Cornsilk v. Smith

Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal

Cornsilk v. Smith

4 Am. Tribal Law 13

CourtCherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal

DecidedJuly 31, 2002

DocketCase No. JAT-02-07

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Am. Tribal Law 13 (Cornsilk v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cherokee Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornsilk v. Smith, 4 Am. Tribal Law 13 (cherokeeapp 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

On June 7, 2002, the Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment against Respondent Brad Carson came on as regularly scheduled for hearing. The Petitioner appeared in person and pro se. The Respondent Brad Carson, who currently serves as a member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Oklahoma, appeared specially by Greg Combs, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 2200, Tahleq-uah, Oklahoma 74465.

The Petitioner has brought this action against the Respondent Carson, as a Cherokee Citizen, challenging his participation and support of HR-3534 in the United States Congress. The legislation relates to the settlement of claims of Indian-owned lands in the Arkansas River bed. The Respondent appeared specially to question the jurisdiction of this Court based upon asserted immunity under the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the United States Constitution.¹ After oral argument, this Court allowed the parties to submit further written authority. The Court has received, reviewed and considered the briefs of the parties as submitted.

[14]*14NOW, on this 31st day of July, 2002, the Court, having reviewed the files and record made in the case, having heard the argument of the respective parties and considered the written Briefs, FINDS: That the Petitioner has set out an action by his pleadings against the Respondent Brad Carson which brings into effect the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the United States Constitution;² That the phrase “any other place” as contained in said Clause includes the Courts of the Cherokee Nation, Accordingly, Congressman Carson enjoys immunity from suit and cannot be compelled to appear and answer in these proceedings. For these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the Respondent and his Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

IT IS THEREFOR ORDERED, that the Motion to Dismiss of the Respondent Brad Carson is hereby GRANTED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

On June 7, 2002, the Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment against Respondent Brad Carson came on as regularly scheduled for hearing. The Petitioner appeared in person and pro se. The Respondent Brad Carson, who currently serves as a member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Oklahoma, appeared specially by Greg Combs, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 2200, Tahleq-uah, Oklahoma 74465.

The Petitioner has brought this action against the Respondent Carson, as a Cherokee Citizen, challenging his participation and support of HR-3534 in the United States Congress. The legislation relates to the settlement of claims of Indian-owned lands in the Arkansas River bed. The Respondent appeared specially to question the jurisdiction of this Court based upon asserted immunity under the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the United States Constitution.¹ After oral argument, this Court allowed the parties to submit further written authority. The Court has received, reviewed and considered the briefs of the parties as submitted.

[14]*14NOW, on this 31st day of July, 2002, the Court, having reviewed the files and record made in the case, having heard the argument of the respective parties and considered the written Briefs, FINDS: That the Petitioner has set out an action by his pleadings against the Respondent Brad Carson which brings into effect the “Speech and Debate Clause” of the United States Constitution;² That the phrase “any other place” as contained in said Clause includes the Courts of the Cherokee Nation, Accordingly, Congressman Carson enjoys immunity from suit and cannot be compelled to appear and answer in these proceedings. For these reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the Respondent and his Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

IT IS THEREFOR ORDERED, that the Motion to Dismiss of the Respondent Brad Carson is hereby GRANTED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Am. Tribal Law 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornsilk-v-smith-cherokeeapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack