A protest in support of Marc Wisecarver was held in front of the federal building in Rapid City, South Dakota, on May 14, 2010. Members of the news media were invited and there were almost as many reporters present as there were protestors. Mitch Wisecarver and his mother spoke to the reporters and they gave out information packets to help inform the reporters and observers about Marc’s situation.
Video clips, pictures, and short articles about the protest appeared on news casts and in the local papers. However, as it is with most news reports, the whole story is still a mystery to the general public. The protesters displayed signs that called for an investigation of the judiciary in west river South Dakota area. Other signs called for the release from incarceration of Wisecarver. At least one placard implied that racism could be a cause for the injustice the protesters were trying to bring to light. The reality of the situation is that the protesters don’t know why this situation has evolved the way it has and they are asking for an answer to that question as well as the release of Marc Wisecarver.
The protesters and the Wisecarver family point out the constitutional issues of Marc’s legal case. The incident that the case is based on occurred on Wisecarver’s horse ranch. Wisecarver does not dispute the facts of the incident, but stands fast in his assertion that he was protecting himself and his property, as allowed by tribal, state, and federal law. The case was dismissed from tribal court on the basis of self defense. In federal court, Wisecarver was found not guilty of an assault charge levied against him for this incident. Apparently, on an additional charge the court instructed the jury to find Marc guilty of depredation of government property if the jury agreed that he had used justifiable force. The conviction based on that instruction was reversed on appeal and the case has been remanded back to the lower court.
This is the third attempt to convict Marc of an alleged crime associated with his act that it appears the jury agrees was self defense, using justifiable force. Marc has been incarcerated for fifteen months. In the meantime, the BIA agent that Marc says was trespassing has not been charged or investigated. The situation inspires more questions than it provides answers for. Currently, there are numerous groups that assert that certain portions of our United States Constitutional rights are under attack, one specifically, the right to bear arms in defense of our persons and our property. Equal justice under the law is also hard to identify in certain elements of this case.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wisecarver case is a Constitutional issue
More people seem to agree that Marc Wisecarver's case is an injustice and affront to the Constitution. Check out this article at the Decorum Forum.
Monday, May 10, 2010
An Update on the Wisecarver Case
May 10, 2010
We encourage ALL who believe we have the right to defend ourselves and the U.S. Constitution to attend this Press event. The effects of this case affect everyone, not just Native Americans. Your presence will help get the word out. Please come at 11:30 AM as the event begins at noon. Please send this on to others who might be interested.
Thank you.
Charmaine White Face
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice to the Press
Two years ago, on April 29, 2008, Marc Wisecarver was working on his vehicle at his place in the country on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation when a pickup truck roared past his house, ignoring 'No Trespass" signs, went into the lower pasture, and began chasing his horses. Wisecarver ran after the pickup shouting for it to stop. When he couldn't get the driver's attention, he retreived his rifle and fired it into the air. The driver of the truck finally quit chasing the horses, and turned his vehicle on Wisecarver. After a shouting match, the driver appeared ready to run over Wisecarver who fired a shot toward the ground through the radiator. Finally, the driver stopped the vehicle.
The driver is a black South African who works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wisecarver is a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. On Jan. 29, 2009, an all white jury in federal court in Rapid City acquitted Wisecarver of Assaulting a Federal Official by reason of self-defense. However, because of faulty jury instructions, and after asking for clarification three times, the jury was ordered to find Wisecarver guilty of Depredation of Government Property. Judge Richard Battey then sentenced Wisecarver to three years in prison and three years probation.
In February, 2010, the judges of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, MN, said that Wisecarver would have been acquitted of all charges had the jury received proper instructions. They redirected the local federal court to dismiss all charges. However, the US Attorney has recharged Wisecarver, again, with Depredation of Government Property and a Hearing will be held on May 18th at 9:00 in the Federal Building.
This is the third hearing on this charge. As it is not a major crime, and because of the self-defense issue, the charge was dismissed in Oglala Sioux Tribal Court. Wisecarver is currently being held in the Pennington County Jail and has been imprisoned for more than 15 months.
A Press Conference will be held on Friday, May 14th, 2010, at 12:00 Noon in front of the federal building on Ninth Street between Main and St. Joseph Street in Rapid City.
For more information contact Charmaine White Face at bhdefenders@msn.com, or call 605-343-5387.
We encourage ALL who believe we have the right to defend ourselves and the U.S. Constitution to attend this Press event. The effects of this case affect everyone, not just Native Americans. Your presence will help get the word out. Please come at 11:30 AM as the event begins at noon. Please send this on to others who might be interested.
Thank you.
Charmaine White Face
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice to the Press
Two years ago, on April 29, 2008, Marc Wisecarver was working on his vehicle at his place in the country on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation when a pickup truck roared past his house, ignoring 'No Trespass" signs, went into the lower pasture, and began chasing his horses. Wisecarver ran after the pickup shouting for it to stop. When he couldn't get the driver's attention, he retreived his rifle and fired it into the air. The driver of the truck finally quit chasing the horses, and turned his vehicle on Wisecarver. After a shouting match, the driver appeared ready to run over Wisecarver who fired a shot toward the ground through the radiator. Finally, the driver stopped the vehicle.
The driver is a black South African who works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wisecarver is a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. On Jan. 29, 2009, an all white jury in federal court in Rapid City acquitted Wisecarver of Assaulting a Federal Official by reason of self-defense. However, because of faulty jury instructions, and after asking for clarification three times, the jury was ordered to find Wisecarver guilty of Depredation of Government Property. Judge Richard Battey then sentenced Wisecarver to three years in prison and three years probation.
In February, 2010, the judges of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, MN, said that Wisecarver would have been acquitted of all charges had the jury received proper instructions. They redirected the local federal court to dismiss all charges. However, the US Attorney has recharged Wisecarver, again, with Depredation of Government Property and a Hearing will be held on May 18th at 9:00 in the Federal Building.
This is the third hearing on this charge. As it is not a major crime, and because of the self-defense issue, the charge was dismissed in Oglala Sioux Tribal Court. Wisecarver is currently being held in the Pennington County Jail and has been imprisoned for more than 15 months.
A Press Conference will be held on Friday, May 14th, 2010, at 12:00 Noon in front of the federal building on Ninth Street between Main and St. Joseph Street in Rapid City.
For more information contact Charmaine White Face at bhdefenders@msn.com, or call 605-343-5387.
Friday, May 7, 2010
One Flew East: Inside the Net
This is a link to a post I didn't write, it is post that I think you should read:
One Flew East: Inside the Net
One Flew East: Inside the Net
Saturday, May 1, 2010
A Visit to Ellsworth Air Force Base
On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, Colonel Jeffrey B. Taliaferro, Commander, 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base invited a group of people to Ellsworth AFB to discuss concerns the group might have with the expansion of the proposed Powder River Training Complex expansion. To augment the discussion and understanding of the proposal, the group was given the opportunity to view the B1 Lancer aircraft up close, spend a little time in two flight simulators for the B1, and to experience three fly-over’s by the B1. After the B1 experiences, the group was treated to an excellent meal. After the meal, Col. Taliaferro presented a short update on the status of Ellsworth AFB and the military personnel assigned to the base relative to the local area, the nation, and the world. He followed with another short presentation of the proposed expansion of the training area. Following the presentations the Colonel answered questions from the visiting group.
Col. Taliaferro was very cordial, confident, friendly, neighborly, and believable. He was very straight forward in his responses to questions. He explained what the training activities involved currently and that the Air Force did not have plans to change many of them. The Colonel confirmed that some additional training capabilities would come along with the training complex expansion. He would not speculate on the likelihood of additional use of the training area by the National Guard or other combined force training activities. He did not say that there would be no future plans for increased training area use. It is hard to shake the feeling that it wasn’t what he said that would be cause for concern; it is what he didn’t say that is of concern.
There were no news media representatives in the group of visitors. However, the news media was invited to a news conference about the group’s visit immediately following the departure of that group. This may have been an efficient method of providing the press with a news release, but it also precluded any possibility of the visitors responding to questions from the press about their visit and how it may or may not have relieved their concerns about elements of the training complex expansion.
I was a member of the group of concerned citizens that visited Ellsworth Tuesday. The hospitality and information provided by the base commander is very much appreciated. The people that answered questions for the group and showed us around are top-notch; they are a credit to the military and to Ellsworth AFB. I thank them for their efforts, not just for that day, but throughout their service to our country.
Another group of invited guests enjoyed a visit to Ellsworth AFB earlier. That group included some elected officials, members of the Ellsworth Taskforce, members of the local Chamber of Commerce, and members of the news media. Immediately following a presentation to that group, the news reporters interviewed the guests to get their opinions and observations on the topic presented. This is what most people would expect from the military. The military has reason to promote the things that will portray Ellsworth AFB in a positive light. Apparently, the military is also very careful to limit the free press and free speech when there is a possibility that some of the military’s activities may not be viewed in the most positive light.
Col. Taliaferro told our group that he wanted to be a good neighbor, and he did a good job of making us believe that. However, learning of his decision to separate our group from the press seems to depreciate that neighborly feeling considerably.
Col. Taliaferro was very cordial, confident, friendly, neighborly, and believable. He was very straight forward in his responses to questions. He explained what the training activities involved currently and that the Air Force did not have plans to change many of them. The Colonel confirmed that some additional training capabilities would come along with the training complex expansion. He would not speculate on the likelihood of additional use of the training area by the National Guard or other combined force training activities. He did not say that there would be no future plans for increased training area use. It is hard to shake the feeling that it wasn’t what he said that would be cause for concern; it is what he didn’t say that is of concern.
There were no news media representatives in the group of visitors. However, the news media was invited to a news conference about the group’s visit immediately following the departure of that group. This may have been an efficient method of providing the press with a news release, but it also precluded any possibility of the visitors responding to questions from the press about their visit and how it may or may not have relieved their concerns about elements of the training complex expansion.
I was a member of the group of concerned citizens that visited Ellsworth Tuesday. The hospitality and information provided by the base commander is very much appreciated. The people that answered questions for the group and showed us around are top-notch; they are a credit to the military and to Ellsworth AFB. I thank them for their efforts, not just for that day, but throughout their service to our country.
Another group of invited guests enjoyed a visit to Ellsworth AFB earlier. That group included some elected officials, members of the Ellsworth Taskforce, members of the local Chamber of Commerce, and members of the news media. Immediately following a presentation to that group, the news reporters interviewed the guests to get their opinions and observations on the topic presented. This is what most people would expect from the military. The military has reason to promote the things that will portray Ellsworth AFB in a positive light. Apparently, the military is also very careful to limit the free press and free speech when there is a possibility that some of the military’s activities may not be viewed in the most positive light.
Col. Taliaferro told our group that he wanted to be a good neighbor, and he did a good job of making us believe that. However, learning of his decision to separate our group from the press seems to depreciate that neighborly feeling considerably.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Pipeline Fee Legislation, 2010
Once again a bill to impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill was up for a vote in the South Dakota Legislature this year. The same or very similar bills have been presented for consideration and passage during the previous two legislative sessions. Earlier postings relate to the previous legislation.
This year, Senator Rhoden identified that he had come full circle with his opinion on this proposed legislation. When the bill was presented to the Senate State Affairs committee and on the Senate floor, Senator Rhoden voted in favor of the bill. His stated reason for supporting the bill was to protect property owners from financial ruin resulting from the liability for an oil spill on their property.
Thank you for your votes in favor of this legislation, Senator Rhoden. Senator Rhoden also mentioned that his neighbors and others in his district were influential in changing his opinion on this legislation. Unfortunately, once again a one vote margin stopped the passage of this legislation.
This is a disappointing outcome. Hopefully, this issue will be successfully revisited again in the next legislative session. Support for new business is important to the strength of the state’s economy. However, the desire to make accommodation to attract new business to our state should not outweigh our consideration for existing business. This is especially true with regard to the oil pipeline companies. The pipelines need to cross our state in order for the pipeline companies to conduct their business and existing land owners/businesses have been required to make concessions. The full impact of these concessions was not necessarily apparent to everyone concerned when the project was first proposed to or considered by the legislature.
This year, Senator Rhoden identified that he had come full circle with his opinion on this proposed legislation. When the bill was presented to the Senate State Affairs committee and on the Senate floor, Senator Rhoden voted in favor of the bill. His stated reason for supporting the bill was to protect property owners from financial ruin resulting from the liability for an oil spill on their property.
Thank you for your votes in favor of this legislation, Senator Rhoden. Senator Rhoden also mentioned that his neighbors and others in his district were influential in changing his opinion on this legislation. Unfortunately, once again a one vote margin stopped the passage of this legislation.
This is a disappointing outcome. Hopefully, this issue will be successfully revisited again in the next legislative session. Support for new business is important to the strength of the state’s economy. However, the desire to make accommodation to attract new business to our state should not outweigh our consideration for existing business. This is especially true with regard to the oil pipeline companies. The pipelines need to cross our state in order for the pipeline companies to conduct their business and existing land owners/businesses have been required to make concessions. The full impact of these concessions was not necessarily apparent to everyone concerned when the project was first proposed to or considered by the legislature.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Something Less Than Complete Agreement
South Dakota’s governor and the state attorney general have committed South Dakota to a lawsuit that disputes the Constitutionality of the recently passed healthcare reform bill. They believe that the federal government has infringed on state’s rights with a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. Further, they imply that the federal government should not force individuals to participate in this plan without their consent. Yet the governmental mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was previously promoted several times by Republican Party elected officials and election candidates.
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)