Oklahomans, what just happened?

[Yung]

Something about a recent SCOTUS decision and it is something between Native American rights and functionally destroying the state.

I need to do some studying for a written test I am taking in a couple hours, so I can't go back to this thread until later this evening but I'd like to hear from you guys specifically.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm on the South side of the Red River, but....

SCOTUS just gave Tulsa (and much more) back to the Creek (and other) Nation. I read this morning that an estimated 1,700 criminals would potentially have to be released, having been tried in US courts for crimes committed on (newly affirmed) tribal lands. Unable to find that link, sorry.


Supreme Court rules Oklahoma state prosecutors cannot handle criminal cases in tribal land

Supreme Court Rules That About Half Of Oklahoma Is Native American Land

[Arbninftry]

I live in NE Ok. This is really bad. So basically Everything now becomes a federal crime on Indian lands. A fair amount of the state is tribal by origin- you know we are the Indian Territory. So it’s a double edged sword. State does not have to prosecute, up to the Feds.

So along with that, you get to go to federal prison for something that normally does not get federal prison.

[blues]

Won't matter. Once the police are defunded the courts would be superfluous.

Perhaps trial by gauntlet or fire might be looked into if the federal prosecutors are too busy on more pressing political matters.


(indeed, sarcasm intended.)

[Arbninftry]

My thinking is that this will only apply if you are tribal. The narrative states "That means Native American people who commit crimes on that land can only be prosecuted by tribal or federal courts."

So welcome to the backlog, don't screw up and do stupid shit.

https://ktul.com/news/local/mcgirt-v...g-implications

This will also effect Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, etc.

[Borderland]

Here's a good discussion about this.

https://youtu.be/VR42iYGtEAc


Looks like congress didn't make it clear where the res was after the 1906 treaty. According to the SC, the treaty with res boundary, is still in force and that was the reason for the SC decision.

They state that congress will have to clear this up and I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Just my professional opinion but nobody asked me.

[0ddl0t]

I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Adverse possession may come into play if the lawful owners did not do enough to recover their property within the statutory time limits.

[Arbninftry]

Here's a good discussion about this.

https://youtu.be/VR42iYGtEAc


Looks like congress didn't make it clear where the res was after the 1906 treaty. According to the SC, the treaty with res boundary, is still in force and that was the reason for the SC decision.

They state that congress will have to clear this up and I'm sure this will impact lots of legal, (or illegal, however you wish to look at it) original land title transfers from the US land office to private citizens. The US gov't may have actually sold land to private individuals when they never owned it to begin with. An old rule of title transfers is you can't sell something you don't own.

Just my professional opinion but nobody asked me.

So I live about 5 miles from where my great (x4) grandfathers original plot (80 Acres), from 1832. When a tribal member sold to an individual, it had to be blessed my the tribe and a judge from the government. That went on to the 1900s, so I dont think the land sales will be the issue. I think it will be jurisdiction for criminal activity prosecution issue for tribal members.

[Stephanie B]

So they stole the land but they didn't do it properly?

[blues]

So they stole the land but they didn't do it properly?

Don't make blanket judgments.

(BTW, I agree that Native Americans were treated horribly and treaties weren't honored. But if we're going back, every group stole the land (they later occupied) from some other group. Native Americans displaced other tribes regularly, Native African tribes did the same. I don't know who was here when the Asians crossed the land bridge to North America...but you can be sure someone wasn't happy about the new neighbors. And so it goes.)