Sent by me to Congresswoman Shannon.
Shannon, Raymond told us (on the day we saw you at the Buffalo Grill)that he
was eliminating the Tourism dept., and how he was instrumental in getting this
department eliminated. His comment below on how he was the only one that voted
against a zero budgeting for this dept. Can you confirm this, I find this hard
to swallow because of his conversation on that day.
The Supreme Court rulings and finding this impromptu Legal step on the Chiefs
part, I believe is a desperate attempt to cover his veto on the Newsletter sent
out to all Osages. And know I accept this Supreme Court findings, with no argument from me, I understand the reasons on both sides.
Sandra,
I hope you understand that the opinion I gave on this particular issue is not mine alone - it is the opinion of our counsel, backed up by Supreme Court decisions. In other words, the Chief really does have problem here, and it will be up to the Osage courts to resolve it.
When you say "you and some of the others are proud of your budget cuts" I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. By and large I've opposed cuts to the proposed budgets, save for substituting a $900 raise for the cost-of-living raises found in the submitted budget drafts.
I was the lone "no" vote to cut the Tourism budget to zero, and have argued to the best of my ability against cuts to 17 million or cuts to establish a "flat budget". If you know of specific instances where I've veered from this course, please let me know.
I would appreciate a phone call from you at your convenience - 287-7400.
With respect,
Raymond
Subject: Re: Update #47
8-27-2008
Raymond,
Here is my comments and opinion on the goings on.
The peoples Constitution is being abuse by those in Congress that continue to want to control the Nations Executive Branch and I for one am truly getting tired of it. I said it before this Congress is out of Control!
When you start eliminating the appropriations for specific departments and the running of the programs necessary to succeed in today's world, you are totally out of line.
This congress continues to write bills that are interfering in the daily workings of the Osage Nation and not (repeat NOT) conducive to your oaths of office and the benefit of the people you promised to represent. Especially when you listen to the personal grievances of those that are forever up happy and want controversy. You should listen and pay attention to those that want what is good for all the people and not just a few selfish people.
You and some of the others are proud of your cutting budgets that effect the people, but you are only looking at not appropriating the budget moneys to alienating and hurting those working for the Nation that are loyal to the people. I know I have asked for accounting of the Congress and have never received anything. Talk about practice what you preach. The Congress has NO accountability or transparency in government. It is a fact the people know that your Staff makes a better salary that their peers in the Executive Branch.
You say, that you are not cutting the budgets because you are mad at the Chief, wake up do you actually believe the people as a whole are stupid. Think again, we are not stupid and we know what is going on.
The Congress refused to grant appropriations to simply pay the monthly bills and some salaries, so the peoples burial fund had to be used. Talkabout irresponsibility on the Congresses part. When you argue that rumors are facts and not the truth of evidence is overlooked, you look to the absurd and argue the point that does not exist. You call this good government? Instead of looking at Kugee Supernaw and his group for answers you should listen to the truth and those that know the truth and not those that are involved in controversial actions and enjoy stirring up trouble they make on their own.
You state below and I have a comment on this:
Raymond: In other words, the "loser" in any legislative battle cannot run to the Osage court system to simply arbitrate who is right and who is wrong absent a true controversy.
Sandra: Ask yourself: Where else can the Principal Chief receive relief from arbitrary acts by the Congress, especially the attitude of the Congress toward the Executive Branch and it's people.
In actuality, he should have truth and trust in the Congress.
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Raymond W. Redcorn
> < rredcorn@osagetribe.org> wrote:
From: Raymond W. Redcorn rredcorn@osagetribe.org>
Subject: Update #47
To: "Raymond W. Redcorn"
rredcorn@osagetribe.org>
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 2:31 PM
Update #47
The views, opinions and commentary in this update are those of Congressman Red Corn. They are his alone, and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Osage Nation Congress.
Independent Press Act
There are a few details of the Executive Branch's legal maneuvers that may interest Update readers.
Anamicus brief has been recently filed by the Speaker in the matter, and it raises valid points. The issue began when Congress overrode the Chief's veto of the Independent Press Act of 2008. The Chief filed a petition for declaratory relief on July 14, asking the Trial Court to review the matter and offer interpretation on the Constitutionality of the Act.
In this instance, the Congress was not "sued" but merely listed as "Interested Parties". According to the brief filed by the Speaker, the Congress did not receive notice of the action until August 18th, and only received a copy of the Petition on August 19th, even though it had been filed a month earlier. Further, the Speaker's brief states that the notice intended for the Congress went instead to the Chief's office.
The Speaker's brief does not argue the points raised by the Chief, but rightly questions the practice of asking a court of law to render an opinion when no real "adverse party or controversy" exists in this case. The Speaker's brief, in part, invokes U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Authority. In that case the Court says,
The theory upon which, apparently, this suit was brought is that parties have an appeal from the legislature to the courts, and that the latter are given an immediate and general supervision of the constitutionality of the acts of the former. Such is not true. Whenever, in pursuance of an honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights by one individual against another, there is presented a question involving the validity of any act of any legislature, state or federal, and the decision necessarily rests on the competency of the legislature to enact, the court must, in the exercise of its solemn duties, determine whether the act be constitutional or not; but such an exercise of power is the ultimate and supreme function of courts.
It is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.
The Speaker's brief (attached, along with the originalaction by theChief) concludes with these arguments:
The Petitioner has not received any injury or claimed any injury due to the enactment of ONCA 08-07, therefore the Court should not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the legislative act at issue. Tyler v. Judges etc., 179 U.S. 405 (U.S., 1900).
The Petitioner has only claimed a hypothetical injury by claiming that if he were to implement and enforce the act, and it was then declared unconstitutional, he would be violating his oath of office as Principal Chief of the Osage Nation. This is a flawed argument for two reasons.
First, Article VII, Section 1 of the Osage Nation Constitution states "[T]he Principal Chief shall dutifully support the Constitution and laws of the Osage Nation and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed, administered and enforced." The Principal Chief is violating his oath of office by failing to "always uphold and defend the Constitution of the Osage Nation..." The Principal Chief is violating his oath of office by refusing to execute and administer ONCA 08-07 as provided by Article VII, Section 1 of the Osage Nation Constitution.
Second, the Petitioner is not in violation of his oath of office or the Osage Nation Constitution if he executes, administers and enforces the laws of the Osage Nation properly enacted by the legislature. The Petitioner is not in violation for administering law unless the law is found unconstitutional by the Court through an action between two actual adversarial litigants who have an actual controversy, and the Petitioner then continues to administer the law over the ruling of the Court. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown or claimed any injury. He has only claimed a hypothetical injury, but one that presupposes the unconstitutionality of the legislative act and that assumption is what he claims keeps him from executing and administering ONCA 08-07. It is not the charge or the responsibility of the Petitioner to determine the constitutionality of legislative acts, but rather that responsibility rests with the Courts of the Osage Nation through
Actions of actual controversy between adversarial litigants. For this lack of injury by operation of ONCA 08-07, the Court should not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the legislative act at issue.
Finally, although it is believed that the Petitioner should be denied standing and the Court should exercise its power to not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the legislative act, this Amicus must address one obvious misstatement of law by the Petitioner. Paragraph 11 of the Petition claims that "Nothing in the Osage Constitution allows for this sort of structure since Congress is not authorized to appoint a member to an Executive Branch board"[1] referring to the appointment provisions set forth in ONCA 08-07. This statement is in direct conflict with Article VII, Section 15 of the Osage Nation Constitution titled "Appointments." Article VII,
Section 1 states
"[T]he Principal Chief shall also appoint, subject to the advice and consent by the Osage Nation Congress, members of each board, commission on other instrumentality in the executive branch whose election or appointment is not provided by this Constitution or by law (emphasis added). In essence, this section of the Constitution states that in the absence of a process for appointments to boards and commissions provided by the Osage Nation Constitution or legislative act, the Principal Chief shall appoint those members subject to the advice and consent of the Osage Nation Congress. The act, ONCA 08-07, provides a procedure for the appointment of board members, and therefore the method for appointment of the board members is provided by law, negating the need for appointment only by the Principal Chief.
In other words, the "loser" in any legislative battle cannot run to the Osage court system to simply arbitrate who is right and who is wrong absent a true controversy.
I'll do my best to post any fresh developments in this case.
As always, please call or email with your questions, comments, or concerns.
With respect,
Raymond Red Corn
Osage Nation Congress
918-287-7400
rredcorn@gmail.com
rredcorn@osagetribe.org
[1] Petition of James R. Gray, CIV-08-04, Page 4,
Paragraph 11.
Hello Raymond, I just read the Tulsa World on the Osage Nation Newspaper and
will be writing my own comments on this one. I believe this to be extremely
selfish on those that voted to take down the only information from the tribe to
those not involved and enjoy knowing what is going on here in the Osage. Shame
on the Congress, it is difficult to express my dissatification with this
Congress self appointed spoiler of the Osage people. This has become
unconscienceable on the parts of those that want to distory the Osage people. I
will be doing some righting.
2nd. These new committees are working against the people and we the people must
put a stop to it NOW!!.
Supernaw, shackelford with Branstetter -others include; Simms,Anderson, Revard
and Red Eagle. Speaker Mason can and could be included in the list. Fairness
of,from and for the people, these (named)elected officials have become others
that must their positions of this government questioned
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Raymond W. Redcorn <rredcorn@osagetribe.org> wrote:
> From: Raymond W. Redcorn <rredcorn@osagetribe.org>
> Subject: Update #49
> To: "Raymond W. Redcorn" rredcorn@osagetribe.org>
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 2:58 PM
> Update #49
>
>
The views, opinions and commentary in this update are those of Congressman Red Corn. They are his alone, and do not necessarily
represent the views and opinions of the Osage Nation Congress. Funding for Osage News cutFunding to distribute the Osage News was cut out of the Communications Budget yesterday by a close vote in the Government Operations Committee.
The budget had previously been advanced, but was brought back for Committee consideration. A motion was made to cut 102,000from thebudget (the amount allocated to distribute the newspaper). The measurepassed 3-2. Voting for the cut was Congresspersons
Supernaw, Branstetter (tie-breaker) and Shackelford. Voting against the cut was Congressman
Freeman and Speaker Mason.
>
The previous day on a similar failed measure, I had removed myself from vote and debate, as my spouse owns a newspaper that
circulates in the same general area. I abstained from both votes. During debate on Tuesday, at least one Committee member expresseddispleasure with recent
Osage News content.I support the funding of the printing of the paper, as I believe the Congress will prevail in the pending court action.
The fate of the Osage News is unclear, as the Committee left intact both salaries and other operation expenses. If the case drags out, we will have two employees preparing content for a paper that
cannot be printed or mailed.
>
I have fully supported the Independent Press Act (includin override) in hopes of bringing balanced coverage to the Osage News. The appeal to the court on behalf of the Executive Branch to declare the
> Act unconstitutional is being considered by the court, and a ruling is expected soon.
>
> Actions on Palace Grocery
>
The Palace Grocery has been one of two success stories over the past year. Once a consistent money-loser, the Palace has not
> requested any tribal funds in FY2008 or FY2009. They did request to retain 2008 earnings to diversify and expand operations. I supported
> that retention, although in today's committee action those profits were removed from the 2009 budget.
>
>I think this sends the wrong signal to the Palace. Work hard, make tough decisions, reorganize, and stop the bleeding, and
> your reward is to have your profits immediately taken by the Nation. The Palace
> intended to use those profits to expand the sale of non-perishables,i.e. paper goods, to the Nations programs and entities.
> The Palace also intended to expand the market to include other nearby tribes. The Commerce Committee's actions today remove last
> year's profits and could slow or endanger the success of the expansion effort, in my opinion.
>
>The person responsible for the turnaround is Ms. JackieMcCann, an Osage from Pawhuska. She comes from a long line of Osage cooks; her Aunt
> Marion Cass and Lily Cunningham among them. Jackie left a distinguished career with Wal-Mart, have served as manager of Supercenters and
> Wal-Mart Neighborhood Markets. To my knowledge, there is no Osage person with more retail grocery experience to be had.
> Jackie and her expertise are directly responsible for the turnaround at the Palace, in
> my opinion.
>
There's an old adage in investing; cut your losses, andlet your profits run. We are not letting our profits run in Fairfax. If
our strategy is to remove profits from a properly managed and growing business we are destined to fail miserably, as each and every business will
have its profits milked off by the Nation before they can be reinvested.
>
We should remember that the Palace Grocery is wholly ownedby the Nation. If Ms. McCann retains those funds in Palace
>accounts and reinvests them for expansion, they still belong to the Nation. We
>didn't need the $218,000 - we have approximately $27 million in the bank.
>
Voting for the removal of profits were Congresspersons Supernaw, Simms, Shackelford and Red Eagle. I voted no. A motion to
>reinstate the funds as a tribal contribution failed by an identical vote
>
>As always, please call or email with your questions,
comments, or concerns.
>
>With respect,
>
Raymond Red Corn
Osage Nation Congress
>918-287-7400
>rredcorn@gmail.com
rredcorn@osagetribe.org
|
