index page

Tribal Law

Date: Tue, 09/11/2012 - 18:35
Submitted by on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 18:35
Posts: 202330
Credits:
[Donate]

The Fort Laramie Treaty, 15 Stat. 635, between the United States and the tribes of the Sioux Nation, ???created the ???Great Reservation??? for the Sioux and set off lands ???for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians.??? ??? Calhoon v. Sell, 71 F.Supp.2d 990, 999 (D.S.D.1998) (guoting 15 Stat. 635) .FN8 Under the treaty, States may not ???interfere with reservation self-government??? or tax on-reservation activities. Rice, 463 U . S. at 718. This gives tribes the power to regulate ???the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements,??? but only when the ???non-Indians [are] on their reservations.??? Id. at 565.FN9


looks like they are interested in reviewing them, but it doesn't say that they are illegal like i read all over this website


Submitted by on Tue, 04/02/2013 - 14:27

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


wow
If you go to NARF.ORG and search for Calhoon vs Sell...it will bring you to The State Of Maryland case against Western Sky...and Western Sky appeal that was DENIED on 4/9/12.....plus West Virginia win against Cash Call....not a good day for our friends:D:D:D but I very good day for us:grin::grin: I can't wait to see what Elissa Chavez has to say to us about this...


Submitted by on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 08:36

( Posts: 202330 | Credits: )


This is exactly the point I've been trying to make with so many people on this forum. Thank you so much for posting this!

Their next argument will be "governing law" and/or that since the loan was signed via the internet, it's "like you were on their land at the time."

Excellent information!


Submitted by OhioGal1 on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 09:16

OhioGal1

( Posts: 5253 | Credits: )


The way I see it, if the tribal lenders are trying to state that we were on tribal land when we electronically signed the loans then the same argument could be used for pedophiles viewing child pornography in their US home from a site that originates any country outside the US where there are no laws against child pornography. This is a bunch of bull and they know it.

I hope I have not offended anyone by this post as that is not my intention. I was only trying to draw a correlation between something we know would be prosecuted by any federal, state or tribal law and a lender who is trying to use scar tactics and misrepresentation of the tribal laws in regards to non Indians.


Submitted by Jasmine on Sun, 11/04/2012 - 10:54

Jasmine

( Posts: 83 | Credits: )


A lawyer once told me "everything is legal until it goes to court."

That said, I have in hand a letter from the Florida AG and a second from the Office of Financial regulation both stating that these loans are illegal in Florida and unenforceable. Sounds pretty clear to me that they are illegal here.

The issue of whether or not you are subject to tribal law is an interesting one, but even if you are you would have to be on tribal land for a contract subject to tribal law to be enforced. Federal and State courts only hear cases subject to US Law.


Submitted by Scubus on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 05:57

Scubus

( Posts: 44 | Credits: )