General > Frauds

"Nancy Red Star"

<< < (2/3) > >>

Diana:

--- Quote from: Don Naconna link=topic=820.[list ---
Nancy Red Star, daughter of the Cherokee, is a citizen of the Sovereign Republic of the Abenaki Nation of Missiquoi, St. Francis/Sokoki Band. She lectures and leads workshops throughout the United States on the teachings of the Star Ancestors. Nancy currently resides in Taos, New Mexico. 
 

To Contact Nancy Red Star:
email: nancy@nancyredstar.com
Website: nancyredstar.com


--- End quote ---



That so called abenaki tribe is fake and has been determined back in 2007 by the BIA. Here's the article I've taken from the DOI website:  http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/SalazarApplaudsLEHConfirmPR.pdf

My bold.

Lim Lemtsh

Diana


OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY INDIAN
AFFAIRS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Nedra Darling
June 22, 2007 Ph: 2022194150

Artman Issues a Final Determination to Decline Acknowledgment
of the St. Francis / Sokoki Band of Abenakis of Vermont

WASHINGTON – Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Carl J. Artman today issued a final
determination not to acknowledge the petitioner known as the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of
Abenakis of Vermont as an Indian tribe. This petitioner, located in Franklin County in
northwestern Vermont, has 1,171 members with enrollment files completed to the petitioner’s
satisfaction.

The petitioner claims to have descended as a group mainly from a Western Abenaki Indian tribe,
the Missisquoi Indians, in northwestern Vermont. The available evidence indicates that by 1800
the disruption caused by colonial wars and nonIndian settlement had forced almost all the
Western Abenakis in northern New England to relocate to the Saint Francis River area of
Quebec, Canada. The petitioner claims that its ancestors remained behind in northwestern
Vermont or moved to Canada until it was safe to return, hiding their Indian identity until the
1970’s to avoid notice by their nonIndian neighbors. However, the available evidence does not
support these claims. Instead, it indicates that the petitioner is a collection of individuals of
claimed but mostly undemonstrated Indian ancestry with little or no social or historical
connection with each other before the petitioner formally organized in the 1970’s.

The petitioner did not satisfy four of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment under 25
CFR Part 83, specifically criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e).

Criterion 83.7(a) requires that external observers have identified the petitioner as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. The available evidence
demonstrated that external observers identified the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a
substantially continuous basis since 1975, not since 1900.

Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group has comprised a
distinct community since historical times. The available evidence demonstrated that at no time
since the early contact period did the petitioner show that it was a distinct community. Even
since the 1970’s, the petitioner has not demonstrated that a significant portion of its membership
regularly associate with each other or that its recent social and cultural activities are of more than
symbolic value to the group as a whole.

Continued Sokoki Band of Abenaki
Page 2

Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioning group has maintained political influence over its
members as an autonomous entity since historical times. The available evidence did not
demonstrate that the petitioner maintained political influence over its members at any point in
time. Even since the 1970’s, the petitioner did not show widespread participation by the group’s
members in political meetings or legal issues. Instead, it appears that political influence is
limited to the actions of a few group members pursuing an agenda with little input from the
membership.

Criterion 83.7(e) requires that a petitioner’s members descend from a historical Indian tribe. The
available evidence demonstrated that only 8 of the petitioner’s 1,171 members, less than 1
percent, demonstrated descent from an Indian ancestor who once belonged to the historical
Missisquoi Abenaki Indian tribe. The available evidence does not show that these eight
individuals associated with the petitioner before the 1990’s.

The petitioner met three of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment: 83.7(d), 83.7(f),
and 83.7(g).

Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide a copy of its governing document.

Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the petitioner’s membership be composed principally of persons
who are not members of another federally recognized Indian tribe.

Criterion 83.7(g) requires that the petitioner not be subject to legislation forbidding the Federal
relationship.

The petitioner did not meet all of the seven mandatory criteria? therefore, it did not qualify for
acknowledgment under the Department’s regulations.

This determination is final and effective 90 days after publication of a notice in the Federal
Register, unless any interested party requests reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian
Appeals.

The Department made the final determination following a review of the petitioner’s and the
public’s comments on the proposed finding, which the Department issued on November 9, 2005.
See the Department of the Interior website at (http://www.doi.gov) for copies of the proposed
finding and final determination.

DOI 

[/list]

Kevin:
I'm always curious about what kind of real, day jobs some of these people have.

educatedindian:
Redstar just sent a series of emails where she posed as working for or with the Attorney General of Vermont. I've forwarded them to the actual Attorney General's office.

In her clumsy impersonations, she demanded our contact information, oblivious to the fact that she already has it.

But to make things comical, she chose a Youtube email address as her own contact address.

My email responding follows.

----------------------

NancyRedStar sent you a video: "Abenaki Black Ash Basket Demonstration" Friday, July 24, 2009 7:27 PM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified"YouTube Service" <service@youtube.com>
 
NancyRedStar has shared a video with you on YouTube:

Need Your Full Contact Information For The Attorney General Of The State Of Vermont For Defamation of National Heritage 

-----------------------

Contact Information Friday, July 24, 2009 7:33 PM
From: "Nancy Red Star" [email address deleted]

NAFPS~
 
This is a formal request for you to respond with your contact information for The Attorney General of the State of Vermont.

Nancy Red Star

----------------------

Obviously this request is not from the Atty General's office. It is illegal to impersonate law enforcement as you are doing. I have forwarded this illegal impersonation to the actual Atty General's office.
 
This email address is our usual contact address. People can also simply go to the forum.
 
It's not clear why the links to videos were sent to us. All we can guess is that you're upset that we point out your "tribe" is made up of pretenders and that you sell seminars to the UFO crowd.
 
We always seek out as much information as possible and welcome discussion. If you wish to comment on what we've written, you are welcome to join and do so. I could also repost any statement you wish to make.

educatedindian:
Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder, Red Star is accusing us of being Satanists.

----------------

Re: Contact Information Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:25 AM
From: "Nancy Red Star" [address deleted]

Yes~ The request is from me~ For the Attorney General.
 
Good Luck 666
 
NRS

educatedindian:
Found this about the St Francis "tribe." Ironically, posted on their own website is the State of Vermont's debunking of their claims of being a tribe. It's over 250 pages long, so I'm only posting the very self explanatory table of contents, followed by a very revealing investigation of the group's internal workings. Page numbers are left in.

-----------------------
http://www.abenakination.org/STATE.pdf

STATE OF VERMONT’S RESPONSE
TO PETITION FOR FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF THE ST. FRANCIS/SOKOKI BAND
OF THE ABENAKI NATION OF VERMONT
STATE OF VERMONT
WILLIAM H. SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Eve Jacobs-Carnahan, Special Assistant Attorney General
December 2002
Second Printing, January 2003
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS... v
MAP...vi
LIST OF TABLES...vii
INTRODUCTION...1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND...............................................................................................1
Historic Tribe Elusive ...................................................................................................1
Major Scholars of the Western Abenakis .....................................................................3
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.......................................................................................5
Seventeenth-Century History is Sketchy ......................................................................5
Some Noteworthy Events of the Seventeenth-Century ................................................7
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ..........................................................................................8
Population Movements In and Out of Missisquoi During the Eighteenth
Century ...8
Grey Lock’s Dominance..................................................................................10
Epidemic and Slow Repopulation: 1730-1740 ...............................................11
Missisquoi Villagers Move to Odanak/St. Francis: 1744-1760 ......................12
Return to Missisquoi: 1763-1775.....................................................................16
Abandonment of Missisquoi During American Revolution............................22
NINETEENTH CENTURY.........................................................................................28
The Insubstantial Evidence of Continued Tribal Presence in the Nineteenth
Century ...28
Comments on Recent Scholarship ..............................................................................36
i
Countervailing Evidence that the Missisquoi Did Not Return to Vermont as a
Tribe After 1800..............................................................................................41
Travelers, Historians, and Surveyors of Indians..............................................41
Federal Census Enumerations..........................................................................46
Sightings of Indian Visitors and the Basket Trade..........................................50
Rowland Robinson’s Indian Friends................................................................55
French-Canadian Migration to Vermont .........................................................61
Caughnawagha Claims Presented to Vermont Legislature .........................................64
TWENTIETH CENTURY...........................................................................................67
Twentieth Century Claims of Abenaki Continuity .....................................................67
The Eugenics Survey of Vermont ...............................................................................67
ANALYSIS OF CRITERIA...78
CRITERION (A)—IDENTIFICATION BY OUTSIDERS....................................................78
1900 to 1929 ...82
Researchers Identify Vermont Abenakis as Tribe of the Past ........................82
Federal Government Records Identify Only a Tiny Number of Individual Indians ...........................................................................................87
Records of the Vermont Eugenics Survey Do Not Identify Any
Abenakis...89
Newspapers Fail to Identify Any Abenaki Tribe in Vermont ........................92
Swanton Birth Records ...................................................................................93
1930 to 1947 ...94
External Observers Silent on Existence of Any Contemporary
Abenaki Tribe .................................................................................................94
ii
1948 to 1973...96
Researchers Failed to Discover Any Contemporary Vermont
Abenaki Tribe .................................................................................................96
Other Material Attests to Absence of Abenaki Tribe From Vermont ..........108
1974 to 1981...110
External Observations ...................................................................................110
1982 to Present ...118
External Observations ...................................................................................118
Summary of Failure of Evidence to Satisfy Criterion (a) .........................................119
CRITERION (B)—COMMUNITY ......................................................................................121
Swanton Church is French Canadian, not Indian ......................................................123
No Indian Cemetery was Used by Petitioner’s Ancestors in Twentieth Century......126
No Indian School Existed in Franklin County ..........................................................128
Petitioner’s Ancestors Were Active Participants in White Business and
Social Groups ...128
There Has Not Been a Continuous Geographic Concentration of Indians in
Franklin County...131
The Petitioner Did Not Immigrate to Vermont as a Group at Any One Time...........132
The Abenaki Language Was Not Spoken by Petitioner ...........................................140
Cultural Practices Were Not Retained in Any Abenaki Community in
Vermont ...141
Membership in the St. Francis/Sokoki Abenaki is Loose and Fluid .........................142
There Were No Social Ties Between the Bulk of Petitioner’s Ancestors
and the Visible Abenakis in Vermont........................................................................144
Summary of Failure of Evidence to Satisfy Criterion (b)..........................................147
iii
CRITERION (C)—POLITICAL AUTHORITY ..................................................................148
Vermont Abenaki Silence in the Face of 1950’s Caughnawagha Land Claims........149
Creation of Abenaki Tribal Council in 1974.............................................................152
The Petitioner’s Political Organization was Dominated by One or Two
Families...154
Summary of Failure of Evidence to Satisfy Criterion (c)..........................................160
CRITERION (E)—DESCENT FROM HISTORIC TRIBE .................................................160
An Overview of the Progenitors ...............................................................................162
Moody’s Genealogical Work is Incomplete and Speculative ...................................166
Petitioner’s Family Charts Do Not Trace Back to Any Historic Lists of
Known Abenaki Indians ...........................................................................................169
Petitioner’s Family Charts Do Not Include Anyone Identified by Federal
Census as Indian From 1870 to 1910 ........................................................................172
Petitioner’s Other Lists From Censuses are Speculative ..........................................175
Petitioner’s Evidence of Indian Births is Contradicted by the Original
Records...177
Individual Family Genealogies Contain Unproven Assumptions of Abenaki
Heritage...183
Petitioner Self-Identified as White ............................................................................191
Summary of Failure of Evidence to Satisfy Criterion (e) .........................................194
CONCLUSION ...194
SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES........................................................................................196
ATTACHMENTS
Affidavit of John Alexander Dickinson
Affidavit of J. Kay Davis
iv
INTRODUCTION
This Response to the Petition for Federal Recognition of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of the Abenaki Nation of Vermont is submitted by the Vermont Attorney General’s Office on behalf of the State of Vermont. The response follows the format of recent proposed findings and final determinations issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). After an examination of the historical background of Indians in Vermont, the response addresses four of the criteria for federal acknowledgment set forth in the federal regulations at 25 C.F.R. 87. Two affidavits of experts consulted by the State are attached to this Response to the Petition. Accompanying this filing is a collection of Exhibits comprised of articles, government records, newspapers, and manuscripts that are referred to in the response.1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Historic Tribe Elusive
A natural starting point in the historical examination of an Indian tribe would be the identification of the historic tribe. In this case, that is not so easy. The petition itself illustrates the difficulty. The original petition was submitted in 1982 by the St. Francis/Sokoki Band of the Abenaki Nation of Vermont. See “Resolution of Abenaki Tribal Council” (Petition:ii). Later correspondence to the BIA is from the Sovereign Republic of the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi. See, e.g., 1995 Certification of Records with re-submitted

1
petition. These two different names for the petitioner suggest three possible historic tribes: St. Francis Abenaki, Sokoki, and Missisquoi.
The St. Francis Abenaki is, and was, a Canadian tribe based in St. Francis, Quebec, also known as Odanak, Quebec. The Sokoki, a tribe within the Wabanaki confederacy, inhabited the Connecticut River Valley along the border between Vermont and New Hampshire. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they resettled at Odanak/St. Francis. In fact they may have been the earliest residents of Odanak/St. Francis (Day 1981b:12-15, Haviland & Power 1994:219-27). The Missisquois inhabited the upper Lake Champlain region on the western side of Vermont. They have often been thought to be an offshoot of the Abenaki tribe at Odanak/St. Francis.2 Even the petitioner admits that “the Missisquoi villagers were never a tribe,” but rather a changing group of families who hunted in the area (Petition:15). The confusion in nomenclature in the petitioner’s own submissions may indicate a more serious ambiguity as to identity and an uncertainty about community and descendancy.
The word Abenaki (or Wabanaki) refers to a group of Algonquian speaking tribes in Northern New England. Abenaki means “people of the dawn.” They are divided into the Eastern Abenaki and the Western Abenaki. The Eastern Abenakis originally inhabited Maine and parts of New Hampshire. The name for these people stems from coastal view of the sun rise. Eastern Abenaki groups or tribes include the Penobscot and Maliseet. Western Abenaki include the Sokokis and Cowasucks of the upper and middle Connecticut River
2 Indeed, the relationship between the St. Francis Abenaki and the Missisquoi groups is an intriguing puzzle embedded in this petition. If the Missisquoi was a separate tribal entity from the Abenaki at Odanak/St. Francis, then that historic tribe would have a claim for acknowledgment in the United States. If the Abenakis at Missisquoi were only an outlying temporary settlement of the St. Francis Abenakis then their claim should be directed toward Canadian First Nation status and the reservation
2
Valley of Vermont and New Hampshire, the Pennacooks and Winnepesaukees of the upper Merrimack River in New Hampshire, and the Missisquoi on Lake Champlain (Calloway 1986:198, Dickason 1990:87).
established in Quebec. As will become evident in this Response, the ultimate significance of this puzzle may not matter, given the post-1800 history of Indians, or the lack thereof, in Vermont.
The petitioner claims its historic origins lie in the northern Lake Champlain Valley, near Missisquoi Bay in Swanton, Vermont, the same area in which most of its members reside at present. This would suggest that petitioner’s members view themselves as descendants of the Missisquoi, not the Sokokis. The history of the Abenakis of Missisquoi and those of Odanak/St. Francis is extensively intertwined. The inclusion of the St. Francis tribal name in the petitioner’s original submission indicates a sense of affiliation with that Canadian tribe. One theme of this Response to the Petition is that the Missisquois drew closer and closer to the Abenakis of Odanak/St. Francis so that by 1800 they were indistinguishable.
3
........
35
….From this critique, the weakness of the petitioner’s evidence of continued Abenaki presence is apparent. The sightings of Indians in the state are rare, because they no longer lived here as a community in any real sense. Those that were here were purposely visible, making use of their differences for economic gains. Others who may have had some Indian ancestry, but chose to assimilate into the white culture, were no longer identified by outsiders as Indian because they no longer lived in an Indian community.
Comments on Recent Scholarship
With such feeble evidence of continued Abenaki presence in the Missisquoi region, it seems surprising that recent scholarly works have repeated the blanket statement that the Abenakis maintained their connections to the area throughout the nineteenth century. However, closer examination of these works reveals that they all rely on the petition, or its primary author, John Moody, for support. He was hired by the Abenaki Tribal Council in February 1978 to conduct research to find support for the petition, and worked with Abenaki assistants in 1978 and 1979 carrying out that research (Petition:128, 153). Moody once described himself and his connection to petitioner thus:
I am a student of Native American studies at Dartmouth and a Vermonter searching out my roots and ancestry. For the past two months I’ve been working on a narrative history of the Wabanaki peoples who lived and still live in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Quebec. My intent is to fill an expressed gap in the Native American history of this area….There are presently some people working on reconstituting Abenaki identity in Northern Vermont who are interested in my work. (Moody 4/24/1976).
36
He developed strong ties to the petitioner, even giving the eulogy at the funeral of Chief Homer St. Francis (Burlington Free Press 7/12/2001). Since Moody has been working for the petitioner and relies heavily on family assumptions and declarations of Indian heritage in the recurrent absence of documentary proof of Indian ancestry, then his work is merely self-identification. Such self-identification, without proof through external sources, is insufficient under the federal criteria for tribal acknowledgment (59 Fed. Reg. 9280, 9286, BIA MaChris Lower Alabama Creek Indian Tribe 1987:5, 32-35).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page