
Amendment, referring to Hamilton's activities including alleged illegal
construction on the Hopi Partitioned Lands. "This is first and foremost the
Hopi Reservation, land set aside for the exclusive use and benefit of the
Hopi People. Ordinance 46 is the method by which the Hopi regulate use of the
Hopi Reservation. This right of the Hopi is the crux of the case."

Asked about her observance on the day's hearing, Lenora Lewis, Hopi Observer
from the Village of Upper Moenkopi replied, "Arlene Hamilton's defense says
that she did no harm to the Hopi people. Yet it was clear from the witnesses
that she built structures on Hopi land without a permit and is trying to
convince the Hearing Officer that something is wrong with the law and that he
should throw it out. She then claims that she is doing nothing unlawful. This
is a new twist on her defense. Every time she breaks the law she can just say
it wasn't her fault but the Ordinance's for interpreting her behavior as
illegal. I'm glad the Hearing Officer didn't agree with her."

Eugene Kaye, witness for the Hopi Tribe, testified that Ms. Hamilton was
never given a permit to hold her "education camp" nor to construct buildings
for the camp on the HPL. "In practice," he said "she has continued to violate
the law."

In Hamilton's defense, Trebon argued that Hamilton is the Chief Negotiator
for the Navajo and has authority from President Kelsey Begaye of the Navajo
Nation to represent and negotiate on his behalf. Among her alleged
negotiations on record are requests for wells to be rehabilitated and to hold
the Sun Dance at Camp Anna Mae on the HPL.

"This is news to the Hopi Tribe. We have a direct government-to-government
relationship with the Navajo Nation. Arlene Hamilton has never provided us
with a letter from President Begaye that she is his official representative
in any capacity or for any matter. I'm sure President Begaye will be more
than happy to clear this matter up for the Hopi Tribe," stated Rachel
Sakiestewa Scott, Hopi Tribal Council Representative who attended the hearing.

In reference to the Sun Dance, Trebon argued that the Hopi Tribe had
previously acquiesced to "permitting" the Sun Dance to continue when
roadblocks set-up by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement and Hopi
Rangers allowed participants to go to the Sun Dance site, and then by analogy
arguing that in Hamilton's case, by not writing to inform her that her
request for a permit was denied, had acquiesced to giving her a permit for
her activities.

"This was clearly not the case," stated Kaye. "Public safety was the highest
consideration," referring to the Hopi Tribe's roadblock to prevent
individuals from attending the Sun Dance event. "To put someone's life up
front was not worth the trouble. We feared that any confrontation with the
Sun Dance participants could endanger lives. It did not mean that we gave
permission for the Sun Dance to continue. It meant that there are certain
individuals that will continue to disobey Hopi law."

The hearing continued on March 16. "A non-member who enters the jurisdiction
of the Tribe remains subject to the risk that the Tribe will later exercise
its sovereign power," quoted Canty, citing Supreme Court case Merrion v.
Jicarilla Apache Tribe in response to Hamilton's argument that the Hopi Tribe
had lost the ability to exclude her from the Hopi Reservation by its failure
to do so over the last seventeen years.

Hamilton was issued a Notice of Proposed Exclusion from the Hopi Reservation
by Chairman Wayne Taylor on June 14, 1999, for organizing an educational
camp, erecting structures on the Hopi Reservation, failing to comply with the
tribe's order to remove unauthorized structures placed on Hopi land, and for
remaining on the Hopi Reservation without authorization from the Hopi Tribe.

On May 28, 1999, Hamilton wrote a letter to the tribe requesting a permit to
erect temporary structures on the Hopi Reservation for the educational camp.
Before she even requested a permit and while her request was pending,
Hamilton proceeded to erect several structures. Also on May 28, the Hopi
Tribe issued Hamilton a Notice to Cease New Construction and/or Trespass on
Hopi Tribal Lands. On June 7, a second Notice was issued to Hamilton after an
additional structure was erected for the educational camp in disregard of the
first notice. In June, Hamilton's request for a permit was denied.

When asked if she had received and read the Notice to cease new construction
and trespass, she said, "I had no idea what this paper meant. I did not
realize the consequences of this paper." When asked under what authority she
proceeded to erect structures without permission from the Hopi Tribe,
Hamilton replied, "I thought I had verbal permission."

In papers filed in connection with the hearing, the Tribe explained that the
principles underlying the tribes power to protect it's lands from
unauthorized entry have their basis in tribal sovereignty and federal law. In
one of the nations first Indian law cases before the United States Supreme
Court, Worchester v. Georgia, Justice John Marshall stated, "The Cherokee
Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with
boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no
force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the
assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with
acts of Congress."

According to Cedrik Kuwaninvaya, a member of the Hopi Tribal Council, "This
principle is at the heart of the Hopi case against Hamilton."

"Hopefully this case will help lay to rest the notion that the Hopi
Reservation is a lawless third world country. Individuals like Arlene
Hamilton think they can come onto the Hopi Reservation and do as they please
without respect for the people and the laws that govern our land. She acted
as her own judge and decided that she would do as she pleased without
authorization. It's like saying, I don't have a drivers license but I think
it's okay for me to drive on the highways," stated Scott.

Trebon argued that Hopi law did not apply to teepees and that Hamilton served
as an agent or employee of the Weaving for Freedom camp and that such status
qualified her for an exception from exclusion under Hopi Tribal Ordinance 46.
Trebon also asked Coochise to consider basic fairness for his client.

In his closing, Canty stated that the Hopi Tribe in its capacity as a
sovereign nation has the power to exclude nonmembers from the Hopi
Reservation. "The very foundations of Federal Indian Law are premised in part
on the recognition of the right of Indian tribes to exclude non-members from
their lands," he said.

"As a matter of public policy," Canty said referring to Hamilton's activities
on the Hopi Reservation that required authorization, "you proceeded without
permission, you ignored the law and encouraged others to engage in similar
lawless behavior."

The proposal to exclude an individual from the Hopi Reservation is a
multi-step process. Departments such as the Office of Hopi Lands refer cases
to the Office of the Chairman for consideration that is also shared with the
Hopi Tribal Council and the Land Team. Following the due process hearing
afforded the defendant, a recommendation from Coochise to Chairman Taylor
will either recommend exclusion or denial of the exclusion for Hamilton.
Coochise indicated that he expected to issue a decision within 45 days.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE!
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/7/_/468875/_/953791378/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a BIGMTLIST post.
Email addresses---
To Post message: BIGMTLIST@onelist.com
To Subscribe: BIGMTLIST-subscribe@onelist.com
To Unsubscribe: BIGMTLIST-unsubscribe@onelist.com
For more information on this on-going human rights crisis in the
United States, visit my web page at http://www.theofficenet.com/~redorman/pagea~1.htm