Author Topic: Dale Norton & Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band, Order of White Light  (Read 10352 times)

Offline earthw7

  • Posts: 1415
    • Standing Rock Tourism
http://deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C695246090%2C00.html

Trial ordered on charge of lewdness

By Geoff Liesik
Deseret Morning News
Published: January 22, 2008

VERNAL — A man who says he's the leader of an American Indian tribe
testified at his preliminary hearing on an attempted-lewdness charge that
the 12-year-old girl he's accused of victimizing was promised to him by her
mother in exchange for half a cooler of energy bars.

Dale N. Stevens of Vernal said the agreement was reached while the girl and
her family were staying in one of his trailers on land owned by his "tribe"
in Uintah County in early 2007.

"That's the way Indians do things ... if they're living under their old
ways," the 69-year-old said of the trade. "I became her guardian, put it
that way, I became her guardian."

Stevens, who was bound over for trial in 8th District Court on charges of
burglary and attempted lewdness involving a child following Thursday's
hearing, said he is the chief of the Wampanoag Nation. While the federal
government does recognize the Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts, it does not
recognize Stevens' group, which according to federal court records, was
founded in 2003 at an Arby's restaurant in Provo.

The girl, who is now 13, testified that Stevens entered the trailer where
her family was staying at least four times during the night of May 19
without knocking. The girl had been left alone with her 2-year-old sister
while her mother and four other siblings attended a relative's birthday
party.

"I'd have to scream at him to leave every time he came over," the girl said
of Stevens, noting that he'd always made her uncomfortable. "He kept saying
it was time for me to give myself to him."

The girl said she eventually drifted off to sleep but awoke to find Stevens
standing over her in his underwear and a T-shirt.

Stevens admitted to entering the trailer at one point during the night in
his underwear. He testified that the reason for his repeated visits was to
ensure that the fire in the enclosed wood-burning stove was not out of
control.

E-mail: geoff@ubstandard. com

[Al's note: Just changed the title of the thread.]
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 02:46:24 am by educatedindian »
In Spirit

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4785
Dale Norton & Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band, Order of White Light
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2008, 02:41:34 am »
He's not just a pervert. He's a member of that militia group pretending to be a tribe, Little Shell Pembinas.

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/unreported/stevens.html
Cite as: 2006 WL 2709687 (D.Utah))

United States District Court,D. Utah, Central Division.

Dale STEVENS, Plaintiff,

v.

Clark A. MCCELLEN, Defendant.

Clark A. MCCELLEN, Counterclaim Plaintiff,

v.

Dale STEVENS; Order of the White Light, a Utah Corporation dba Western Arbitration Council; Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, an unincorporated association-in-fact; and John Does to be named later, Counterclaim Defendants.

No. 2:06CV215.

Sept. 20, 2006.

Dale Stevens, Vernal, UT, pro se.

Jesse C. Trentadue, J. Michael Hansen, Michael W. Homer, Suitter Axland, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CAMPBELL, J.

*1 Plaintiff Dale Stevens filed this action on March 14, 2006. Defendant Clark A. McCellen FN1 promptly filed a counterclaim and moved to dismiss Mr. Stevens's claims. On March 24, 2006, the court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

FN1. On the official court docket, the Defendant's last name is spelled “McCellen.??? But when filing papers with the court, the parties have used the spelling “McClellan.??? In this order, the court uses the spelling that appears on the docket.

After reviewing all relevant material, Judge Warner recommended that the court dismiss Mr. Stevens's claims for lack of jurisdiction, but allow Mr. McCellen's counterclaim to go forward. The court adopted that recommendation in an order dated June 19, 2006. Mr. Stevens then filed a motion to dismiss Mr. McCellen's counterclaim.

On September 5, 2006, Judge Warner issued a Report and Recommendation on Mr. Stevens's motion to dismiss, recommending that the court deny Mr. Steven's motion.FN2 Mr. Stevens failed to file an objection to Judge Warner's Report and Recommendation within the established time limit.

FN2. The report and recommendation issued on September 5, 2006, amended and replaced a previous report and recommendation that had been filed on September 1, 2006.

The court has considered Judge Warner's recommendation and has reviewed the record de novo. Judge Warner concluded that Mr. Stevens and the Wampanoag Nation are not entitled to sovereign immunity. The court agrees. Mr. Stevens has not provided any information that indicates that the Wampanoag Nation is federally recognized Indian tribe and, therefore, neither Mr. Stevens nor the Wampanoag Nation can rely on the doctrine of sovereign immunity to avoid this suit.

Further, the court agrees with Judge Warner's conclusion that Mr. Stevens failed to submit sufficient evidence or argument in support of his position that Order of the White Light and the Western Arbitration Council should be dismissed as defendants. Finally, a review of Mr. McCellen's counterclaim belies Mr. Stevens's suggestion that the counterclaim is frivolous.

Accordingly, the court hereby adopts the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the order of the court. Therefore, Mr. Stevens's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (dkt.# 28) is DENIED and the Amended Report and Recommendation (dkt.# 34) is adopted as the order of the court.

SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WARNER, Magistrate J.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner by District Judge Tena Campbell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The court previously dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, but allowed Defendant's counterclaims to proceed.FN1 Plaintiff then filed the motion before the court to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims.FN2 The court has carefully reviewed the memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to local rule 7-1(f), the court has determined that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary and will consider the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

FN1. Docket nos. 21, 26.

FN2. Docket no. 28.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant's counterclaims against both Plaintiff and the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, in the Wampanoag Nation should be dismissed because Indian tribes and their officials are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit. This argument is without merit. Although it is true that federally recognized Indian tribes and their officials are generally immune from suit, see Fletcher v. United States, 116 F.3d 1315, 1324 (10th Cir.1997); 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (2006), Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, in the Wampanoag Nation is a federally recognized Indian Tribe. Accordingly, neither Plaintiff nor the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, in the Wampanoag Nation is entitled to the sovereign immunity from suit enjoyed by federally recognized Indian tribes and their officials.

*2 Plaintiff also argues that two of the Counterclaim Defendants should be dismissed as parties to this case. Plaintiff asserts that the “owner??? of the Western Arbitration Council is deceased and, therefore, it should be dismissed from this case. Plaintiff also claims that the Order of the White Light has no relationship with the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, in the Wampanoag Nation and, as a result, it also should be dismissed from this case. Not only has Plaintiff failed to present the court with any evidence to support these bald assertions, he has also failed to provide the court with any reasoned analysis to support his conclusions that both parties should be dismissed. Accordingly, neither the Western Arbitration Council nor the Order of the White Light should be dismissed as parties to this case.

Finally, Plaintiff makes the unsupported assertion that Defendant's counterclaims are frivolous. The court has reviewed Defendant's counterclaims and determined that they are not frivolous.

For these reasons, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to dismiss FN3 be DENIED.

FN3. Docket no. 28.
DATED this 1st day of September, 2006.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4785
More of their doing what's called paper terrorism, issuing a series of phony writs, court orders, and suits while claiming to be a tribe. Some of their claims are pretty bizarre. The "band" was founded at an Arby's, and I think this might be the first time a court cited definitions of "magickal thinking."

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/dct/unreported/wampanoag.html
Cite as: 2006 WL 1073561 (D.Utah))

Briefs and Other Related Documents

United States District Court,D. Utah, Central Division.

Curtis RICHMOND, Plaintiff,

v.

WAMPANOAG TRIBAL COURT CASES: Case: 2005-301-EFS; Case 2005-302-BOA; Case 2005-300-CB, Defendants.

No. 2:06-CV-15BSJ.

April 21, 2006.

Curtis Richmond, Solana Beach, CA, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JENKINS, Senior J.

(Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a))

*1 The above-captioned proceeding is now before the court on Curtis Richmond's motion to amend his pleadings following this court's dismissal of his original petition for a writ of mandamus. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

Procedural History

Plaintiff Curtis Richmond commenced the above-captioned action by filing a document captioned as a “Writ of Mandamus Confirming Pembina Nation Little Shell Calif. Federal Tribal Circuit Court Ordered Writ of Mandamus so Law Enforcement Must Obey Lawful Tribal Court Orders Supported by U.S. Supreme Court Rulings,??? on January 5, 2006 (dkt. no. 1). But Richmond did not name any federal government officer or other person, officer, corporation, or inferior court as a respondent to his petition and against whom relief in the nature of mandamus would lie.

Because this court was not satisfied that Richmond had properly invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of this court in commencing this action without naming a respondent, it dismissed his petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.???). (See Order of Dismissal, filed February 23, 2006 (dkt. no. 6).)

On March 6, 2006, Richmond filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus (dkt. no. 7). The court struck that pleading because of Richmond's failure to obtain leave of court to amend his pleadings. (See Order, filed March 7, 2006 (dkt. no. 9).)

On March 14, 2006, Richmond filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Writ of Mandamus to Conform with Subject Matter Jurisdiction Issues Covered in Court Order to Dismiss Without Prejudice??? (dkt. no. 11) (“Mot. To Amend???), followed by an “Addendum or Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend,??? & etc., filed March 30, 2006 (dkt. no. 12) (“Addendum???). Richmond has submitted additional papers as well.

Richmond's proposed amended writ petition names several federal officers as respondents: the Attorney General of the United States, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, United States Marshal David McAllister, and “F.B.I. Agent Mario Ruiz.??? It appears to seek relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to “Obey their Oath of Office to Support and Defend the U.S. Constitution,??? including “Obeying Judge Henry Lee Norman Anderson's Writ of Mandamus.??? (Mot. to Amend at 3.) In Richmond's view, “This Court has a Duty and Obligation to Confirm Judge Anderson's Lawful and Enforceable Writ of Mandamus.??? (Id. at 3-4.)

The referenced “Writ of Mandamus??? appears to be captioned in the “Pembina Nation Little Shell California Federal Tribal Circuit Court??? and purports to address “three major legal issues,??? including “Sovereignty of Indian Tribes??? and whether “Non Indians must obey Indian Court Orders,??? whether “All Lawful Judges must have Judicial Oaths on File,??? and “Malfeasance of a Judicial Oath occurs if a Judge does not Obey his Judicial Oath.??? (“Writ of Mandamus,??? dated December 20, 2005, a copy of which in annexed to Mot. to Amend.) It appears to confirm that “judgments of ‘courts of common justice’ are valid, real, and enforceable,??? apparently referring to orders of the “Supreme Court Wampanoag Tribe of Grayhead Wolf Band??? directed to two state superior court and federal district judges in California concerning pending litigation involving Richmond. Those orders purport to dismiss the cases pending against Richmond in the California state and federal courts (and Third District Court in the State of Utah) for lack of jurisdiction, ostensibly on the theory that “[t]he Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band has Jurisdiction over all Tribal Members???-including Richmond as an “adopted??? member-and that those courts have shown “Bias towards the Plaintiff??? and have violated “the Plaintiff's Constitutional Right of Due Process.??? footnote.reference

Richmond's Theory of the Case

*2 To date, Richmond has submitted at least a dozen papers in this case, proffering numerous quotations extracted from judicial opinions-often Nineteenth-Century Supreme Court cases published in the earlier volumes of the United States Reports-as well as law dictionaries, encyclopedias, and federal and state code provisions. The quotations speak to various aspects of Indian tribal status, the jurisdiction of state and federal courts, and the rule of law. Richmond weaves the selected quotations into a rambling and circuitous dissertation, rich in sweeping abstractions phrased in oft-capitalized and abstruse legalistic prose.

As best the court can glean from the papers now in the file, Richmond contends that federal law principles of Indian tribal sovereignty footnote.reference empower the “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? to enter orders preempting the exercise of civil jurisdiction by state and federal courts over his person and property in cases already commenced in those courts by Citibank, Bank of America, and others, and that it may do so in favor of compulsory adjudication of those parties' claims in the tribal forum. The “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? having issued such orders, and the “Pembina Nation Little Shell California Federal Tribal Circuit Court??? having issued a December 20, 2005 writ confirming that the former court's orders are “valid, real, and enforceable,??? Richmond further contends that the named federal officers are duty-bound to “enforce??? those orders, including “bench warrants??? and awards of sanctions of $1,000 per day as against each of the defendants named in the tribal proceedings because “[t]he defendants must know that Tribal members have absolute sovereign authority???-and, it seems, absolute immunity from the civil jurisdiction of state and federal courts. Failing this, the respondents would “stand convicted of treason for failure to honor and enforce the spirit and letter of law.??? footnote.reference

Richmond further asserts that this court may-indeed, must-grant relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus requiring the Attorney General of the United States, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, and various federal law enforcement officers to do the bidding of the “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? and carry that tribunal's orders into full force and effect, as well as vacating any orders or judgments entered by the state and federal courts in the subject proceedings since the tribal orders were issued.

The Enforcement of Orders of Indian Tribal Courts

Richmond's proposed pleading seeks an order of this court decreeing the enforcement of orders issued by the “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band,??? and in doing so, he raises the threshold question whether that tribunal possessed the requisite subject matter and personal jurisdiction to make those orders....

[Material on what determines if a tribe is legit deleted.]

We are concerned here with Richmond's plea that this court order the summary enforcement by federal officers of what purport to be Indian tribal court orders demanding the dismissal of civil actions in the state and federal courts involving Mr. Richmond.

Federal Recognition & Richmond's Claims in This Case

In this case, Richmond submits that the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? and “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band??? are federally recognized Indian tribes. But at least as of its November 25, 2005 publication, neither group appears by name on the Interior Department's list of federally recognized Indian tribes. See 70 Fed.Reg. at 71193-71198.

Richmond's papers point to other indicia of federal recognition, including the Treaty with the Chippewa, Red Lake and Pembina Bands, dated October 2, 1863, 13 Stat. 667, the Presidential Message transmitting that treaty to the Senate for ratification, compiled excerpts from historical congressional and executive documents,footnote.reference the Montana Supreme Court's opinion in Koke v. Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, Inc., 2003 MT 121, 315 Mont. 510, 68 P.3d 814, a page printed from a “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band??? Web site, footnote.reference and assorted correspondence.

The Koke case involved a group known as the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of Montana and actively seeking federal recognition through the acknowledgment procedure established by Congress and the Department of the Interior. See U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, 65 Fed.Reg. 45394 (July 21, 2000). Koke makes no reference to the “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band,??? a group which appears to be centered in North Dakota footnote.reference and claims a territory of 62,000,000 acres-including about three-fourths of the State of North Dakota.

*8 In Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.2004), the Eighth Circuit outlined the distinction between the two groups:

At least two groups currently claim to be Little Shell Bands descended from the Pembina led by Chief Little Shell in the late nineteenth century. The Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota (also known as the Little Shell Pembina Band of North America) is a federally unrecognized band located in North Dakota. It is seeking federal recognition through the BIA, and it is on behalf of this band that Ronald Delorme has filed his action. It is not clear, however, how this group relates to the Little Shell Bands involved in the 1978 Indian Claims Commission litigation. The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, located in Great Falls, Montana, descends from a part of the Pembina Band led by Chief Little Shell which moved to that area at the end of the nineteenth century. The Montana Tribe appears to be the successor in interest to the Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians represented by Joseph H. Dussome in the 1970s Indian Claims Commission litigation, and its members appear to have participated as individuals in the earlier litigation as well. Presently the Band is seeking federal recognition through the BIA, and it is not involved in the case before the court.

354 F.3d at 814 n. 6.

Citing to Koke and Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261, 266, 36 Ct.Cl. 577, 21 S.Ct. 358, 45 L.Ed. 521 (1901), Richmond asserts that the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? is “Common Law Organized,??? and that “the Tribe's National Sovereignty ... is Recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings.??? footnote.reference But he neither cites to nor furnishes copies of any treaties, statutes, court decisions, administrative rulings or other pertinent materials reflecting any recognition of a group known as the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? by Congress, the Executive Branch or the federal or state courts. Instead, he submits an April 8, 2002 letter addressed to “Chief Dale Stevens??? of the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? at an address in Vernal, Utah, from someone identified as “Chief Counsel??? of the “Ministry of Justice??? of the “NATO Indian Nation,??? having an address in Provo, Utah. The letter purports to “recognize[ ] the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Greyhead, Wolf Band??? and establish “government-to-government??? relations with the Wampanoag.???  (Unauthenticated copy of letter annexed to Mot. to Amend.)

Richmond's written submissions furnish but a very slender reed upon which to rest his sweeping assertions as to the existence, sovereignty and jurisdiction of either the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? or “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band,??? or for that matter, his claims of “diplomatic immunity??? from suit in state and federal courts in California and Utah. A litigant may assert that, like the appellant in Davis v. Packard, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 312, 8 L.Ed. 957 (1834), he, too, stands before the court as “consul-general of the King of Saxony and [is] therefore exempt from suit in the state court,??? but the mere assertion, by itself, does not establish the fact....

In related proceedings in this District, the court concluded that the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? was actually “formed at an Arby's Restaurant in Provo, Utah on April 18, 2003,footnote.reference and is not in fact a federally recognized Indian tribe-a fact apparently not in genuine dispute in that proceeding.

In contrast, the James case, discussed above, involved “the Gay Head Wampanoags who have inhabited the area [of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts] since 1642. They have been commonly known as American Indians from historical times until the present.??? 824 F.2d at 1133. So there is a federally recognized tribe of Wampanoag Indians, namely the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts. 70 Fed.Reg. at 71197.

Richmond has neither averred any facts nor proffered any legal or historical material of genuine substance that would establish federal recognition of the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? as an Indian tribe, or that would establish that the “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band??? and the Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians that was a named party to the October 2, 1863 Treaty are one and the same.

Nor does Richmond cite to any pertinent legal authority that may be read to authorize-or obligate-the named respondents or this court to enforce orders issued by the purported “tribal court??? of a group not recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States.

Richmond's Proposed Amended Pleading & Rule 15 “Futility???

But in this case, this court need not decide the merits of the question whether either the “Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? or “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band??? are bona fide Native American tribes, bands or “distinctly Indian communities??? within the meaning of the applicable federal law. This court need not revisit the question whether the “Wampanoag Nation, Greyhead Wolf Band??? was created at an Arby's in Provo in 2003; nor must it examine whether the “Pembina Nation Little Shell Band??? is in fact the “active anti-government extremist group??? and “part of the anti-government ‘sovereign citizen’ movement??? that some have described it as being.footnote.reference

*10 Even assuming that Richmond's assertions concerning both entities are correct, namely that the “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? and the “Pembina Nation Little Shell California Federal Tribal Circuit Court??? are legitimate Indian tribal courts, it would nevertheless prove to be futile to permit the proposed amendment of his petition because (1) the named respondents have no affirmative non-discretionary ministerial legal duty to enforce the judgments and orders of Indian tribal courts; (2) relief in the nature of mandamus cannot issue from a federal district court compelling the named respondents to enforce tribal court orders as such; and (3) this court has neither the power nor the justification on this record to enter any order purporting to vacate orders or judgments entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California or the state courts of California and Utah, in aid of the purported exercise of jurisdiction by the “Supreme Court of Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band??? or the “Pembina Nation Little Shell California Federal Tribal Circuit Court.???

None of the extraordinary relief that Richmond seeks in this case could be granted to him under any conceivable set of facts he could prove in support of his proposed amended petition. Under these circumstances, granting leave to file Richmond's proposed amended petition would prove to be futile at best....

[More material on fed recognition deleted.]

Richmond makes frequent reference to the Oath of Office of the named respondents as well as state and federal judges as a source of a legal duty to enforce the orders at issue. Indeed, “[t]he Amended Mandamus is Directed Specifically to the Defendant Law Enforcement Officers by name who have refused to Obey their Oath of Office....??? (Mot. To Amend at 3.) According to Richmond, the named respondents “were repeatedly asked to Obey their Oath of Office to Support and Defend the U.S. Constitution, but they have Stubbornly Refused to Obey Their Oath of Office that includes Obeying Judge Henry Lee Norman Anderson's Writ of Mandamus,??? (id.), purportedly issued by the “Pembina Nation Little Shell California Federal Tribal Circuit Court.???

....13 At this point, Richmond has cited no provision of the United States Constitution, or any Act of Congress, ratified treaty of the United States, Executive Order, federal regulation or other law of the United States that may fairly be read to impose any such obligation on any federal officer or agency. Nor has he pointed to any reported opinion of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals, or United States District Courts recognizing any such duty on the part of the named respondents or any other federal officer.footnote.reference....

[More material on fed law.]

Richmond argues that “[t]his Court is required to Obey Article VI Supremacy Clause that is the Supreme Law of the Land that includes Treaties,??? footnote.reference but Richmond cites to no treaty between the United States and the purported Wampanoag or Pembina bands, including the 1863 Treaty with the Chippewas, that imposes “a plainly defined and peremptory duty on the part of respondent to do the action in question,??? viz., enforce tribal court orders as against the state and federal courts in California and Utah.footnote.reference Nor does he cite to any Act of Congress creating any such obligation on the part of the named respondents, or any federal officer.footnote.reference

None of the judicial opinions cited by Richmond or by the documents he submits support his sweeping assertion that the named respondents must enforce the purported tribal court orders upon which he relies, or that this court “has No Authority or Discretion but to Confirm and Obey Judge Henry Lee Norman Anderson's Writ of Mandamus.??? footnote.reference

Richmond misapprehends the legal principles governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments and orders in different state and federal courts....

[More fed law.]

In his original and proposed amended petitions, Richmond does not invoke any procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or orders in the federal courts. To the contrary, he insists that the “Pembina??? court “writ of mandamus??? served to validate the “Wampanoag??? court orders, and thereafter the named respondents and state and federal courts are duty-bound by their oaths of office to see to the enforcement of those orders.

Framed in those terms, Richmond's proposed amended petition must fail because of its legal insufficiency.

This Court May Not Vacate Orders or Judgments Entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California or the State Courts of California and Utah on the Grounds Asserted by Richmond

Richmond's proposed amended petition demands that this court compel the named respondents to obtain the dismissal of judicial proceedings alleged to be pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the California Superior Court, and Third District Court of the State of Utah, based upon the purported “Wamapanoag??? tribal court orders upon which he relies, and that this court grant relief vacating any orders entered by those courts after the “Wampanoag??? orders were issued. The underlying premise of Richmond's claim is that those courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Richmond's interests because of his status as a “Sovereign Citizen??? and as an “adopted??? member of the purported “Wampanoag Tribe of Grayhead Wolf Band.???

In asserting that “[a]s an International Sovereign Citizen, Plaintiff Curtis Richmond has Diplomatic Immunity,??? footnote.reference Richmond confuses the jurisdictional implications of Indian tribal membership with the legal immunity afforded diplomatic and consular officials of foreign nations.footnote.reference Contrary to Richmond's assertion, Indian tribes and their members are not covered by the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. (2000). Cf. Bank of Oklahoma v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 972 F.2d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir.1992) (noting that “the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Indian tribes are not foreign sovereigns, but are ‘domestic dependent nations.’ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 25, 31, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831)???).footnote.reference

*17 Even assuming that Richmond is a bona fide “adopted??? member of a bona fide Indian tribe,footnote.reference the tribe's civil authority does not follow him wherever he goes, cloaking him in a mantle of civil immunity, excusing him from the commonplace civil obligations to pay non-discriminatory taxes, register his vehicles, perform his contracts, repay his debts or obey federal, state and local laws.....

[More fed law]

Other than his expansive assertions of personal sovereignty and diplomatic immunity, Richmond has not articulated any legal basis for a conclusion that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction over him in the litigation before that court.footnote.reference From Richmond's submissions, it appears that the court in that case awarded declaratory and injunctive relief against Richmond in December of 2005.footnote.reference....

[More]

If there is a genuine question concerning subject-matter jurisdiction over Richmond in the Southern District of California, he may raise that question before that court at any time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.???). There is nothing requiring Richmond to raise that question in this forum, and no basis in federal law for a purported tribal court to interfere with that federal district court's jurisdictional determinations. If Richmond was dissatisfied with the rulings of the federal district court in California, he had the opportunity to appeal.

Nor is this court in a position to grant the relief Richmond seeks concerning state court proceedings in California or Utah to which he is a party....

[More]

Richmond does not point to any Act of Congress authorizing this court to grant injunctive relief vacating orders entered in, or compelling the dismissal of, the state court actions pending against him. Nor would relief in the nature of mandamus requiring compliance with Richmond's purported tribal court orders requiring such dismissal be granted “in aid of??? this court's jurisdiction, or “to protect or effectuate??? this court's judgments, as the Anti-Injunction Act would require....

[More]

Richmond could have raised any valid legal objections he may have to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the California or Utah courts before those forums at any time (see Utah R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2); 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure: Pleading § 922, at 380 (4th ed. 1997) (“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waived by failure to demur, but can be attacked by motion or suggestion at any time during trial or on appeal ....???) footnote.reference), and could appeal to the appropriate state court of appeals any ruling that he believed to be erroneous.

Neither Richmond's original petition nor his proposed amended petition plead specific facts showing that his remedies at law in the California and Utah courts are inadequate or have been exhausted. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution guarantee Richmond the Process which is Due, namely, “ ‘the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,??? ??? ’ consistent with the requirements of fundamental fairness.

[More]

Simply labeling one's self as a “Sovereign Citizen??? does not immunize a person from the jurisdiction or processes of the state or federal courts. Adopting the label of “federal tribal circuit court??? or even “supreme court??? by itself does not imbue someone with the constitutional authority to bind the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Marshal to the enforcement of orders issued in that name....

[More, followed by a lecture to this militia]

It would be cynical indeed for a private civil litigant to treat tribal sovereignty as “nothing more than an inconsistent, paradoxical legal shell that American case law has constructed,??? footnote.reference or to attempt to invoke “tribal sovereignty??? as nothing more than a clever scam or an artful dodge footnote.reference-which clearly it is not.

SUMMARY

Granting leave for Richmond to file his proposed amended petition would prove to be futile-that is, it “would merely set the stage for the dismissal of the amended [petition],??? AM Int'l, Inc. v. Graphic Management Assocs., Inc., 44 F.3d at 578, because (1) the named respondents owe no nondiscretionary, plainly defined, peremptory and affirmative legal duty to enforce the lawful orders or judgments of an Indian tribal court; (2) relief in the nature of mandamus is a drastic remedy, available only in extraordinary circumstances, Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34-35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980), and absent such a plainly defined nondiscretionary duty, it is not available to compel federal officers to enforce Indian tribal court orders as such; and (3) Richmond's proposed amended pleading asserts no legal basis warranting the grant by this court of extraordinary equitable relief vacating orders entered in, or mandating the dismissal of, civil actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the California Superior Court and the Third District Court, State of Utah, to which Richmond is a party.

If Richmond has genuine objections to the jurisdiction of those courts in those cases, he may raise his objections before those courts, and if dissatisfied with the outcome, he may file an appeal to the appropriate court of appeals. He cites to no controlling case authority-Supreme Court or otherwise-even hinting that he may resort to one or another “tribal court??? to wrest jurisdiction over those cases away from the state and federal courts that have adjudicated them, or that he may enlist the Judicial Power of the United States, vested in this court by Article III of the Constitution, to aid him in that effort.

*22 For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's “Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Writ of Mandamus to Conform with Subject Matter Jurisdiction Issues Covered in Court Order to Dismiss Without Prejudice??? (dkt. no. 11), is DENIED.

FN1. (“Order, Case No.2005-301-EFS,??? dated April 8, 2005, a copy of which is annexed to “Writ of Mandamus Confirming Pembina Nation Little Shell Calif. Federal Tribal Circuit Court Ordered Writ of Mandamus so Law Enforcement Must Obey Lawful Tribal Court Orders Supported by U.S. Supreme Court Rulings,??? filed January 5, 2006 (dkt. no. 1).)

[More]

....FN10. The partial compilation attached to Richmond's “Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Writ of Mandamus to Conform with Subject Matter Jurisdiction,??? filed April 7, 2006 (dkt. no. 13), appears to have been copied from a Native American Web site. See “Old Crossing treaty with the Red Lake and Pembina Bands of Chippewa,??? at http:// www.maquah.net/Historical/1863/1863-1864treaty-INDEX.html.

FN11. See http://www.pembinanation1863.com/. This group appears to be governed by a “Grand Council??? comprised of members of the family of Ronald Delorme, “hereditary chief of the Little Shell Band of Indians of North Dakota.??? 354 F.3d at 811.

FN12. According to Richmond's exhibit, “The Grand Council of 1863, the governing group for the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band, live primarily in so-called north central North Dakota.??? (“Welcome to the Pembina Nation Little Shell Band of North America,??? at http:// www.pembinanation1863.com/default.asp, a copy of which is annexed to “Plaintiff's Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Writ of Mandamus to Conform with Subject Matter Jurisdiction,??? filed April 7, 2006 (dkt. no. 13) (“Pet.Supp.???).)

FN13. (Addendum at 6.)

FN14. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed April 3, 2006 (dkt. no. 130), in James W. Burbank v. United States District Court, et al., Civil No. 2:04-CV-742 JEC (D.Utah), at 3.) Judge Conway noted that “[t]his organization is not to be confused with the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Gayhead, Wolf Band, a federally recognized Indian Tribe on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, though the similarity in name is undoubtedly no coincidence.??? (Id. at 5 n. 1.) See Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 70 Fed.Reg. 71193, 71197 (November 25, 2005) (listing “Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) of Massachusetts???).

FN15. See Anti-Defamation League, Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network, Extremism in America: Little Shell Pembina Band, at http:// www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Little_Shell.asp?.

Richmond's Addendum asserts that he “is a Sovereign Civilian,??? that “this Court MUST recognize the Sovereign Rights of Curtis Richmond,??? and that “[a]s an International Sovereign Citizen, Plaintiff Curtis Richmond has Diplomatic Immunity.??? (Addendum at 1, 2, 3.) The Addendum proffers copies of several documents, including an “Act of State Reaffirmation of Dual Citizenship and Renunciation of Attempted Expatriation,??? a written notice asserting that “[a]ll people within this Dwelling, or Automobile, are SOVEREIGN PEOPLE with DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY UNDER THE ‘FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT’, Title 28, USC Sec. 1602 te seq.,??? and a “Citizen's Treatise,??? discussing the deeper meanings of capitalization, abbreviation, acronyms and the subtleties of the Government Printing Office Style Manual. (Id. (emphasis in original).)

[More]

....FN25. Richmond's Supplement also cites to the 1975 “Helsinki Accords??? (officially entitled Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Final Act ), 73 Dept. of State Bull. 323 (1975), but the Helsinki Accords are
phrased in generalities, and there is no indication that the nations signing the agreement anticipated that it would be enforced by private litigants. Indeed, the Accords reaffirm respect for the sovereignty of its signers, id. at 324, and pledge noninterference in the internal affairs of those nations, id. at 325. Rather, the Accords create obligations on the signatory countries and establish goals which the nations will try to reach on their own.

Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370, 375 (7th Cir.1985) (per curiam). As then-President Ford stated before signing the Accords in 1975:

I would emphasize that the document I will sign is neither a treaty nor is it legally binding on any particular state. The Helsinki documents involve political and moral commitments aimed at lessening tension and opening further the lines of communication between the peoples of East and West.

United States v. Kakwirakeron, 730 F.Supp. 1200, 1201 (N.D.N.Y.1990) (quoting 73 Dept. of State Bull. 204, 205 (1975) (emphasis supplied by court)). “Thus, ‘ndividuals aggrieved by the failure of nations to implement the Helsinki Accords will have to be content with the principle that violations of international agreements “are normally to be redressed outside the courtroom.??? ’ Frolova, 761 F.2d at 376 (quoting Canadian Transport Co. v. United States, 663 F.2d 1081, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1980)).'' Id. at 1202.

Richmond also points to the 1961 Hague Convention abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents, the text of which may be found in T.I.A.S. 10072; 33 U.S. Treaty Series (UST) 883; 527 U.N. Treaty Series (UNTS) 189, in the “International Law Digests??? volume of the Martindale-Hubbel Law Directory, and on the Internet, see http:// www.hcch.net/index en.php?act=conventions.text & cid=41. The Convention provides for the simplified certification of public (including notarized) documents to be used in countries that have joined the convention, and has no bearing upon the enforcement of Indian tribal court orders within the United States. See U.S. Dept. of State, Office of Authentications, “Apostille Requirements,??? at http://www.state.gov/m/a/auth/c16921.htm.


FN26. Richmond cites to 28 U.S.C. § 2072, which simply confirms that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts ... and courts of appeals,??? and says nothing about Indian tribes, tribal courts, or tribal court orders....

[More]

FN32. Nothing in the language of the Act of July 27, 1868, “concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States,??? ch. 249, 15 Stat. 223, lends any support to Richmond's assertions in this proceeding.

FN33. “Adoption??? into tribal membership, even by the governing body of a federally recognized Indian tribe, does not necessarily confer legal status as an “Indian??? on the adoptee for all purposes, particularly where none of the individual's ancestors lived in what is now the United States before its discovery by Europeans....

[More]

FN40. Cf. “Magical Thinking,??? at http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicalthinking (“Another form of magical thinking occurs when people believe that words can directly affect the world. This can mean avoiding talking about certain subjects (‘speak of the devil and he'll appear’), using euphemisms instead of certain words, or believing that to know the ‘true name’ of something gives one power over it, or that certain chants, prayers or mystical phrases will change things.???); see generally James George Frazer, Robert Fraser, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (Oxford abr. ed.1998).

FN41. Magical thinking “often mistakes correlation for causation.???  Id....

[More][/s]


Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4785
More of his checkered history.

State officials say tribe is a sham, fight millions in arbitration claims
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

As chief of the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, Dale Nolan Stevens was infuriated when a police officer cited him in 2001 for having an unregistered vehicle and driving without a license.
The Vernal man insisted that his tribal license plate was legal and only the tribe had authority over him. He became more incensed when Uintah County Attorney JoAnn Stringham proceeded to prosecute him.
So he turned to the Western Arbitration Council - and in 2004 won a whopping $250 million award against her. Stringham is not the only Utah public servant hit with a purported judgment from the Vernal-based tribe or its associates. The following amounts are allegedly due and payable from Uintah County officials: $3 million from Deputy Sheriff John Laursen, $300,720 from Sheriff Rick Hawkins and $300,000 from Justice Court Judge G.A. Petry.
The catch, according to lawsuits now filed against the tribe and the arbitration council, is that it's all a sham. Lawsuits contend the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band is a fake tribe whose members are not legally recognized as American Indians. The suits also allege the arbitration council, which was created by the tribe's "war chief," exists to conduct "mailbox arbitration" to harass perceived enemies.
Although Stevens has never collected a cent from her, Stringham said fighting the claim is time consuming. "What disrupts my life is that we're busy and we're trying to do our jobs in a fair manner and they start throwing paperwork at you that's just painful to read," she said. "They want to make it so difficult for you."
How "mailbox arbitration" works: Lawsuits allege the scheme by WAC works this way: WAC officials send notices to their targets - including prosecutors, judges, child welfare workers and financial institutions - announcing a claim has been filed against them, usually for large amounts of money. The notices, full of misspellings and grammatical errors, allege the recipient has broken a contract or violated someone's civil rights.
The letters' recipients are falsely informed that they earlier agreed to submit to binding arbitration and have just days to respond or lose by default.
After the time period expires, WAC grants an award to the claimant, who uses a WAC document to file a lien against the target or files a civil suit seeking payment.
The claimants apparently have collected little or no money. However, they allegedly have damaged credit records, encumbered property and wasted court time.
In the past seven years, people connected to the tribe or the council have recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in "awards" against the city of Vernal, its prosecutor, a Duchesne County Justice Court judge, 3rd District Judge Tyrone Medley, Utah County Attorney Kay Bryson and others. Officials with WAC and the tribe adamantly deny they are doing anything illegal and insist the law backs them up.

Impounded truck, big award: In 2004, James Burbank of Vernal filed a federal lawsuit seeking $375 million in damages from Uintah County officials. Burbank had been cited the year before for having an unregistered vehicle.
Burbank, who claims to be a member of the Grayhead Tribe, later got the $300,720 WAC award against the sheriff and the $300,000 award against Petry. Burbank complained officials ignored a letter by purported chief Stevens stating they were required to return Burbank's impounded truck.
The "debtors" are fighting back. Uintah County has filed a counterclaim seeking to wipe out Burbank's awards and get a declaration that the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band is not an Indian tribe. Uintah County's evidence includes an affidavit from Donald Widdiss, chairman of the federally recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) in Massachusetts. Widdiss says the Utah group is in no way affiliated with the Wampanoag Tribe.
U.S. District Judge John E. Conway of New Mexico is scheduled to hear arguments in the dispute today at the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City.
Burbank could not be reached for comment.
Citibank "owes" $15.7 million: Curtis Richmond claims he has won a $15,739,338 award from WAC against Citibank. The California man, who describes himself as a non-Indian adopted into the Grayhead tribe, has signed other awards as a WAC arbitrator.
Citibank customers have signed their legal rights to him, Richmond explained in a telephone interview from Carlsbad, Calif., and the award represents a refund for money lost to fraudulent practices.
But the bank claims WAC has been falsely advising Citibank customers that they can avoid paying their credit card debts by using its arbitration services. Citibank has filed suit in Utah's 3rd District Court against WAC, Richmond and others.
Richmond said he will file a complaint against federal judge Conway in connection with Burbank's Uintah County case. Conway is violating a requirement to have an oath of office on file, Richmond claims.
"I'll be a whistleblower, they can't touch me," Richmond said. "This is war. When a judge acts without jurisdiction, he is guilty of treason."
Richmond also claims the Colorado Supreme Court owes him $90,000 for a WAC award.
The Citibank and Burbank lawsuits are just two of several cases involving WAC and tribal members in several states. Last April, a federal grand jury in Kansas indicted a Newton couple on fraud charges, alleging they had obtained a fraudulent document from the "so-called Western Arbitration Council" awarding them more than $2 million.

"So get lost": One connection between the arbitration council and the tribe is Thomas Smith, listed as chief of the Ministry of Justice and chief tribal judge of the Grayhead Tribe, Wolf Band and as director of arbitration for WAC.
Smith, a Uintah Basin resident, said he helps people litigate disputes as part of his ministerial services.
In all his cases with WAC, Smith said, both sides agreed to arbitrate, and if one party failed to show up for a hearing, an award was entered by default for the other side.
Stevens, the purported tribe's chief in Vernal, also told The Salt Lake Tribune he has done nothing wrong. As for the tribe's opponents in various lawsuits, Stevens said, "They've robbed us of our rights. They are thieves. They are terrorists."
To back up his assertion that his tribe is legitimate, Stevens cites federal court cases on tribal law and a letter he sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., asking that the Wolf Band logo and seal be registered.
In the Uintah County case, Stevens wrote in a court filing: "Indian tribes and the members of the tribal Government have sovereign immunity, they can extend that to tribal members and to non members working for or in behalf of the tribe and we do not wave that immunity, So get lost."
pmanson@sltrib.com


Using phony arbitration awards?

Government agencies and private businesses allege Utah-based
organizations are using phony arbitration awards to harass officials with liens and lawsuits. The accused organizations:

Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band: The tribe, in existence since at least 2001, elected its council at a Provo Arby's in 2003, according to its records. It claims its members are American Indians immune to state and federal laws.

Western Arbitration Council: With post office addresses listed in Hanna and Duchesne, its director of arbitration is Uintah Basin resident Thomas Smith, a Grayhead tribal official.

The Order of White Light: Smith, its "presiding patriarch," says he organized the order in 1999. Incorporation papers from 2003 describe it as an "ecclesiastical corporation." WAC is part of the order, court documents say.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4785
They've decided they should get radio licenses though.

http://hamcall.net/reports/fccdaily/20030529.htm
KD7WDQ  Wampanoag Nation - Tribe Of Grayhead Wolfband Amateur Radio Society (Trustee: K7AHD), 

http://hamcall.net/call/KD7WDQ


Bugging the state of Nevada too.

http://indiancommission.state.nv.us/meetings/Commission/2005/IC-Minutes-2005-10-27.pdf
The Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band contacted the Governor’s Office with a request for our state to recognize their Common Law Recognized Tribe in our state. Upon consultation with our Deputy Attorney General it was found that our state does not provide for a state recognition process separate from the federal recognition process. A letter was sent informing them of this information. 


And filing lots of false claims.

http://www.indianz.com/News/2006/012656.asp
Fake tribe allegedly behind arbitration scam
Thursday, February 23, 2006

A group calling itself the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, is being accused in Utah of filing false claims against government officials, large corporations and other entities in an effort to collect millions of dollars.

The group, which is not federally recognized, allegedly set up a "Western Arbitration Council" to hear disputes. In the past seven years, the council has awarded damages in cases filed by tribal members.

No one appears to have paid the money but some of the targets say responding to the group wastes money and resources. Uintah County is asking a federal judge to declare the group to be fraudulent in a case being heard today.

The tribe is not affiliated with the federally recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head in Massachusetts.


https://eee.uci.edu/clients/tcthorne/clippingsgeneral2006.htm
Judge Rules that Group isn't American Indian Tribe,
Pamela Manson, The Salt Lake Tribune, April 7, 2006, pg. B6. Copyright 2006 The Salt Lake Tribune, All Rights Reserved. [?Vernal, UT:

A Vernal-based organization that claims its members are American Indians is not a legitimate tribe, a federal judge has ruled. And that means members of the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, are subject to state authority just like everyone else, U.S. District Judge John E. Conway says. In a separate ruling, Conway dismissed a civil rights suit filed against Uintah County officials by James Burbank, a Vernal resident who claims membership in the Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band. The decisions, handed down Monday, were a victory for county officials, who contend that Burbank and other members of Wampanoag have obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in sham judgments against them by claiming to be American Indians exempt from Utah law. The county's next step will be a request to Conway to throw out all of Wampanoag's judgments. . . .The judge added: ?This organization is not to be confused with the Wampanoag Nation, Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band, a federally recognized Indian Tribe on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, though the similarity in name is undoubtedly no coincidence.

Offline Sparks

  • Posts: 1230
They've decided they should get radio licenses though.

http://hamcall.net/reports/fccdaily/20030529.htm
KD7WDQ  Wampanoag Nation - Tribe Of Grayhead Wolfband Amateur Radio Society (Trustee: K7AHD), 

http://hamcall.net/call/KD7WDQ

My boldings. This is what I found about these two Amateur radio call signs:

http://hamcall.net/call/KD7WDQ
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2517525
Quote
Amateur License - KD7WDQ - Wampanoag Nation - Tribe Of Grayhead Wolfband Amateur Radio Society
Grant   05/28/2003    Expiration   05/28/2013
Effective   05/28/2003    Cancellation   05/29/2015

The Trustee has a valid license, expiring 01/12/2028 (name and address visible at both links):

https://hamcall.net/call?callsign=K7AHD
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=259217

Certainly the same Thomas Smith who was mentioned in these three comments_

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=591.msg2830#msg2830
[UTAH "Wampanoag Tribe of Grayhead, Wolf Band& …]
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1262.msg11702#msg11702
[American Indian Tribe Called Bogus / Kaweah Indian Nation]
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1490.msg9076#msg9076
[Dale Norton & Wampanoag Tribe of Greyhead Wolf Band, Order of White Light]