Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Bret on November 26, 2011, 05:51:32 PM
-
My name is Bret and I am a potential FSW member. FSW played a role in my decision on Wyoming but only modestly, most of the factors that caused FSW to exist were primary factors such as the low population density, general amount of freedom, low unemployment/good business climate, etc. I am looking to do things a little different though. While Wyoming is a lot more free than most places it is not as free as I personally want.
Here is a view into my thoughts on the matter. It sounds too good to be true for many however the concept is sound and the BIA manual on this was updated this year making it more permissive than the 2008 policy was. The short version is "form an indian reservation and let suitable candidates be tribal members regardless of ancestry". The long version is below.
I want to be clear about this, I am not talking about a para-military type compound. I am also not talking about a freeman type movement or any type of separatist or secessionist movement, at least not in the classical sense. This is an indian nation carved out which would be equal to any other state in most respects.
Massive federalization has resulted in an inability to vote with your feet and move to a different state that has different laws which are more suitable.
Government subsidies, excise taxes and bailouts make it difficult to vote with your wallet. With subsidies you pay for items you do not want to. Excise taxes discourage one item over another. Bailouts require you to pay for the work product of a failed company.
Excessive government regulations have stripped the ability to vote with your labor. Regulation compliance has a cost, in a small business this compliance is a larger percentage of the operating budget. This in turn discourages fair competition between a “David vs Goliath”.
These are essential freedoms that many did not even know they had let alone lost. They are important even if they do not seem like it.
The average American is taxed 20-40% of their income. Your labor was traded in a fair value trade for your wage, no profit was generated. The government claims that 1-2 days per week of that labor belongs to them. When you attempt to spend the your wage you have more taxes.
To make matters worse taxes go for things like warrantless wiretaps, assassination lists, censorship, and all the silly laws we have tolerated over the years. We end up with bridges to nowhere, tunnels for frogs, obvious graft and corruption.
I desire to OPT-OUT of all of that. This is not about destroying the country, it is about restoring my freedom and having a voice that matters.
I am a Bureau of Indian Affairs registered Indian. That registration entitles me to take land and make it “Indian country”. This can be any parcel of land. I could get just enough land for myself and a few of my friends but I would like to share the gift of expanded freedom with others and build a community.
Indian country can have it's own government, that government gets 100% control over the rules of who is and is not a tribal member. There is no blood quantum requirement for tribal membership under current law. To put it another way, under current law it only takes 1 qualified Indian to set this up and then anyone can be made a tribal member regardless of ethnicity. Becoming a tribal member does not require you to renounce anything, it does not require you to forego any programs or benefits, I for example hold a US passport but am a member of one tribal nation and can vote in their elections (as well as my state of residence).
The ultimate goal is full national sovereignty, a level on par with what the constitution says the member states should have but sadly they do not. This is a goal that may never be realized however the first step is to opt-out of 99% of the system. The last 1% requires one of several great events to occur which will be described below. The government does not give up its power easily.
I am seeking to build a community where we all have a vested interest in each other. Not a place where you have to help your neighbor but a place where you want to help your neighbor. Where individuals have social contact with each other, they know their names, they greet each other as they walk down the street. They look out for each other knowing that they too will be looked out for. From what I have seen when I was in WY and from what I have read that is common there, as it appears to be in most rural environments (even where I live in California currently).
This is not a commune. Each person should succeed or fail on their own merits. They should own the product of their labor. They should be able to live their life as they see fit providing they do not impair anyone's ability to do the same. Freedom and personal responsibility are inextricably intertwined. In order to have large amounts of freedom you must also have large amounts of personal responsibility, as one diminishes so too does the other. You must be personally responsible for your actions as well as self deterministic. There will be no welfare. With a community, assistance is often provided through voluntary not compulsory means.
One goal is self sufficiency. To provide enough food by farming and ranching with extra for export to be able to acquire the items we would need or want such as salt, toilet paper, toothpaste, that new big TV and video game console. With a large enough community there exists the potential to do non-farming related work such as the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker, or just operating a tavern, restaurant, exporting wind/solar power. Each person gets to decide what they would want to do, jobs are not assigned by anything other than the true free market (something that rarely exists anymore). There is an exception to this, no casinos. Casinos require special permission, they complicate the process, they bring in other problems, they just aren't that good. Alcohol laws must also conform to the surrounding state laws, this is a requirement of the government to prevent creating pockets of loopholes in the state system with respect to age and similar.
Suitable candidates would have to have a few common traits. Personal responsibility, self determination, community respect, tolerance of others and be generally law abiding. The last requirement is there because certain laws cease to exist such as federal firearms laws and federal drug laws (most tribal governments have laws against them and they have and can call in the DEA, FBI and others the Wind River reservation also had the issue of non-members dealing on the reservation which allows them in). I do not want to have to deal with people abusing that to skirt the law and ultimately create problems for everyone else.
There are 14 laws that the federal government has jurisdiction over for tribal members on indian land, no other laws apply except when dealing with non-members (then all state and federal laws apply to that person and in things dealing with that person). The 14 laws are murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, larceny of more than $1000, assault with a dangerous weapon or resulting in serious bodily injury, assault with intent to commit rape or murder, incest, felonious sexual molestation of a minor, felony child abuse or neglect (18 USC 1153). For example, "simple assault" does not exist in that list, if it is between a non-member and a member then it would be prosecuted federally (if there is not a federal law then the state law applies but it is still prosecuted federally).
No state taxes. No sales tax, state excise tax, sin tax, property tax, etc. Federal taxes may be eliminated under certain circumstances as well. No building permits or building code although personal responsibility dictates that you should build sound buildings. State sales tax does apply to non-tribal members making purchases on the land, there are estimated and actual methods available in WY.
The government will be limited to protecting the rights of the people, nothing more and nothing less. Any government position will be unpaid. There will be no professional government workers, they must work for a living like everyone else. Government positions will largely be title only and have no real power nor require any real amount of time. There is a requirement for certain titles so that government to government discussions and contracts to be signed but outside of that there is no real power for the politician.
The process is fairly straight forward. Land is purchased and then placed into a trust through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. When the land goes into a trust it becomes “Indian country” and it is no longer part of the state. Ownership of the land is by the trust, the land may not just be arbitrarily sold. Banks may not foreclose on any properties within indian country either. Indian country is a "domestic dependent nation" (Cherkoee Nation v Georgia, 30 US 1 - 1831). This means that it is not a state and is a separate special entity. The IRS views Indian country as a state and the government is taxed the same as a state government (ie it isnt).
The only real differences are the laws that no longer apply and the potential to not pay federal income or payroll tax. Indians living on indian land who earn their wage from the land itself (not just on it but from it) are exempt from federal income tax. There are other potential ways to exempt a store owner or other "non-land derived income" as well, but until that is reviewed by a tax lawyer I do not wish to affirmatively state that it would be legally valid. Indian country is not bound by the US federal constitution (Talton v Mayes, 163 US 376 1896) as they never ratified it. The Constitution would not prevent us from printing our own currency with whatever backing we desire. The exchange rate could be fixed in a way that the level of income falls below the threshold to cause income tax to be due.
If the US collapses the states are free to go their own way, this also includes "domestic dependent nations". The state would have record of where Indian country is, providing the state is not hostile towards Indian country as California and New York have proved to be, it should be quick and painless to affirm full sovereignty at that time. If the US recovers there is still more freedom than would otherwise exist. I see it as a win-win.
This could be as small as 160 acres for me and some friends or 12,000 acres for no more than 750 people (16 acres per person average to account for food and housing requirements). A high population density makes it harder to fulfill the self-sufficiency requirement, although part could have a higher density, a town center with the bulk being farm/ranch land.
-
It's an interesting model to think through, Bret, at least. I recall seeing videos
and other links you posted, recently, on this and would need to digest them
before venturing a comment.
Welcome to the forum,
Terence
-
I dont recall videos on this, there is very little mainstream info on how to form an indian reservation because it is not something that most everyone can do. I think there are only a bit over 1M in the US that qualify (ie have all the documentation required, more probably qualify if they file the paperwork to register themselves).
I do look forward to feedback from others on this, and I have a longer document that goes into more detail. One of the aspects is that there will have to be framers of this government (which probably will be a rip of the intent of the one started in the late 1700s), there are several aspects I intentionally left open for debate. The biggest overriding goal that I am interested in is that the role of government is to protect the rights of the people, nothing more and nothing less. With that government positions will largely be powerless and volunteer (you must still work for a living).
-
My feedback: no thanks.
-
Freedom is not for everyone there are those that want a government layer to provide services for them. I realize that many will not want to opt-out of all state laws and programs and opt-out of all federal programs and laws except 14 of the more serious crimes. It can be scary to have to make it on your own where there is no government leader to follow.
That is ok though, when I set this up we will still be friendly to everyone else :) Right now it is only a question of how large to make it.
-
This could be as small as 160 acres for me and some friends or 12,000 acres for no more than 750 people (16 acres per person average to account for food and housing requirements). A high population density makes it harder to fulfill the self-sufficiency requirement, although part could have a higher density, a town center with the bulk being farm/ranch land.
This kind of property can be found in Wyoming and owning it would be
a victory in itself on many fronts. Would conveying it into a BIA Trust
enable the inhabitants to be more free and/or the land more valuable?
Taxes and state interference can be minimized by other means, so, it's a matter
of comparing those other means with those of this particular trust.
Beyond that there's a comparison to be made between aggregating like-minded
people on the same contiguous parcel of land or having them in
the same general area of the country and connected philosophically.
The latter is more in the spirit of FSW, in my view, although WY can
certainly accommodate both, and almost any, approach.
I think it's a case of build it and they may come. In your case, Bret, you've
got the paperwork in place so building it simplifies to buying it. Not
that finding/buying a great piece of land like that is an easy task, by
any means. However, since the outcome is not certain I would think
you'd still want to vett the particular state and county where you purchased
irrespective of BIA trust interest, here (Something where the maximum
size of your constraints (12000) was contiguously available presenting its
own initial challenges). If chosen well the worst case scenario is that
you end up with some excellent land in what is probably the optimal
state for freedom irrespective of the terms of a particular land trust.
One seeking maximum freedom could do much worse.
Terence
-
Would conveying it into a BIA Trust enable the inhabitants to be more free and/or the land more valuable?
Taxes and state interference can be minimized by other means, so, it's a matter of comparing those other means with those of this particular trust.
There is also FAR less federal interference, for example there are only 14 federal laws, no more. Well ok there is a legal caveat in Standing Bear v United States where Standing Bear used a gun to shoot and kill someone. Murder is one of the 14 crimes so he was charged with that but was also given an additional 5 years under 18 USC 924(c)(1) "using a gun in a crime of violence", he appealed saying that it was not one of the 14 crimes the court (8th cir) said that because it was an "underlying felony" to one of the 14 that they could hook jurisdiction that way. So the other laws apply if it is a component of one of the 14 crimes, so just dont do murder, arson, rape, kidnapping, etc and nothing to worry about :)
I am unsure that there are reasonable ways to avoid not just state taxes (sales, property, etc) but also federal income and payroll taxes. With indian land there are a few legally available methods (although I plan on getting a tax lawyer before trying any of them out). In general, as with most "tax avoidance" things you have to structure things ahead of time, such as buying a house to claim the interest as a deduction. Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not, I plan on sticking only with the avoidance stuff - claiming valid legitimate deductions and other methods of payment that are in fact legal.
Beyond that there's a comparison to be made between aggregating like-minded people on the same contiguous parcel of land or having them in the same general area of the country and connected philosophically. The latter is more in the spirit of FSW, in my view, although WY can certainly accommodate both, and almost any, approach.
Well there are some limits on what I individually can do towards this end. Someone else who has similar paper work as me (for reference only 30% or so of the Wind River reservation has this level of paperwork, it is not uncommon exactly but many dont - I know some people who refuse because of the governments history they dont want to be on any lists). What I cannot do is a checkerboard of land here and there and everywhere. So for that it has to be fairly contiguous. That does not mean it has to be small, the 16 acre thing was a minimum based on calculations I have done on crop yields, grazing suitability, and general spacing between homes. Last thing you want is one bad year to blow everything away, I also wanted a bit of surplus because I do not think subsistence farming is all that great and who doesnt want to be able to sell for profit?
I think it's a case of build it and they may come. In your case, Bret, you've got the paperwork in place so building it simplifies to buying it. Not that finding/buying a great piece of land like that is an easy task, by any means. However, since the outcome is not certain I would think you'd still want to vett the particular state and county where you purchased irrespective of BIA trust interest, here (Something where the maximum size of your constraints (12000) was contiguously available presenting its own initial challenges). If chosen well the worst case scenario is that you end up with some excellent land in what is probably the optimal state for freedom irrespective of the terms of a particular land trust.
[/quote]
Well the 12000 acres was only done because I saw some plots of land available that were that size (deeded). I then divided by 16 to calculate the maximum number of people that could fit there given the above parameters. The reality is that the state and county are asked but they do not get any vote in the process. BIA considers input and then uses some magic formula to decide if they are going to allow it or not. That is not to say that it is guaranteed by any means and certainly a favorable opinion by the locals in the area and the county/state would go a long way.
As for building it the bigger problem is how large do I build it? which is why I was asking if anyone was interested. The more people the larger it must be. I could have just built it on my own without saying anything to anyone but me and maybe my friends or family. Since I do not want track homes dominating the area I do have to calculate how many people vs everything else.
The sweetest solution would be to find an investor to lay down money for land and wind generation in exchange for 50% of the wind business, as there are tax breaks for doing it that way it would be a win-win. Businesses must be at least 50% owned natively to qualify for all the tax breaks (which could mean no taxes if properly structured). I just dont know anyone with deep enough pockets to even pitch that to, although a multi-megawatt generation system would turn a pretty penny each month. The land, generators and grid tie in would not be cheap though.
-
Freedom is not for everyone there are those that want a government layer to provide services for them. I realize that many will not want to opt-out of all state laws and programs and opt-out of all federal programs and laws except 14 of the more serious crimes. It can be scary to have to make it on your own where there is no government leader to follow.
That is ok though, when I set this up we will still be friendly to everyone else :) Right now it is only a question of how large to make it.
You misunderstand. I don't see any particular freedom, or increase in freedom in your proposition. I see it as the difference between a zoo and a "wild animal park." The animals at the "park" may well consider themselves more "free," but nothing has really changed except the size and design of the cage.
No thanks.
-
Well, I agree in principle, and am not interested personally. However, let's not be too discouraging. I'd rather see more variety in the actions people take, trying to get free, than less of it. Who's to say what it can evolve into, over time? More power to Bret in my opinion, if he can get something going here.
-
Ultimately I want 100% sovereignty for that so there is nothing the community does not want, but that is not realistic at this time. Tricky thing is that law abiding people, the ones who are that way more by nature than because there is a law against it, will not notice much difference. If you never feel the desire to murder someone does a law against it really impede your freedom? Most people therefore wont notice any real freedom change other than perhaps the lack of taxation. Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 and 14th amendment section 2 "except indians not taxed", when you fit into that somewhat narrow category apportionment is not supposed to count. From what I have seen they do not exclude in census counts. This means that those in the surrounding state could actually get a louder voice by having more people counted (technically indians on a reservation can be excluded from voting because they do not reside in the state, that almost never happens though and would probably cause a lot of yelling and screaming even though the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote it only provides reasons that may not be used to exclude you from voting).
All in all I would much rather have representation without taxation than taxation without representation :D
-
Well, I agree in principle, and am not interested personally. However, let's not be too discouraging. I'd rather see more variety in the actions people take, trying to get free, than less of it. Who's to say what it can evolve into, over time? More power to Bret in my opinion, if he can get something going here.
No discouragement meant at all. He asked for feedback... that's mine. What others might choose is their business, of course.
-
I find the concept of the 'reservation' interesting, I also like the concept of community and unpaid government. Does this mean that reservation police are 'volunteer'? Or are the Feds the only law enforcement for the 14 laws listed?
I might be interested in the community aspect and being able to make income on the land that is not taxable, but I think I would still have to go 'off-site' for other income as well.
I will follow this thread with interest.
-
I find the concept of the 'reservation' interesting, I also like the concept of community and unpaid government. Does this mean that reservation police are 'volunteer'? Or are the Feds the only law enforcement for the 14 laws listed?
I had thought about that and while nothing is set in stone as right now its just thoughts and the original group that goes there would be the ones to decide many things I had thought of a need for volunteer police, much like volunteer fire. They may do some training but they are called when needed. The reason for this is there has to be someone trained in what the procedure is for certain things to avoid a more lynch mob type justice system. Heat of the moment is a really bad time to try to figure things out. Further a police force gives a point of contact, for example if someone wants to get a FFL (required if you want to import anything direct cause the other side of that transaction needs it) the ATF may need to get permission to come on the land (they have no jurisdiction per an FBI handbook for feds only BIA and FBI have any jurisdiction in anything without permission).
With that said the feds have jurisdiction for the listed crimes. They can charge a native regardless of that person being charged by the tribal government (double jeopardy is deemed to only be from the same sovereign entity so a state and the feds can charge you for the same crime but they usually dont). Any non-member gets handed over to them as non-members cant be tried by tribal courts because, per the supreme court, they did not consent to that government and the customs and rules may be different (that is non-member not non-indian they can be of another tribe or no tribe and they are a non-member).
State and federal laws all apply to non-tribal members on indian land (as do a few special laws for non-members doing stuff to the tribe such as defacing, damaging or removing no hunting or tribal land border signs, etc). In addition those laws apply when a tribal member and a non-member engage in something. If its two members its just the 14 laws.
A special case arises when it is a tribal member and non-member. If the tribal member is charged in the tribal court for any crime that is not one of the 14 (remember all state and federal laws apply when non-members are involved) the feds cant prosecute due to a special law forbidding that prosecution. While this could be abused to ensure low sentences all the time in general it is not. It also should not ever be a problem, the only time that it would apply is if a non-member came to the land, perhaps to visit friends or family and someone did something to that person (remember the elements of this 1. tribal member must be at fault 2. must involve a non-member 3. must not be one of the 14 crimes) and I think that would be damn hard to do, you would actually have to exert effort to cause that situation to occur.
So in general, day to day life, there would be the mandatory FBI investigated crimes and no others that apply to "us" while visitors would have to follow every state and federal law.
This gets kinda complex with border/jurisdiction issues which is why there is a federal law enforcement training class that is 2.5 days on this topic. Many indian police become federal agents under a BIA program because the only people that can buy a brand new post-1986 machine gun are feds, states or subdivisions of states and indian reservations are none of those things. BIA has a deputy program to deputize indian tribal police as federal agents. They dont have jurisdiction off the land but they are legally federal agents and as such able to get things they normally could not. The NFA ban wording seems to be the largest single reason that federal deputization is done as they are then recognized by the law as being a government police force.
I probably confused this issue a lot more than I cleared it up.
I might be interested in the community aspect and being able to make income on the land that is not taxable, but I think I would still have to go 'off-site' for other income as well.
I believe that people should own their labor. There is no profit added to their labor, it is a fair value trade for whatever is agreed upon as payment. I do not understand the logic behind taxing it other than greed. I do not however like tricks and scams or interpretations of law that require forcing the government to listen. What I am trying to do is do this all based on clear reading of the law, IRS decisions, court decisions, etc. Published stuff on record that does not require twisting. Even the BIA.gov page states that indians may under the right circumstances be exempt from federal tax and while on tribal land are always exempt from state taxes because its not the state, legally its about the same as a state. BIA.gov also states there are no requirements for being a tribal member and references cultural awareness or community affiliation as grounds to be counted as a member. So again that is something that is a clear plain ordinary reading and not trying to be clever legally.
-
Bret this is intriguing to me....... I have seen the concept before in one form or another... I wouldn't discourage you as you explore the possibilities...
I can't be the sugar daddy though.
Best wishes,
and as always,
Regards, Danl ~W~
-
Bret,
Another quick thought...... This is called brainstorming. . . Who knows one of these days we will surely break free somehow.....
Just keep it up..... look for reasons why it CAN be made to work...
Regards, Danl ~W~
-
I can't be the sugar daddy though.
I have already started talking to someone who has contacts and a much better ability than myself to put a package together for investors to get 6-12k acres (deeded, if it can be found and isnt like one property on both sides of I-80) and finance a few MW of wind power of which they will get 50% of that business (it has to be at least 50% tribal owned for it to qualify as a tribal business and get the tax breaks). Should this actually happen the remaining 50% will go for things like a fire truck (something BIA actually considers and requires a plan for before approval) and other community related things that are just too expensive and somewhat unreasonable to assume any individual would personally own. Based on USDA numbers for wind generation in WY in 2006 this should provide ample seed funding to get everything going including some start up buildings which would be required.
I personally envision a small town with a main street, store owners could have a residence above their shops and I think it would be really neat to have a bakery, restaurant, tavern, etc with the bulk of the people living in the rural parts of the community. A main street the way it was in the 1800s Western US or for a couple hundred years in some European towns. As each person owns their business and the labor that goes into it this provides incentive for them to pick the things the community wants and provide a better product at a fair price lest competition steal their business away.
This gives people variety, a friend for example does not want to be a farmer or rancher but likes the idea of operating a tavern and brewing his own beer varieties (with no ATF as long as he does not export this is far less complicated). I also have plans for communal land such as a target range for archery (what I do more of), pistols, rifles and such. I also think a main street allows for a community better than only a bunch of rural homes. The ease of business transactions happening at a common location coupled with easier social interaction even if it is just to check the mail or buy some groceries tends to make people more aware of the symbiotic relationship they have with one another. The fact that there will be rural homes, by both necessity and design, allows people to also only interact at a time of their choosing. You dont have to shop there but I expect that it will be cheaper if you do because most if not all of those businesses will not have the same tax burden others will have "in the outlands" (trying to come up with a fun name for the rest of the world, not sure that is a good one though). :)
-
Strangely, I have heard of several cases where actual Indians had trouble getting recognized as a tribe. Perhaps that was with older rules though, but it does make me think this scheme has little chance of going anywhere.
Another possibility is adoption into existing tribes. I don't know how likely that is, but Crows for example have a history of it; in fact IIRC they took in the entire Sheep Eater Shoshone band. And they've taken in non-Indians like Jim Beckwourth. Of course the Crow reservation is in Montana.
What tribe are you from, Bret?
-
Strangely, I have heard of several cases where actual Indians had trouble getting recognized as a tribe. Perhaps that was with older rules though, but it does make me think this scheme has little chance of going anywhere.
There are differences. First the land is not done through a tribe because that is the harder way it is done through the "individual indian" part of it. Next instead of forming a tribe a band is formed, because a tribe is hard but once formed a band is easier to do. Yes bands do have some challenges but they are FAR less for the requirements than a tribe, specifically a tribe must have existed continuously since about 1900 but a band does not have to.
A band, such as a local "miwok band of homeless indians" (homeless means without reservation, who now have a reservation) has full authority on its land, not the tribe (the miwok nation or whatever it is). As such there would be autonomy. We would set up a band similarly and the land would then be migrated from one indian land to another (which is a simple process). Generally if you form the band first its much harder to do everything and get the land.
I am not entirely clear what the full legal difference is on a band vs a tribe, there does not seem to be much except for the ability to annex land directly (you still need approval to get the land into indian country but bands seem to be unable to while tribes can - why I am backdooring that process).
So technically its a band not a tribe, but once formed the government has the same autonomy as a tribe. I have read a lot of rejections where bands tried to become tribes so they could get land and the band is recognized but the tribe was rejected thus they could not get land put into indian country (they owned it just not as indian land).
Another possibility is adoption into existing tribes. I don't know how likely that is, but Crows for example have a history of it; in fact IIRC they took in the entire Sheep Eater Shoshone band. And they've taken in non-Indians like Jim Beckwourth. Of course the Crow reservation is in Montana.
As for that, to get the land "for the benefit of an individual indian" you must be a tribal member, not just registered with BIA but actually be a tribal member. I am such a member of the Cherokee Nation. My parents spoke to someone in Wyoming recently who sold some property said he had problems cause one of the two at Wind River were giving 160 acres free and I think a head or two of cattle (70% of that reservation is not a tribal member and I think not even BIA registered). I never got details on this and my parents met this person I think while still in Europe (they are on a boat, I dont know where they were but I think it was before they crossed back over the ocean). Basically I dont know if it was Shoshone or Arapahoe that was doing it, no email response from anyone.
A friend who has contact with the finance person I previously spoke of is similarly enrolling. She had not wanted to because she distrusts the government, something about smallpox in blankets. She is willing to do it to help this project along. She is also joining the Cherokee Nation which will help with the creation of a band. There is at least one other Cherokee nation member that would be willing to assist with the formation of the band, which once formed allows us to enroll anyone we want.
As for Wind River I did some research, it was 10 years old data but they have a uranium mine there (or did?) and that has caused contamination of both their aquifers. They have heavy metals in the water 10x the allowed limits. I am unsure I would really want to live anywhere that uses those aquifers. Dirt does act as a filter for heavy metals, sand does an exceptional job but dirt is ok. This means that in general distance is your friend and even modest separation between you and their aquifer is more than enough, but I would want a whole battery of tests done on the water as a result if I did any adoption stuff. I also am unsure they would even go for that and give me autonomy, I do not want to go somewhere that has a bunch of laws, the idea is to get away from that :D
-
thought I would provide a url that helps explain the legal situation, and the fact that the government does recognize it. This is from the June 2001 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_70/ai_76737662/?tag=content;col1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_6_70/ai_76737662/?tag=content;col1)
It talks about the laws that do apply in Indian Country, it also goes into issues of who can charge whom, etc. Just some extra reading on the subject for anyone that is interested.
-
Bret, just curious, but have you had any experience with Indian reservations in neighboring states, such as Pine Ridge in SD? If so, you might be aware of the Free Lakota effort that was generating slightly elevated traffic flows on the 'net several years ago.
-
Nope, and I am not fully aware of the context of your statement but I do know that several indian nations are trying to fight for more sovereignty. The US courts have said that the US constitution, which is the legal basis for any power the US gov has, does not apply on indian land because they never ratified it. Talton v Mayes, 163 US 376 (1896). In my mind this makes any governance of tribal lands questionable from a legal perspective. There are other issues that arise as well, such as the declaration that Indian nations are nothing more than "domestic dependent nations" Cherkoee Nation v Georgia, 30 US 1 - (1831) which appears to be more about saying Indian tribes do not have any right to sue in federal court for violations by state governments. The court ruled this way to exclude them from being able to bring suit against Georgia and in doing so basically said that they were incapable of self governance and depended upon the federal government. This is kinda a racist ruling by a court that only 26 years later did the Dred Scott ruling.
There are other things that I think make an excellent argument to say that there should be 0 federal involvement, unless and until the tribal governments individually agree they want it, and then only as much as each nation is willing to accept.
Look at "State Defense Forces" a division of the National Guard (SDFs may never ever be under federal control other than that it is National Guard). Indian nations are banned from having them because the law that allows them mentions States but does not mention Indian nations. From 32 USC 109(c):
In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.
By adding them it would let them shop from the Pentagon Christmas catalog, ie buy anything and have it transported across borders that the National Guard could have.
Look at tribal police forces. They are not allowed exemptions under the NFA so basically they are nothing more than armed security guards. In order to get NFA exempted they must become federal agents which binds them to enforce federal laws that may not otherwise exist. The BIA has a deputy program to turn tribal police into federal agents with jurisdiction only on the tribal lands.
To be clear, domestically the NFA and other laws do not apply but it is not legal to purchase NFA items without going through all the paperwork so the only way to get them is to manufacture them domestically and keep them 100% of the time domestically and only let tribal members touch them.
Drivers licenses and license plates are hit or miss. There is no official recognition in most places of them and you could be charged with forged documents if you present them. Even the high security ID cards that some tribes have issued are not recognized by DHS in many cases for things like airports, border crossings, etc. They conform to the DHS spec in every way except the issuing agency.
For the tribal police, SDF issue and license plates and drivers licenses I actually started a letter writing campaign to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (all members regardless of state) and to the president. My hope is to bring awareness to this issue. You gave me an idea to expand this by trying to get the tribes themselves, particularly the ones that have done things like tried to issue passports that are not illegal to use (Iroquoi got a 1 time waiver but the UK would not let them in normally it is a federal felony to present them for travel or immigration, the Hopi have issued and used them pre 9/11 but they were very limited in circulation more like diplomatic couriers and anyone with one is too old to travel or deceased).
I will get to work on trying to get some support for these things from other nations who may have better lobby contacts than I do.
-
Did I read correctly that this means that people on this land do not have to pay federal taxes?
-
Did I read correctly that this means that people on this land do not have to pay federal taxes?
That depends, and this is not a trivial issue but I will make it one with a general overview :)
An indian (tribal member) who lives and works on indian land (land that is in a special trust) is exempt from all state taxes, income, sales, property, etc. In fact putting the land into trust removes it from the state tax rolls which is why the feds ask the state what the burden would be by doing that as part of the conversion process. The state response is not an automatic bar on this but it is to be given weight. This is not a normal trust it is a special indian trust and only federally recognized tribes or individuals may get the land put into the trust for the benefit of the tribe or individual depending on who applied. Ignore the tribe vs band thing for now because that is a whole different issue, an important one to what I am doing but its different.
Federal tax is exempted if the indian who lives and works on indian land gets their income from the land itself. Not just on it but from it. The most common form is a lease like to an oil company drilling on the land or electric company for passage through the land. I think fishing rights is the second most common form which if true that would indicate farming and ranching qualify as well. This means casino income or income from a privately owned business is not exempt and is taxed (along with FICA/FUTA contributions).
So if you earn a living from the land (and I have yet to get a response if this includes farming and ranching, renewable energy production like wind or solar, etc) you are exempt from all state and federal taxes. This affects apportionment. Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 and the 14th amendment Section 2 both refer to "indians not taxed". This group is not supposed to be counted for apportionment but often are, basically giving the surrounding area a larger apportionment than they are otherwise entitled. This is what is known as "representation without taxation" :)
Indian governments are allowed to operate businesses. They are taxed as a government (by the IRS and states which generally means exempt). Tribal government vehicles often qualify for state exempt plates but must be used only for official government business. There are only 2 states or so that charge sales tax on government purchases, everywhere else there is not even sales tax applied for off reservation purchases when done by a tribal government. This of course requires some type of registration with the state to get the tax exempt certificate to prove it to the individual merchant you buy from.
The tribal government could own the business officially and lease the land allotted to the individual member (land is legally "allotted" by name but it may be the same as deeded land elsewhere). This means the tribal member gets paid for a land lease and has no tax due. There may be other options available as well to qualify for the tax exemption that the IRS and states do recognize.
Further that land may never be foreclosed upon, not even by the IRS. The most that can happen is the tribal government can take it but if there are protections in the tribal government system (such as a constitution or statute) then even this cannot happen.
-
I wish you the best, but I'm thinking the feds will see this as tax fraud.
After all, while you may do all the paperwork, it's clear the people who move to your land aren't going to move there because they want to be near their tribe or get back to their family roots. You have made clear they are unrelated people moving there to be their own masters and not pay taxes.
I like the idea but you're going to get a lot of heat. The IRS could care less what the law says if it costs them revenue!
Sadly, this post will move me from a Newbie to a Lurker... i prefer Newbie but no one asked. :-)
-
Havent seen Bret in a while. Maybe they got him already.
-
I finally worked my way through the entirety of this thread. I too found this idea interesting and appealing. It would be nice to get an update from Bret.
-
This entire threads reminds me of an infomercial. I have a pitcher of KOOLAID, if anyone would like a glass. >:D
-
This entire threads reminds me of an infomercial. I have a pitcher of KOOLAID, if anyone would like a glass. >:D
People are much more likely to get that joke if they are old or home schooled. :D
-
Yes i get it...
Koolaid koolaid, tastes great, i gotta have some can't wait.
The good ol days..when sweets were made of sugar!
-
B-Line, while you may be a little cynical, this is in all probability a pipe dream. Still a good idea though. Also, I believe the KoolAid guy was in fact a member of the Jim Jones cult.
-
B-Line, while you may be a little cynical, this is in all probability a pipe dream. Still a good idea though. Also, I believe the KoolAid guy was in fact a member of the Jim Jones cult.
Yeah, that's definitely where the 'drinking the koolaid' thing came from.
There's a new 'reality' show called Navajo Cops out. You definitely have to hold your nose
and screen heavily for BS on these shows, but, there might be some insight to Indian Reservations
on this one, we'll see.
Terence
-
B-Line, while you may be a little cynical, this is in all probability a pipe dream. Still a good idea though. Also, I believe the KoolAid guy was in fact a member of the Jim Jones cult.
Pet Peeve time...
Jim Jones (Guyana Cult Death) fed his "followers" a GENERIC PRODUCT CALLED "FLAVOR ADE"... NOT the Brand Name Product "KoolAid".
This is a damaging misuse of an unaffiliated Property. (trade name).
No, I am not affiliated with whomever owns the Trade Name/Trademark "KoolAid", any more than I am affiliated with the Property/Tradename/Trademark "Xerox" - which is often/horribly misused as a generic term for "photocopying".
We are (mostly) libertarians here, and should be cognizant of the Property Rights inherent in a Tradename/Trademark. PLEASE don't misuse them.
-
B-Line, while you may be a little cynical, this is in all probability a pipe dream. Still a good idea though. Also, I believe the KoolAid guy was in fact a member of the Jim Jones cult.
Pet Peeve time...
Jim Jones (Guyana Cult Death) fed his "followers" a GENERIC PRODUCT CALLED "FLAVOR ADE"... NOT the Brand Name Product "KoolAid".
This is a damaging misuse of an unaffiliated Property. (trade name).
No, I am not affiliated with whomever owns the Trade Name/Trademark "KoolAid", any more than I am affiliated with the Property/Tradename/Trademark "Xerox" - which is often/horribly misused as a generic term for "photocopying".
We are (mostly) libertarians here, and should be cognizant of the Property Rights inherent in a Tradename/Trademark. PLEASE don't misuse them.
Wow, "Flavor Ade" really dodged the media perception bullet on that one!
Now that you mention it, OI, I wonder if the 'koolaid' brand suffered or benefitted from the error?
Not that it changes the principle of your argument.
Terence
-
B-Line, while you may be a little cynical, this is in all probability a pipe dream. Still a good idea though. Also, I believe the KoolAid guy was in fact a member of the Jim Jones cult.
And we have a winner! ;D