Potential new FSW member with a twist

[Bret]

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). 

[Paul Bonneau]

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?

[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

[Bret]

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

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.

[VFTR55]

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.

[Bret]

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.

[sambaguy]

Did I read correctly that this means that people on this land do not have to pay federal taxes?

[Bret]

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. 

[Cyclonesteve]

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. :-)

[Crappiewy]

Havent seen Bret in a while. Maybe they got him already.

[RaisedByWolves]

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.

[B-LINE]

This entire threads reminds me of an infomercial. I have a pitcher of KOOLAID, if anyone would like a glass. 

[Cyclonesteve]

This entire threads reminds me of an infomercial. I have a pitcher of KOOLAID, if anyone would like a glass. 

People are much more likely to get that joke if they are old or home schooled. 

[pedro wyomiing]

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!

[RaisedByWolves]

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.