Russell: Churchill’s third jury
By
Steve Russell
|
| American Indians are oppressed peoples, but the way out for us is community organizing rather than gunplay. |
In keeping with my normal practice of revealing my biases, I admit to being most offended by Churchill’s “Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America” (1998). It is, perhaps, his justification for that famous photograph of the learned professor with an assault rifle. My complaint comes from having worked with Cesar Chavez, admired Martin Luther King Jr., and spent no small amount of my life urging young Indians to train as “briefcase warriors.” American Indians are oppressed peoples, now as well as historically, but the way out for us is community organizing rather than gunplay.
This fundamental disagreement about the role of an American Indian university professor colors my views of Churchill. Eichmann, Arendt famously observed, was not a particularly bright cog in a genocidal machine. Assuming everyone agrees that capitalism is a genocidal machine (although I, for one, do not), the idea that one who happens to be present in the World Trade Center is a cog in that machine is preposterous.
A college student doing an internship at a stock brokerage? A college student waiting tables at Windows on the World restaurant? Forgive my fixation on college students, but Churchill is supposed to care about them. Toting an assault rifle requires no college degree, but he is – or was – a professor.
The “little Eichmanns” absurdity brings me back to Churchill’s first jury, American Indians. Maybe I don’t get out enough, but I know very few Indians who were not offended enough by that remark to ask “Who is this Indian professor?” All of the mainstream reporting styled Churchill an Indian.
While I too was offended, I remember seeing that card from the United Keetoowah Band on a Web site, so I did not have anything to say about Churchill’s bona fides. If the Keetoowahs wanted to claim him, I support their right to do so. It turns out they didn’t; he abused their trust, and this public insult to the victims of Sept. 11 was more than they could stand. When they told their story, Churchill’s last shred of cover as an Indian was gone.
| Churchill’s idea of self-identification means individuals get to draw the circles. I say tribes get to draw the circles. |
In anticipation of Churchill’s apologists, let us incinerate a straw man: blood quantum.
Make a Venn diagram. One circle is Indians by blood without regard to how much blood. The other is Indians by citizenship. They overlap, but not completely. The Cherokee freedmen, those without Cherokee blood anyway, are Indians by citizenship, a Cherokee citizenship they had under Cherokee law before the 14th Amendment gave them U.S. citizenship and, indeed, before Cherokees maintaining tribal relations had U.S. citizenship.
The issue is not whether those two circles completely overlap. They don’t. The issue is who gets to locate the circles. Churchill’s idea of self-identification means individuals get to draw the circles. I say tribes get to draw the circles, and this is why I was willing to recognize Churchill as a citizen of the United Keetoowah Band if they were.
What about people who are not enrolled but claim they are “part Indian?” Count me among the wags who like to ask “Which part?” Whatever your attitude, there is nothing wrong with claiming tribal descent rather than tribal citizenship if the claim is true. It seems to me that a claim of descent, when true, carries only the legal effect a tribe says it does and protection under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is, if somebody discriminates against an individual because they are thought to be Indian it doesn’t matter whether they actually are. The act protects everyone from invidious discrimination, even when it’s mistaken.
So the real world is divided into Indians (tribal citizens), descendants (without regard to blood quantum), and imaginary Indians.
The imaginary Indians become particularly threatening when, like Churchill, they become highly visible in a manner that discredits everything they touch. As we speak, the Cherokee Nation is erecting a veteran’s center to serve and honor returning veterans. Is this the act of a nation that considers Sept. 11 a deserved case of chickens coming home to roost?
What can real Indians do to protect themselves against imaginary Indians? This is a lot more complicated than it sounds, and will require another column. In the meantime, Churchill is getting to be the age when most people consider what will be his third jury: his legacy.
|
It is a good thing that people remember you as somebody who made the world better than you found it. |
It is a good thing that people remember you as somebody who made the world better than you found it. Individuals who write and teach certainly understand that at some point, but it’s easy to forget in the hurly-burly of hundreds of students and “publish or perish.”
Churchill is eligible for Social Security right now. Even if the court gives him back his job, he is close enough to the end of his career to sum it up or at least consider summing it up. It’s at this stage when Indian people begin to be regarded as “elders,” in the sense of having lived a good life of contribution to the tribal community. Or not.
Steve Russell, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is a Texas trial court judge by assignment and an associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University. He is a columnist for Indian Country Today. He lives in Bloomington and can be reached at swrussel@indiana.edu.
Classifieds
On Demand
-
Digital Copy
Receive Indian Country Today in digital format Read more »
-
ICT Insider
Sign up to receive ICT Insider E-Newsletters Read more »
-
ICT audio
Listen to audio programs from ICT Read more »
-
Video
Watch ICT videos right in your browser Read more »
-
RSS Feeds
Stay up-to-date with ICT Read more »
-
Mobile
ICT on your cell phone or PDA Read more »
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .
TrackingWolfie said on Sunday, Jun 14 at 6:12 PM
Eons and Eons ago when the wild rivers flowed the birds singing in the trees bussing like bumble bees. The beaver swimming the river top and buffalo roaming the green pastures of heaven. Cherokees happy playing with their children in the fields that they worked so hard in. The trees so tall the sky so blue the grass a greenish hue. This was Cherokee land Given to us by the Great Creator. And then evil came into our world and there stood chooge and Russell listening to the evil orders of Jackson.
23759554NoSooner said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 9:49 PM
If we can kick people out I say the Oklahoma natives should see about sending the Cherokees back to Georgia. Oh wait, the Creeks were there first.
23190279kurux said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 9:37 PM
You guys are getting things all wrong, and mesing up the fact. Ward is pure WHITE and is not a 'member' of any tribe. i posted teh uKB official stance, and now even assoc. are no longer recognized. CNO actually does have fillblood white citizens, but ward is not one. They are bound to the 1866 treaty, and chad smith has been ruled against in appeals court. And Freedmen have cwy blood, the CNo is most thincbloods like Russel, but most of them are racist thats why they kicked out the blacks.
23189767Chooge said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 12:18 PM
So when did the Civil Rights Act protect Indians. How about the news about Shonto Pete? How about Yellow Thunder in 1972 when beaten and eventually killed by white perps? How the Navajo man beaten by 3 white teens in Farmington? Just, How about all Indians beaten or murdered by whites over the decades? This Russell is living the white world.
23155119Chooge said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 12:17 PM
So when did the Civil Rights Act protect Indians. How about the news about Shonto Pete? How about Yellow Thunder in 1972 when beaten and eventually killed by white perps? How the Navajo man beaten by 3 white teens? Just, How about all Indians beaten or murdered by whites over the decades? This Russell is living the white world.
23155024tribal member said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 12:04 PM
the only way churchill could be a member of the UKB or the CNO is if either tribe decided to let people in who are 100% white - as far i know that hasn't happened
23154049Chooge said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 9:53 AM
Churchill is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, he was given an 'honorary citizen of the Keetoowahs.' As far as blood quantum goes, I'm all for it. In 2007, Cherokees voted 77% for an Indian only Cherokee tribe. The 1866 treaty has been sliced, cut up, and broken that it does not apply. What is the number of broken treaties by the U.S., several hundred. - PLEASE
23144472Two Feathers said on Wednesday, Jun 3 at 2:08 AM
Mr. Russell believes that CN shall draw the circles of who will be a Cherokee citizen. Just because someone "believes" does not mean that Ward is not a successor in interest to the 1866 Treaty. The CN has violated it's own Constitution on many occasions. So as far as the CN drawing the circles, they do not. The CN hides behind the unjust Act The Dawes Act! Justice has a way of rising to the top ,just like truth, you can't hold it down forever. YHWY will not permit it.
23131797Creatine said on Tuesday, Jun 2 at 11:15 PM
If I was Ward I would rather be white than Cherokee. *l* On a serious note I make his books available to the youth groups(natives) I work with. I frankly don't care what he is as I value his perspective more than his id. If more full blooded, federally enrolled, language speaking native professors wrote what he did, I would use their work. Where are they? I don't care for Steve R opinions such as his slam against the Zia Pueblo tribe for the child murder tragedy a couple weeks back.
23124269War Woman said on Tuesday, Jun 2 at 8:21 PM
I'm glad to read that Mr. Russell believes tribes get to "draw the circles" as in defining citizenship. I agree and that's exactly what the CN did when they amended their consitution to define its citizens as those with Cherokee ancestors with Dawes Roll numbers. That means Churchill cannot be a Cherokee citizen just as it means all others, including Freedmen, who do not have blood lineage do not qualify for Cherokee tribal citizenship.
23111644lordy said on Monday, Jun 1 at 12:19 PM
ad hominem attacks, name-calling and false rumor-mongering are all wart's brain-scrambled cult followers are capable of. show them the truth, show them the facts, and they scamper like white insects under a rock (which is exactly what they are).
23012047too many churchills said on Monday, Jun 1 at 12:08 PM
and not enough NDNs..hey he can have my census # and get no benefits as i might as well be terminated as all the benefits are lost or stolen by my loser of tribal leaders anyways! Make him a ward of the tribe...and give him my crusty blanket too boot..then we'll see what kind of real NDN he is.
23011477GMervin said on Monday, Jun 1 at 10:23 AM
Steve doesn't have to be a traditional elder fullblood to write about this stuff. Its funny to see the critics attack the whistle blower by going after that person instead of presenting facts to defend their wannabe heros...or their own wannabe selves.
23005707Chooge said on Monday, Jun 1 at 8:26 AM
As technology increases so does communications among Natives. I've got some word from kin that Russell considers the Creator as the 'imaginary friend' of the Indian. Did he write this in some of his papers? If so, his message on feeling what Natives feel is bogus.
23000692elders?? said on Sunday, May 31 at 7:22 PM
Steve Russell isn't exactly a revered elder in his community nor has he lived his adult life in a native community. I'm not sure why he wants to make that the standard because he obviously does not live up to it.
22984569Anonymous said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:38 PM
The UKB, like any sovereign nation, has established its own sovereign requirements for enrollment. Churchill does not and cannot satisfy those requirement because he does not have a single Cherokee ancestor. Asking a tribal council member his opinion of Churchill is not a substitute for satisfying the UKB's requirements for membership.
22983169kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:28 PM
The UKB is concerned that non-Indians, as well as many young impressionable Native Americans may take Churchill's assertions at face value. We hope to set the record straight regarding this individual. The United Keetoowah Band has no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever and considers his comments offensive. His remarks in no way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
22982892kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:28 PM
Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree." All of Churchill's past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so.
22982877kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:28 PM
The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not
22982867kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:27 PM
The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990's because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry. However, the associate rolls were discontinued shortly after Churchill received one: "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.
22982847kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:26 PM
UKB Statement Regarding Ward Churchill Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) that Ward Churchill continues to promote himself as a Keetoowah member in order to substantiate his claims of Indian ancestry. The UKB is also aware of the apparent lack of understanding that the larger society has regarding Native America's enrollment policies.
22982812kurux said on Sunday, May 31 at 6:19 PM
first off, forget CHad smith, he was disenrolled by UKB for trying to terminate the tribe. Second, Ward has never been Keetoowah, and never will be. Im an enrolled member of both UKB and CNO. Ward was in Tahlequah begging for membership,. and was able to get an honorary membership by the idiot chief who since was impeached and disenrolled himself. The assoc. Rolls was meant as an honoring, first started for kids that were less than 1/4. Bill CLinton is also an assc. was he the first ndn, NO!
22982602Bemused said on Sunday, May 31 at 4:57 PM
Well I'll be darned. You finally just came right out and said it. So much for "tribal sovereignty," right? YOU, personally, are the one who decides who is/isn't an Indian. Glad we got that one all cleared up.
22980309Anonymous said on Sunday, May 31 at 4:37 PM
Tribal council members can say on tape Churchill's a JELLYFISH, but that doesn't make it so. Churchill can no more prove to tribal council members than he can to anyone else that he has a single Cherokee ancestor. Lacking that, he is not a person of Cherokee descent, let alone a tribal member. He's a full-blood white guy, pure and simple. Giving this con artist honorary recognition in any form is a decision UKB officials will forever regret.
22979652Anonymous said on Sunday, May 31 at 2:58 PM
I've seen the video clips. They're posted on wardchurchill.net, or at least they used to be. The council members say straight out that associate members are KEETOOWAHS (nothing "honorary" about it). The difference between full members and associate members was that full members had to have a CDIB showing that they were of at least quarter-blood, while associate members were proven Cherokees by descent but of less than quarter-blood. So it looks like Churchill's been telling the truth all along.
22976489Megan said on Sunday, May 31 at 2:35 PM
Churchill can talk all he wants about a secret movie recording his supposed enrollment. His white cult followers will probably believe him. But he can't produce proof of a single Cherokee ancestor, let alone show an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls or prove he's at least one-fourth Cherokee by blood. As Chief Smith explains, he therefore can never be a member of either the UKB or the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. All his talk about an enrollment movie is smoke for those easily fooled by this fraud.
22975802Megan said on Sunday, May 31 at 2:32 PM
Churchill can talk all he wants about a secret movie recording his supposed enrollment. His white cult followers will probably believe him. But he can't produce proof of a single Cherokee ancestor, let alone show an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls or prove he's at least one-fourth Cherokee by blood. As Chief Smith explains, he there can never be a member of either the UKB or the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. All his talk about an enrollment movie his smoke for those easily fooled by this fraud.
22975622Bartlett said on Sunday, May 31 at 11:27 AM
Actually, it wasn't a "home movie," Megan. `It was the official UKB record of the council meeting. And the fact that the UKB stopped enrolling associate members at some point after Churchill was enrolled doesn't change the fact that he was enrolled and issued a roll number. Nor does there claim that they somehow "lost" their records on such matters at some point during the spring of 2005 (after having confirmed the fact that Churchill was still enrolled as of February the same year).
22969289TrackingWolfie said on Sunday, May 31 at 10:40 AM
Mr. Russell you and Chief Chad Smith are very educated one can tell by your writing. You both are trapped in the snare of your own reasoning and your logic is flawed. You call evil good and good evil. Twisted thinking and greed for power and cleansing of those who are real Cherokee. Remember evry knee shall bow before God and give account. I see no mercy in your writing , no real compassion. What will you say in the day of your visitation? Will you mix words and fall back on education. Truth!
22967839TrackingWolfie said on Sunday, May 31 at 10:31 AM
Mr. Steve Russell logic dictates and reason allows that this is a free country made up of laws that govern by powerful people who by their reasoning impose strict laws upon others and inforce them by military action. President Obama said he wants everyone to work, but yet you seem to want to keep Churchill from his job. Remember there are many professors who teach our children wrong and this man was trying to teach them truth. Shame on you! We all answer to God one day. Shame! Shame Shame!
22967567Two Feathers said on Saturday, May 30 at 11:01 PM
I hope the judge reads the Bureau of Ethnology-page 1 thru 8 in regards to the Treaty of 1866-J.W.Powell, for a better understanding of Cherokees and ANI. Consolidating all the tribes in Indian Territory under one goverment. Because of the many incongruous and irreconcilable elements which no power could bring into a semblance of assimilation.
22954362News story said on Saturday, May 30 at 11:43 AM
The tribe's statement points out that it stopped granting associate memberships shortly after Church-ill received one, pursuant to its Amendment 94-UKB-12A, dated July 9, 1994. "Any record of past affiliations with the UKB are non-existent, and Churchill does not appear anywhere on our membership rolls," the statement said.
22934084megan said on Saturday, May 30 at 11:34 AM
no, churchill has never shown proof of any Native ancestor. all ancestry investigations prove he's 100% white. any home video he pretends to have to prove anything is a fake, and wouldn't prove anything anyay. the united keetoowah band and the cherokee nation of oklahoma both say he's not eligible to be a member. never was, never will be.
22933697Bartlett said on Saturday, May 30 at 8:23 AM
Didn't Churchill post excerpts from the video record of the meeting of the United Keetoowah Band Council where it was confirmed that the Enrollment Committee had verified his Cherokee descent? It seems that was a requirement for Associate Membership in the UKB in those days. They may have changed the rules since then, but it's pretty clear that Churchill's membership wasn't "honorary" at the time. Does anybody know whether he was ever actually disenrolled?
22927314Two Feathers said on Saturday, May 30 at 3:02 AM
UC must reinstate Ward Churchill. Unjust Act the Dawes Act, Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. To recognize an Unjust Act as supreme is unconstitutional. He looks and acts Indian to me. It is a trap! May the judge not bring shame to the United States. There are all kinds of Indians.
22922779Two Feathers said on Saturday, May 30 at 12:34 AM
Until Ward Churchill, Steve Russell, and Chief Chad Smith take a DNA test we will never know if any of them are Indian much less Cherokee. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma should not throw stones from their crystal citadels. Why were there two checks written by the Cherokee Nation to Abramoff for Sixty Thousand dollars apiece?
22920147Two Feathers said on Saturday, May 30 at 12:06 AM
The Avalon Project at Yale - The Treaties- For the whole Nation of Cherokee Indians. The Unjust Act - The Dawes Act- Chief Smith- Four term Chief - Perhaps the Cherokee Nation of OK will change it's Constitution to make him Chief for life. Remember, our Cherokee Tribe is a party to the Treaties.
22919414kelly said on Friday, May 29 at 7:26 PM
orourke makes some good point from what i read. judge could rule against ward on getting his job back, maybe give more money instead. depends on who makes the better case in front of the judge.
22908024Bemused said on Friday, May 29 at 6:30 PM
Just as I thought, Anonymous. Bet you excel at reading book covers and then pretending to know everything there is to know about what's said inside, too, don't you? Well, the judge was there for the whole show, you obviously weren't, so he, unlike you, is aware of the whole context from which the excerpts were lifted. Like to place a little side bet on whether he agrees with your "interpretation" of the facts?
22905849Anonymous said on Friday, May 29 at 6:10 PM
The transcript excerpts in CU's brief are clear evidence of Lane's relentless efforts to get the jury to give Churchill a huge money award. That these are only excerpts does not diminish the fact they accurately tell us exactly what Lane said to the jury. Even a liar as accomplished as Churchill cannot sway a reasonable reader, and certainly not Judge Naves, from understanding what Lane was so desperately seeking -- money, lots and lots of money. The jury refused and gave only $1 instead.
22904839Anonymous said on Friday, May 29 at 5:43 PM
The link was incomplete. CU's brief, with quotes from the trial transcripts showing David Lane begging the jury for a huge monetary award, is here (last item on list): http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/corporate-governance/churchill-v-u-of-co
22903459Bemused said on Friday, May 29 at 5:10 PM
And where, pray tell, did you lay hands on "the trial transcripts," Anonymous? Word is that a complete transcription of the trial record has yet to be prepared. In any case, only the excerpts selectively quoted in the briefs have been made publicly available at this point. So, once again, you're spouting "facts" through your posterior orifice. Right?
22901667Anonymous said on Friday, May 29 at 4:22 PM
$1 plus reinstatement is not the story told by the trial transcripts. Lane was was clearly trying to manipulate the jury into giving a huge award to Churchill--up to $25 million, as Lane put it. Lane even told the jury that a small award, like an award of $5.72, would be "a win for CU," and would fail to send the right signal to the rest of the world. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Churchill and Lane were gunning for big bucks, and that they failed to get what they wanted.
22898779Bemused said on Friday, May 29 at 2:00 PM
Sorry folks, but $1 plus reinstatement—which is what Churchill very clearly said he was after—is an entirely different story than the one you're telling. A hefty award for damages would have simply confused the issue. The jury was smart enough to get it, which is more than can be said for Anonymous, Barney, and the rest of you morons.
22888797Anonymous said on Friday, May 29 at 1:44 AM
Lane was telling the jury "Give Churchill and me a ton of money without me telling you exactly how much." By giving only $1, the jury rejected the argument that Churchill shredded reputation was caused by CU instead of his own fraud. Either that or Lane got exactly what he wanted: an incredibly stupid jury. Poetic justice.
22857622Get it said on Thursday, May 28 at 11:44 PM
I like that part where Lane says if the University "had to write a check for $5.72" it would really be "a win for CU." Looks like Lane was way off the mark. The jury thought Churchill put his reputation so far down the toilet that it wasn't worth anywhere near $5.72. But at least he was right about this really being a win for CU.
22853879M.E. said on Thursday, May 28 at 11:34 PM
From the news interviews with Bethany Newill, it's clear all the jurors finally came together on the view that Churchill destroyed his own reputation. So they decided to support the position of that one holdout juror by giving Churchill only $1, not any of the pile of money Churchill's lawyer wanted from them.
22853329JW said on Thursday, May 28 at 9:37 PM
Didn't anybody besides me notice that David Lane didn't even try to make a case for damages that could be addressed by monetary compensation? Do you really think that was because he "couldn't" have done so? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was because his client, Ward Churchill, told the jury flat out that he wasn't looking for it to award him a single dollar because the acceptable outcome would be his reinstatement as a full professor with tenure at the University of Colorado?
22847522Bemused said on Thursday, May 28 at 9:25 PM
You're just running around in the same stupid circle as Barney, Anonymous. Speculate all you want—hell, rant and rave, for all I care—but the only source who's gone public on this is still Bethany Newill. For the record, though, she made no claim to report what the other jurors were "thinking." She was summarizing what they said and how they voted. Meanwhile, four others have confirmed her version of things but elected not to be quoted in the media.
22846822White Clay said on Thursday, May 28 at 9:22 PM
Quite a racy article, racy being short for rascism. If the title of the publication was White Country Today, and you exchanged the word 'white' for the word 'indian', the rascism might seem more pronounced or malicious. Do not come back to complain about it later if you seek to propogate it now.
22846677Anonymous said on Thursday, May 28 at 8:38 PM
Bethany talks about the holdout juror: "She was like, she couldn't even stand to give him a dollar. We saw where she was coming from. She felt that he ruined his own reputation and that when you put something out there, even though it is protected speech, there are consequences." With the lone holdout refusing to come around and the possibility of a hung jury looming, the others eventually agreed to the notion of a symbolic award of $1. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12068800
22844389Anonymous said on Thursday, May 28 at 8:30 PM
Here's more of what Bethany the juror said to the press: "And even though this was protected speech, there are still consequences to your actions and your words. When Ward Churchill wrote that essay, he had to think that people would be affected by that, negatively or positively, and that he would need to reap the consequences on his reputation." http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/04/juror_bethany_newill_talks_abo.php
22843974TheFacts said on Thursday, May 28 at 8:11 PM
"Based on its investigation...the Committee unanimously found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Professor Churchill committed several forms of academic misconduct as defined in the policy statements of the Univ. of Colo. at Boulder and the Univ. of Colo. system: 1. Falsification...2. Fabrication...3. Plagiarism...4. Failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications...5. Serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research...."
22842764Anonymous said on Thursday, May 28 at 7:59 PM
Principal Chief Chad Smith is merely explaining what the enrollment requirements are for BOTH the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma AND the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (according to the UKB's own rules). Churchill's lackeys can't stand anyone explaining those requirements because, as a white thug with zero Indian blood and no anncester on the Dawes Rolls, WARD Churchill is no more entitled to be enrolled in either of these Cherokee nations than WINSTON Churchill (h.t. Vincent Carroll).
22842047Anonymous said on Thursday, May 28 at 7:49 PM
The rule is that "evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying." This rule forbids Judge Naves from considering Bethany's personal opinion about what her fellow jurors were thinking in the jury room, no matter in love with her story Churchill's followers are. The jurors' motives for unanimously finding firing Churchill caused him no actual damages are legally irrelevant. Lane failed to prove any actual damages.
22841514CurtJ said on Thursday, May 28 at 7:39 PM
Little Eichmans... The reasoning is apparently the utilization of "Colonialism" policies the European and American governments employ. What is Colonialism? The way stronger governments invade, occupy, and install puppet governments, in order to rob, pillage and plunder their natural resources and lands for colonization. Along with enslaving, raping, murdering and committing genocide against the Indigenous Peoples inhabiting the weaker countries. The WTC was a financial center for the guilty.
22840987come off it said on Thursday, May 28 at 7:10 PM
You might want to ask the late Willard Stone whether it's necessary to be a "citizen" of the CNO or any other federally=approved entity in order to be a Cherokee, Seer. More to the point, unless Churchill applied for membership in the CNO—and there's no indication that he ever did—it's questionable whether Chad Smith knows any more about whether Churchill is eligible to enroll than you do. And he's certainly in no position to speak for the Keetoowahs.
22839419CD said on Thursday, May 28 at 6:57 PM
Did anyone read the findings of the CU investigating committee? I don't think he should have been fired for his views. That is what tenure is for. He should have been fired because he knowingly collaborated to place names on scholarly writings, as authors, that he knew not to be the real authors.
22838757Bemused said on Thursday, May 28 at 6:56 PM
Nobody said anything about the judge receiving affidavits from the jurors, Barney. The question was—and still is, since you've still not answered it—where YOU got your information about what the jurors intended. Newill appears to be the only source on record who was actually in the jury room. Unless you can point to another one, it looks like there's no alternative but to conclude that you simply invented your "facts." Just like you claim Churchill did. Which means you're a fraud. Right?
22838689Phoenix Navajo said on Thursday, May 28 at 5:55 PM
How many times are people going to re-vist this issue? Its over and time to heal. I know its easy to play victim, but heal and move forward. Mr Churchill knows in his heart and the power that be, that is enough.
22834727sunday at churchill said on Thursday, May 28 at 4:36 PM
Look you fun people. We are having a great time. Lets continue going forth and writing and smiling.
22827784Barney said on Thursday, May 28 at 3:21 PM
Just think how easily jury verdicts could be attacked if jurors' stories to the press about what everyone was thinking and feeling in the jury room were allowed to affect courts' decisions. No wonder receiving that lone juror's opinions into evidence is illegal!
22819989Barney said on Thursday, May 28 at 3:11 PM
More from Rule 6.06(b), Colorado Rules of Evidence: "A juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying." And from the Colorad Supreme Court: "Colorado does not allow verdict by affidavit." All this is argued on page 11 of CU's brief.
22819252TheTruth said on Thursday, May 28 at 3:10 PM
From the lone juror interviewed. "Still, she emphasizes that "it wasn't a slap in his face or anything like that when we didn't give him any money. It's just that David Lane kept saying this wasn't about the money, and in the end, we took his word for that." Bethany Newill
22819147Barney said on Thursday, May 28 at 3:07 PM
It's illegal for the judge to consider any testimony by the media hound juror. Rule 6.06(b), Colorado Rules of Evidence: "a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occuring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes therewith."
22818947TheFacts said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:54 PM
WC's lawyer: "You need to tell students, you need to tell faculty, not only at the University of Colorado; you need to tell faculty from one end of this country to the other, and you need to do it in a big way. So there will be no mistake that they walk away from here saying, Well, we had to write a check for $5.72, so it's really a win for CU, you need to send a message to everyone who is listening, which is everyone, . . . what the First Amendment is worth, in term of this man's reputation."
22817947TheFacts said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:41 PM
From the closing argument by Churchill's lawyer: "What is a destroyed reputation worth? I don't know. It's worth a hell of a lot more than a little bit of money. But that's justice. And the Judge says, That's your job. Your job is to figure out the justice of that. I don't know. Is that $1.50? Is that $25 million? I don't know what that is. That's your call. 'Cause Ward Churchill did not get on the witness stand and ask you for a penny. But the jury instructions say all you can do is give money"
22816954Seer said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:35 PM
I don't think Chief Chad Smith said Churchill has not Indian ancestry. He said Churchill is not eligible to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation or of the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians. I think Chief Smith's point is that Churchill has been pretending to be a Cherokee scholar. The Chief's statement is here. http://www.pirateballerina.com/files/Chief%20Smith%20affidavit.pdf
22816484Bemused said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:30 PM
Read CU's brief, hey Barney? Now THERE'S an unbiased source. Good grief! The next thing you know, you're going to be telling us to read Chad Smith's affidavit "proving" that Churchill has no Indian ancestry. Right?
22816002TheFacts said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:27 PM
From the closing argument by Churchill's lawyer: "You, the jury, don't have the power to give him his job back, because as good as the American Justice system is, in my opinion, it's not perfect. Because in America, the dollar solves all problems, okay? If you give -- if you find for Churchill, the Judge has the power do do things. You don't have that power. "But what -- what are damages in this case? You know the easy ones. He's out 110,000 a year on salary. That's easy."
22815859Bemused said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:24 PM
The question was where you're getting your information, Barney. You've not answered. Instead, you've elected to simply ignore the only available source on what actually happened in the jury room, and asserted your own speculations as "truth." In the process, you're also dodging the obvious facts that all 6 jurors concluded both that Churchill was NOT fired on the basis of his supposed "research misconduct" and that his firing was in fact illegal. Get it?
22815627Info said on Thursday, May 28 at 2:20 PM
thx for the tip. went to thereacetothe bottom and found the link to the university's argument. http://law.du.edu/documents/corporate-governance/churchill/Brief-In-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Reinstatement.pdf
22815304thetruth said on Thursday, May 28 at 1:30 PM
The right wing has tried to spin the dollar amount as a reflection on Churchills supposed weak case but the only juror interviewed said otherwise. The jury also heard a solid week of the CU committees case against Churchill and didn't find it credible. That is WHY they found he was fired over his comments rather than the committee findings. Go to "race to the bottom" a DU Law school blog and read it all with your own eyes.
22811182TheTruth said on Thursday, May 28 at 1:27 PM
Churchills attorney said in his closing it was not about the money. He then said it was up to the jury to decide the $ amount. He mentioned various figures but then said it was not the point for his client, Churchill. The juror, the only one ever interviewed, said they deliberated over this and decided to take Churchill at his word-it was not about the money. She said that if he wanted money, he should have given a specific amount. At that, they still were going to award him cash but 1 held out
22810922rory said on Thursday, May 28 at 12:46 PM
hey bemused if wardo didn't want money why did his lawyer say over and over money was what would send a signal? are you really gullible enuf to fall for churchill's lies about him not wanting money? what turnip truck did you just fall off of?
22807649Barney said on Thursday, May 28 at 12:41 PM
Read CU's brief. David Lane practically BEGGED the jury to give Churchill lots of money, to show what they thought of the damage done to Churchill's reputation. The jury reluctantly gave him only $1 nominal damages, after letting the judge know they'd rather give him nothing. That one media hound juror's story about the jury deliberations does not change the fact that the jury ultimately decided to give Churchill virtually nothing. That one holdout juror's position swayed the other five.
22807214Bemused said on Thursday, May 28 at 12:26 PM
Funny thing, Barney. At least one of the jurors in the Churchill trial has been repeatedly quoted in the press explaining that the $1 award attached to the verdict does NOT mean what you claim. In fact, 5 of 6 jurors wanted to award significant monetary damages, but Churchill himself told them he wasn't after money. So tell us: Where did you get YOUR information on the matter?
22806029Barney said on Thursday, May 28 at 11:59 AM
The jury believed Churchill was fired partly because of his heartless, hateful remarks about the victims of 9/11. The jury gave him only $1 because he plagiarized other people's work and made up historical incidents and laws that never existed.
22803694Santee Dick said on Thursday, May 28 at 11:13 AM
First, Ward Churchill is a hard guy to like, and even harder to feel sorry for. He was fired because he expressed an unpopular idea in a particularly ugly way, and not because he fabricated history in claiming the US Gov waged biological warfare against the Indians with it. In fact there are non-Indian epidemiologists that believe it is entirely possible. His firing was a foregone conclusion before the academic hearing ever started, and the second jury's failure award damages is an outrage.
22799927Straight Shooter said on Thursday, May 28 at 10:54 AM
Yes, there were innocent people employed at the Towers. Just as there were innocent people employed by the Nazis, munnition factories, barbed wire factories and even in their financial districts. And we bombed the heck out of them. American capitalism is about growth, elbowing one's way to resources is a from of growth. So, where did all that gold and diamonds come from that was stored in the vault beneath the towers and how did it get there?
22798452Dana said on Thursday, May 28 at 10:52 AM
Mr. Russell's piece is now the lead story at indianz.com. http://64.38.12.138/News/2009/014757.asp
22798257Jay said on Wednesday, May 27 at 11:58 PM
I paid a visit to indianz.com and found a lot of published commentaries by Steve Russell, but no disparaging comments about him, by fellow Cherokees or anyone else. Unsupported ad hominem attacks aside, Russell's criticisms of Churchill as a white man pretending to be an Indian and being obsessed with violence are justified. This fraud's high visibility does nothing but give Native people a terrible image, in the public perception.
22779444blag said on Wednesday, May 27 at 9:45 PM
Pay a visit to indianz.com and see how Steve Russell is held in high regard there by other Cherokees and other Indians. Or not. But he does admit to speaking on behalf of the briefcase warriors instead of community based, traditionalist, of which Mr Russell knows very little about.
22774367Junior High Hawk said on Wednesday, May 27 at 7:43 PM
Give it a rest Mr. Russell. What's the saying -this is like the snowcone calling the golf ball white?
22769097Add a comment
Most Popular