NEW CATAGORIES!

I have added two new categories. This is your forum to enlighten readers to your experiences with being a victim or being victimized. It may be how you feel being bullied. You may have a problem with how you are being treated by civil servants who are supposed to be protecting you. You may feel like you need to express yourself when your pain is overwhelming. You may have words of encouragement. You may be all alone and desire a forum…here it is.

It is up to you if you are eighteen and older to leave your name. If you are not eighteen and have a story please get consent from your parents or caregiver. If it is a poem you choose to write please do…..

Remember your not alone.

Thank-You

Julienne

Drawing the Wisdom from the Past

The FCC Process
TOP
Abstract
The Project
The FCC Intervention
The FCC Process
Progress to Date
References

Although the family meeting represents the most visible component of the FCC, the intervention involves other stages that often are more important than the actual meeting. The FCC has six stages: referral, screening, engaging the family, logistical preparation, family meeting, and follow-up.

Referral
Referrals come from a variety of sources, including the Elder Protection program, Community Health Representative program, Housing Authority program, Domestic Violence program, Tribal court, Child Protection program, community members, and concerned family members. The majority of referrals are made because of concerns about exploitation, neglect, self-neglect, and child neglect. Many times referrals are related to the addiction of a family member who lives in the elder’s home, exploits the elder’s monthly income, or leaves young children in the care of a frail elder. Although some referrals are related to physical abuse, these are limited. In part this pattern may reflect the screening procedures, through which some referrals are deemed inappropriate.

Timeliness of response to referrals is an important concern. To address this concern, facilitators, along with the research team, developed guidelines that include making initial contact with family members within 3 to 5 days of referral receipt. Depending on the family’s schedule, but within 5 working days, the facilitator determines a tentative date for the family meeting. The facilitator, although cautious to maintain confidentiality, also notifies the referring person or agency that she has begun to work with the family. This helps maintain the credibility of the FCC project in the community.

Screening
Some referrals are inappropriate for the FCC intervention. These involve families who have a high potential for violence. These situations are referred to the Elder Protection program for further evaluation and action. Over the course of this project, facilitators have developed a strong working relationship with the Elder Protection program.

Engaging the Family
The pre-meeting preparation stage is crucial to the success of the FCC. At the beginning of this stage, it is important to have the family identify a primary contact. This person, who may or may not be related by blood, is someone trusted by the family and the elder. The primary contact is familiar with the family’s dynamics, and knows how to work within these dynamics. During this stage, the facilitator contacts family members and family-nominated service providers and invites them to participate in the FCC. Although they are careful to honor the wishes of the family when inviting participants, the facilitators at times sensitively inquire about family members whom they have not invited. In some instances, this provides the opportunity for the family to reconsider its decision.

The facilitator gives a verbal explanation and provides a descriptive brochure about the FCC to each nominated person. The facilitator emphasizes that the meeting will be a safe place for family members to gather to discuss their concerns. During the engagement stage, the facilitator helps to focus each family member’s attention on the concern at hand: the elder’s well-being and safety. This stage is complex, requiring communication skills that are nonjudgmental and sometimes therapeutic, including engaging, listening, encouraging, and giving information. Often a family member must address a multitude of feelings (such as stress, resentment, grief, shame, and anger) before he or she is able to commit to attending the FCC.

Many of the reservations in the Northwest are in rural areas, which can make contacting people difficult. Geographical distances necessitate traveling over back country roads, and severe weather may cause meetings to be rescheduled. Additionally, not all families have telephones; in such instances, the facilitator requests that another invited family member ask for that person to contact her.

Given the sensitive nature of the topic, face-to-face meetings between the family members and facilitator are preferred. This method of meeting allows for the development of trust and rapport and the expression of gentle caring. Yet it is important to consider geographically distant family members. When geographical distance precludes a family member’s attendance at the meeting, the facilitator brings his or her concerns to the meeting. Some distant family members choose to participate via a conference phone call.

Additional strategies ensure privacy during this stage. When facilitators attempt to make contact by phone, they are cognizant about not leaving messages that might violate confidentiality. Similarly, when meeting an individual family member face-to-face, facilitators find it is sometimes important to meet outside of the house, where other family members or visitors cannot hear what is being said.

Because of the small size of the communities, it is important to pay attention to relationships between the facilitator and some of the families who have been referred. To date, the project has addressed this by having more than one facilitator who can work with a family in which there are no close relatives or alliances. Community norms and status differentials and their effect on the facilitator–family-member relationships are important additional considerations. For example, a community norm is for younger people to show respect to elders. Although facilitators are middle-aged and older women who are accustomed to working with people in a helping relationship, there have been situations in which expectations related to the elder–younger role have been intimidating to facilitators who were slated to work with Tribal members older than themselves. In other cases, facilitators have been reluctant to intervene in families with prominent community members. In such situations, the monthly facilitator group meetings are helpful for discussing sensitive strategies for approaching these families.

Logistical Preparation
Once the facilitator has contacted all nominated family members, service providers, and other community members (as requested by the family), she determines a mutually agreeable meeting time. The facilitator sends each prospective participant a letter summarizing the purpose of the meeting and identifying the date, time, and meeting place. On the day prior to the meeting, the facilitator calls those family members who can be reached by telephone to remind them of the meeting and to check that they are still able to attend.

Sensitivity to the venue for the family meeting is also important. Some families prefer to have the meeting in their homes; others prefer to have it at a neutral, but private, place (often in a conference room at one of the agency offices). Because gracious hospitality is a strong community norm, the meetings usually involve the sharing of food. The facilitator prepares a few trays of healthy snacks ahead of time in accordance with any dietary restrictions family members may have. In keeping with the norm of sharing, family participants take home any remaining food.

Creation of a safe, inviting, and private space is important. In situations in which not all participants share proficiency in both the Native and English languages, it is necessary to have an interpreter. In these circumstances family members choose a person whom they feel is unbiased and whom they trust. Confidentiality remains crucial, particularly in a small community. It is important to think about maintaining privacy by drawing conference room window shades for meetings held in the late evening. Participants must take into consideration solutions to barriers to participation (such as making arrangements for child care or transportation, joining via conference calls, or sending letters) prior to the meeting. Because the length of the meeting may range from 2 to 5 hr, it is important to plan for breaks so people can move about, stretch, and use the facilities.

Family Meeting
The family meeting has the following components: beginning, information sharing, development of a plan, and closing.

Beginning
As people arrive, the facilitator acknowledges and greets everyone, often with a warm handshake or a hug. The agenda for the family meeting begins with a formal welcome, during which the facilitator thanks the family for coming together and for allowing the facilitator to be a part of its meeting. This recognizes the emotional vulnerability that some family members may experience in coming together to discuss sensitive aspects of their family. The meeting opens with a prayer offered by a chosen family member (such as an elder or the oldest participant) or a spiritual leader (if the family has invited one to attend the meeting). If needed, introductions are made and each participant explains his or her relationship to the elder. The facilitator then reviews the FCC format, briefly identifying the purpose of the meeting and describing her own role. At this time, the facilitator reminds people that the sharing of their stories will be held sacred. The group spends some time establishing group norms (e.g., one person speaks at a time; show respect for all; conflict without hostility can be good; no question is wrong; no side conversations; be considerate of confidentiality; and recognize the “spirit of intent,” i.e., the positive intentions of others). The facilitator writes these on a flipchart and posts them in the room. The facilitator orients people to the room and the facility and invites them to partake of the food.

Information Sharing
During this portion of the meeting, the people present identify their concerns. The facilitator reads letters from family members who, although unable to attend the meeting, would like to participate. The facilitator records all concerns on the flipchart and posts the pages in a prominent place in the room. Throughout this stage, the facilitator is careful to point out family strengths she has learned about through the process of engaging the family members. Because facilitators are from the communities, they are aware of the norm against self-promotion and recognize that family members may be hesitant to identify their strengths.

Development of a Plan
The family has the option of asking the facilitator and all other people who are not members of the family to leave the room so it may develop a plan in private. Prior to leaving the room, the facilitator reminds the family to choose a recorder from among the people present. If the facilitator leaves the room, she should not leave the facility in case the family has questions or would like to make use of her mediation skills. In this case, the facilitator should make periodic checks on the family members to see if they have any questions or needs. In our experience, families rarely request this private time, possibly because they developed a trusting rapport with the facilitator during the engagement phase.

When the family has developed its plan, the facilitator and service providers return to the room to help the family with the logistics related to implementing the plan. For example, this may include identifying resources that are available to family members, developing a timeline for the various parts of the plan, and identifying which family member will be responsible for each part of the plan. The facilitator makes a record of the plan that she will include in a letter to each family member in the week following the FCC. If the family has indicated they would like a follow-up meeting, the facilitator notes the date and time of this meeting in the letter.

Closing
At the end of each meeting, the facilitator asks for an evaluation of the entire FCC intervention. Using the format of “likes and wishes,” the facilitator asks what it was that people liked about the process and what they wish could have been done differently. The facilitator makes it known that wishes are as readily appreciated as likes. The facilitator records both on the flipchart. We had originally developed a written survey for FCC participants to complete immediately following the meeting; however, asking the more open-ended likes-and-wishes question elicits a wider variety of (and more descriptive) responses. Additionally, doing the likes and wishes as a group provides time for a shared family debriefing.

Follow-Up
The follow-up portion of the FCC is dependent on family needs and desires. Follow-up is not case management; however, at times the facilitator agrees to implement a part of the family’s plan, such as contacting a social service provider to arrange for a needed service. The facilitator carries through on this agreement and then makes certain the service is meeting the needs of the family. Follow-up meetings may be arranged when members of the family wish to meet together with a service provider (e.g., families might meet with people from housing to arrange a plan for complying with housing rules that will protect the elder while also finding suitable shelter for an addicted family member). Families may also schedule a date to get together to discuss how the plan is working and to modify it if necessary. Additionally, when family situations change, some families may reopen cases that have been closed, by requesting a second family meeting. Follow-up can provide the opportunity for positive encouragement. It is important to highlight the incremental progress that the family has made. Although family members may not have met their goals in their entirety, often they have taken steps toward their achievement. Or it may be that the family implemented an action that did not work. That, too, is progress with regard to both intent of good will and knowledge that something else must be tried.

Someone is hurting you in your school?

Type in the school name….give me an idea of how to reach you. The mail comes to my e-mail. I can help.  If your afraid and can’t go to your parents or anyone else…I will help you,  just click on this title and write in the box below….

Afraid of Charging Assault My Schoolmate!

Fear is a method of power and control. Power and control is the issue. We all have to consider how serious the next assault will be. Is this person counting on your fear to let him/her off the hook?

What are the possiblities or consequenses of your not charging? Someone else could be a victim of a more serious assault…you may be the victim of this assault….Why….because your not doing anythig about it.

This is a school setting…right…think about all that was not done at Virginia Tech when Chloe was stalking and no one did anything!

You decide……

A Human Rights Response to Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada

Another Link:

http://indiancountrynews.net/

Bill Moyer Indian Coutry Justice

WHATS YOUR STORY?

November 14, 2008

DEBORAH AMOS: At the Justice Department, recent scandals have dragged public confidence to an all time low. A special prosecutor is now digging into charges that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put political partisanship ahead of the law.

And the record on the quality of justice – as in ‘equal justice for all’ – that’s also in question. No more so than on the roughly 300 American Indian reservations across the country. This is a scandal that’s been going on for decades.

Because of a strange tangle of laws, because of historical precedent, the Justice Department is responsible for investigating and prosecuting major crimes on most reservations. But as the DENVER POST reported in an award-winning investigative series, law enforcement in Indian country has become quote “dangerously dysfunctional.” The “Post” depicted a place where terrible crimes are committed, investigations bungled, and prosecutions rare. The result: Indian reservations, already some of the poorest and most crime-plagued communities in America, have become what one Navajo official calls “Lawless Lands.” Our colleagues at Expose bring you that story. It’s narrated by Sylvia Chase.

MARLENE WALKER:It was the morning of September 4th, 2004. I was sleeping and the phone rang. And Arthur’s girlfriend called me and said, “Marlene, did you hear about Arthur?” And I said, “No, what’s wrong?” “He’s dead.” And I said, “What? No, you’re just joking with me. He’s not.” And she says, “Yeah, he was attacked.”

SGT. LIZ GRIEGO:I was called at home about three o’clock in the morning and advised of a homicide call out at this location and I was advised that there were actually two people that were stabbed, one had passed away.

MARLENE WALKER:We took off and went to the scene. And most of my family was already there, I kept asking everybody, “What’s going on? What’s going on? What happened? What happened?” No one had anything to say to me. And then, finally, the detective came to me and told me what had happened. And with all the chaos, I never knew my son was laying a few feet away from me.

SYLVIA CHASE: Marlene Walker’s son, Arthur Schobey, was murdered in 2004 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He died of a stab wound to the heart. His killer, Leonard Apachito, lived on the nearby Navajo Reservation, in a village called To’hajiilee. And it may be hard to believe, but if Apachito hadn’t lived on the reservation, Arthur Schobey might still be alive today.

MICHAEL RILEY: I think as Americans, that we have a strong expectation of the way our justice system ought to function; that we live in a society where, if you commit a crime, especially a serious crime, people will investigate that crime, people will arrest you and people will try and convict you. What happens actually on reservations doesn’t look at all like that picture.

SYLVIA CHASE: Indian reservations operate nearly autonomously within the United States. Many, like the Navajo Nation, have their own police forces, courts, and jails. But the tribes have severely limited powers.

And the major investigation by the DENVER POST would show that the people living on reservations are subject to severely limited justice.

MICHAEL RILEY: You commit serious crimes and many of them aren’t investigated or they’re under investigated. If they are investigated and sent to prosecuting attorneys, many times the prosecuting attorney simply declines to prosecute the case, so when you combine lots and lots of those kinds of examples, what you’ve got is a level of impunity that most Americans, I think, would be shocked at.

Take the case of Leonard Apachito. Four months before he killed Arthur Schobey, he was involved in another violent crime. This one occurred on the reservation. The victim was his cousin, Alex Apachito.

ALEX APACHITO: It was about four years ago, we were walking home from a party, and we met up with another one of my cousins, Leonard. And he invited us over to his house for a couple of beers.

SYLVIA CHASE: Although they were related, Alex and Leonard had a history of tension. And on that night, Alex says, they fought.

ALEX APACHITO: He just walks around me and grabs me, and cuts me across the neck. And I turned, once he grabbed me, and I just felt that cold slice. I pushed him. And I don’t even remember how I made it home, or – but I remember being in the ambulance and telling them what happened. And I think that’s when I just passed out.

SYLVIA CHASE: When a crime is committed on an Indian reservation, the tribal police and prosecutor are the first to review the case.

CHUCK MURPHY:The local tribal prosecutors are doing the very best they can in order to try and find some justice for victims out there when others maybe don’t care, don’t have time, don’t understand – whatever the issue may be.

SYLVIA CHASE: But if a crime is serious enough to be considered a felony, as Leonard Apachito’s slashing of his cousin was, most often the tribal authorities are nearly powerless. And local and state police, and state district attorneys are entirely without authority.

That’s because in most of Indian country – the legal term for Native American lands – the federal government has the sole authority to investigate and to prosecute almost all felonies.

After Alex Apachito was slashed, an FBI agent interviewed him.

ALEX APACHITO: : He came and took pictures of me at the hospital, and I really couldn’t talk at the time, at the hospital, but he just wanted me to say the name – Leonard’s name. And like, I think the next day I got released, and he came to my house and – yeah, he got the whole report, what happened. And he said that – yeah, he was gonna do everything he could to see that I got justice.

SYLVIA CHASE: But, the DENVER POST would report, even though Alex, the victim, had identified Leonard Apachito as his assailant, it wasn’t Leonard who was arrested.

MICHAEL RILEY: Despite Alex’s ID of Leonard as the person who stabbed him, the FBI arrests the wrong person. After that, after they discovered that they arrested the wrong person, they then dropped the case.

SYLVIA CHASE: A free man, Leonard Apachito would go on to kill Arthur Schobey in Albuquerque.

MARLENE WALKER: I didn’t find out ’til Mike Riley told me, that Leonard had stabbed someone before, and I was shocked.

SYLVIA CHASE: The FBI declined to discuss the case with the DENVER POST. But as Riley discovered, it’s common for justice to go un-served in Indian country. Why? Because of the strange quirks in a justice system that treats Native Americans differently from other Americans.

MICHAEL RILEY: It’s the only place in the U.S. where the race of the victim and the race of the perpetrator determines who has jurisdiction, whether it’s the state government, whether it’s the tribal government or the federal government.

SYLVIA CHASE: Riley learned that if a felony in Indian country involves two non-Indians, it is tried in state court. However, if either the assailant or the victim is an Indian, neither the state nor the tribe has jurisdiction. The crime must be tried in federal court. To better understand an extremely complex system, Riley turned to the U.S. attorney for Colorado: Troy Eid.

TROY EID: I have seen people over the years face a level of despair over this situation that I’ve not seen elsewhere in the United States, with any other group of people. And in some cases, these reservations are the land that time forgot.

SYLVIA CHASE: Eid has prosecuted hundreds of felonies committed in Indian country. He has also published articles in favor of giving tribes greater legal authority.

TROY EID: Why can we drive around a reservation and have 160 acres that’s in tribal jurisdiction, with the federal prosecutors doing the major crimes, and then suddenly you’re on state jurisdiction, with the state D.A., the local D.A., doing the crimes? It’s mind boggling, and so, when you get out into the field and you deal with it, you find often times very good people struggling to make this system work.

VERNON ROANHORSE: Crime always occurs minute by minute. We deal with domestic violence, we deal with problems involving firearms…

SYLVIA CHASE: Vernon Roanhorse is the tribal prosecutor for the village of To’hajiilee.

VERNON ROANHORSE: The police are primarily the, the people that investigate these crimes. And they turn over their reports to us. But we have to look to the federal government for support and for prosecution of major crimes when they occur.

SYLVIA CHASE: Roanhorse has one Assistant: Racquel Hurley.

RACQUEL HURLEY:It’ll most likely come to our office first. And if it’s really bad, it will be referred to the criminal investigator. We’ll give him the police report; we’ll give him the names. If we have photos, we’ll give it to him. FBI agents will usually come out and conduct their interviews also and I rarely see them.

SYLVIA CHASE: Why is the justice system on Indian reservations so different from that of the rest of the country? The answer lies in American history.

TROY EID: It used to be that the tribes could punish their own members. If an Indian tribe got into a conflict with another tribe, or if say two tribal members got into a fight, whatever it might be, the tribes would work that out. But, starting in 1885, Congress took that power away.

SYLVIA CHASE: It had all begun in 1881, in the Dakota Territory, when many believed a Sioux Indian named Crow Dog literally got away with murder.

Crow Dog had shot and killed a Sioux Chief. In U.S. District Court, in the Dakota town of Deadwood, he was convicted and sentenced to hang.

But he appealed, and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that because crow dog was an Indian, the Dakota Territory had no jurisdiction over him. In fact, the ruling went, tribes, like the Sioux, retained exclusive jurisdiction over their own affairs.

According to Sioux custom, crow dog’s punishment was having to make a payment, so-called “blood money” to his victim’s family. There was a public outcry, and in 1885, largely in response to the crow dog case, congress passed the “Major Crimes Act.”

Major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country would now have to be tried in federal court, meaning Native Americans would be subject to American style justice. Ironically, the DENVER POST’s Michael Riley would show, the result has been just the opposite. He found an example in the story of a 12-year old To’hajiilee girl who had been babysitting for a neighbor.

Racquel Hurley Vernon took her into the conference room. And they spoke for a long time. Vernon came back out. He told me, “Racquel, call the criminal investigator. We have a sexual abuse case that needs to be investigated.”

SYLVIA CHASE: But no one came that day. Or the next day. The girl’s mother wondered when investigators would come.

RACQUEL HURLEY: And she would call every, like maybe every other day wanting to know what was going on. And it got frustrating because I didn’t know what to tell her.

MICHAEL RILEY: Almost a year later, neither she nor her daughter had been interviewed, either by the tribal police or by the FBI; the case just wasn’t going anywhere. As far as we know, all there was a police report and then nothing.

SYLVIA CHASE: The mother would tell Riley, “It’s hard for me to explain to her why nothing is happening. If this had happened in Albuquerque something would have been done.”

MICHAEL RILEY: For almost a year, the 12-year old stayed virtually locked up in her house, her personality turned very dark, from being a pretty vivacious child; and from her bedroom, you could see the house of the neighbor where all these assaults allegedly occurred.

SYLVIA CHASE: The failure to investigate an alleged child molester still troubles Racquel Hurley, not just as a prosecutor’s assistant, but as a neighbor.

RACQUEL HURLEY: You can see his house from my house and I don’t ever let my son ride his bike up there, it’s really disturbing to know that somebody that did that to a child is still free.

SYLVIA CHASE: During his investigation, Riley would hear similar stories over and over again in Indian country. To’hajiilee resident Ben Francisco was brutally assaulted in 2007. He suffered a fractured cheekbone and chips off his vertebrae. When he spoke with Exposé, chewing and speaking were still painful for him.

BEN FRANCISCO: I remember somebody pulling me out of the vehicle, then hitting me with a bat, then after that that was it, I don’t remember nothing after that. My cheekbone was broken, so they told me that they needed to put some plates in there.

DOLLY FRANCISCO: We were told that it was gonna to be in the FBI’s hand. But nothing have been said or come by at the house yet. Nothing.

BEN FRANCISCO: They don’t get things done the way they do in places, in the cities and other places. Nobody did nothing about it. After a year passed I just gave up on it.

SYLVIA CHASE: The DENVER POST would learn that in the past decade Congress has actually increased the FBI’s Indian country funds. Between 1998 and 2004, Congress “more than doubled the agency’s budget” for Indian country investigations. The increase included money for 30 new agents who “would focus solely on reservation crime.”

In a written statement, the Bureau told the paper it did assign 30 new agents in fiscal year 1999, but after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, “staffing levels changed.” By late 2007, the “Post” would report, the number of agents had increased by only 12.

On some reservations the Bureau of Indian Affairs or tribal police have the authority to investigate felonies along with the FBI.

But no matter who investigates, the case is handed over to a federal prosecutor. As he was digging further into the story, Michael Riley would learn that’s where the process can break down again.

MICHAEL RILEY: It became pretty clear, pretty fast that there was a large failure on the part of the federal government to prosecute many, many serious crimes on reservations. Our first task was to try and come up with some statistics about the rate at which they declined cases, ’cause we heard over and over again that U. S. attorneys typically just decline large percentages of cases. The first thing we were told by the Justice Department is that those statistics aren’t kept; and it turns out, in fact, they are kept, they’re just not published.

SYLVIA CHASE: Unable to get the rate from the Department of Justice, the DENVER POST team set out to crunch the numbers itself.

The POST got Department of Justice data from a Syracuse University Research Center which had obtained it through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The paper cross-referenced that information with crime data from the FBI, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Research librarian Barry Osborne helped create the post’s database. It showed how many felonies had been reported and/or investigated, and how many of those cases U.S. attorneys had declined to prosecute.

BARRY OSBORNE: In this case we had to do a lot of due diligence and checking and double checking and triple checking.

You go row after row, hundreds of rows, manslaughter, manslaughter, murder, murder, murder. These are hundreds of individual lives and it’s sometimes stark just to see that just in text, in these little boxes and brackets, but from that you start to see just some patterns emerging. And here we have declination after declination.

CHUCK MURPHY: 65% of the complaints that are filed are just rejected out of hand by federal prosecutors. That’s an astounding number. What would we do if the district attorney for Denver, if we learned that he was declining 65% of cases? Well, it would be an outrage, it would be enough to send the citizenry into the streets.

SYLVIA CHASE: Sometimes there are good reasons why attorneys refuse to bring a case in Indian country, according to Troy Eid.

TROY EID: You gotta look at what is actually brought to the prosecutor in terms of a case that provides a viable prosecution. We, ethically, can’t do anything that is not brought to us that establishes probable cause in a court. So, if we don’t get a quality investigation, you know we’re not gonna be able to do anything.

SYLVIA CHASE: Quality investigations can be hard to come by for several reasons.

MICHAEL RILEY: It’s a triage situation where the FBI has a certain amount of resources, so they depend on the tribal police investigators to do a lot of the investigation, which creates some problems because the tribal investigators are not as well trained, often make mistakes. They can contaminate evidence. It creates a problem for the U. S. attorneys, who will complain that many of the cases they receive simply are poorly investigated and part of it has to do with that combination between the duties of tribal police and the FBI and how those are split.

SYLVIA CHASE: For all those investigative limitations, the paper’s Chuck Murphy notes, several former prosecutors told the post that the problem often lies with the prosecutors themselves.

CHUCK MURPHY: There are a handful of assistant U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys who are really committed to working these cases. But I think a lot of times it’s just, “Don’t bother me with this.”

SYLVIA CHASE: Former U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara said: “I’ve had [Assistant U.S. Attorneys] look right at me and say, ‘I did not sign up for this’… they want to do big drug cases, white-collar crime and conspiracy.”

CHUCK MURPHY: These are prosecutors with first-rate law degrees, exceptionally smart people, men and women who have gone into the Justice Department who didn’t think they would be prosecuting rapes. They are there to take on Enron. They are interested in going after white-collar crimes, and the Gambino family. And suddenly, this whole other part of American jurisprudence from the Indian reservations gets dumped on their desk, and they don’t wanna deal with it.

SYLVIA CHASE: The tribal prosecutors told the “Post” they often aren’t even informed of the U.S. attorneys’ decisions to decline cases.

VERNON ROANHORSE: We don’t get the declinations that we should have from the federal government. And all these cases are in limbo. We have cases that have been pending with their office like, three-to-five years.

SYLVIA CHASE: If a tribal prosecutor, like Vernon Roanhorse, is officially informed of a declination, he can lower a felony charge – like murder or rape – to that of a misdemeanor and bring the case before a tribal court. But to Troy Eid, the Colorado U.S. attorney, that option just adds insult to injury.

TROY EID: On the federal side, we can prosecute all the way up – in fact, if it’s homicide we can seek the death penalty. But, if it’s a tribal government that prosecutes, the most they’re allowed to seek is a year in jail, and a $5,000.00 fine. Congress does not let them seek anything above that ceiling.

SYLVIA CHASE: After a six-month investigation examining dozens of cases from more than 20 reservations, Michael Riley published a four-part series called “Lawless Lands.” It would reveal that a shocking number of crimes simply go unpunished in Indian country.

In a recent three-year period, U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute over half of the serious assault cases brought before them, almost half the murder and manslaughter cases , and over 70 percent of child sexual abuse cases.

The most recently available FBI arrest numbers are just as staggering. In fiscal 2006, on reservations where the federal government handles felony prosecution, 658 rapes were reported, only 7% led to arrest. For aggravated assault, the figure drops to less than 4%.

Lesser crimes are “virtually ignored altogether.” Of 4,565 burglary cases just 16 were referred for prosecution.

MICHAEL RILEY: The overall result is that this system of justice functions very, very badly, to the extent that many Native Americans just don’t expect it to work at all.

MARLENE WALKER: It makes you sad – kind of makes you feel like Native Americans don’t deserve justice. So, it’s kinda hurtful to see all those cases that are pretty much put on the back-burner, so. And I hope everyone gets their day in court, too.

SYLVIA CHASE: Marlene Walker did get a day in court. Her son, Arthur Schobey, recall, had been killed by Leonard Apachito, a man who had eluded justice after committing a brutal crime on the reservation, months earlier. But the Schobey murder happened in Albuquerque, where local police, not the feds, had jurisdiction.

MICHAEL RILEY:The Albuquerque police, after a year long investigation, in which they left practically no stone unturned to find Leonard, eventually tracked him down.

SGT. LIZ GRIEGO: He was living in Albuquerque at the time, which was good for us, so I grabbed my partner, we went up there, knocked on the door, he came to the door and I said we were investigating an incident that occurred, and he looked at me, and I said, “you know why I’m here?” And he said, “Yes.”

Leonard Apachito was arrested, tried and convicted in New Mexico State Court of manslaughter in the killing of Marlene Walker’s son, Arthur Schobey.

For his crime, he was sentenced to six years. The punishment could have been more severe if he had already been a convicted felon. But he was never even arrested, let alone tried, for slashing his cousin’s throat on the reservation. Michael Riley says everything could have been different.

MICHAEL RILEY: Had the FBI arrested Leonard Apachito within that four months, he would have been in jail and he wouldn’t have been in Albuquerque and Arthur Schobey would still be alive.

RACQUEL HURLEY: There’s no justice out here. And I feel for the victims. I feel, my, it breaks my heart to know that nobody cares.

CHUCK MURPHY:Indians are not getting the same justice system that you or I get in Denver, or in New York, or in Boston, or Kansas City, or anywhere else. That, to me, is the most egregious element of this. Is that an entire class of people, based on where they live, is not getting the same services that you and I get.

Joe Biden and Violence Against Women Act

Hitting Can Have Serious Consequenses!

Dunseith Woman Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

MINOT – United States Attorney Drew H. Wrigley announced that on September 12, 2008, Chelsey P. Amyotte, 18, of Dunseith, North Dakota, was found guilty by a federal jury on charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. United States District Court Chief Judge Daniel L. Hovland presided over the case.

On November 4, 2007, in East Dunseith Housing, Amyotte and co-defendant Justin R. Beston argued with and assaulted 49-year-old Danielle Baker. Amyotte and Beston struck the victim in the head and face with their fists. The victim died as a result of the assault and an autopsy indicated that she suffered a torn vertebral artery and severed brain stem.

Beston, 28, of Dunseith, North Dakota, pleaded guilty to second degree murder on August 28, 2008. The charge of second degree murder carries a statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

In Amyotte’s case, the charge of involuntary manslaughter carries a statutory maximum penalty of six years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. The charge of assault resulting in serious bodily injury carries a statutory maximum penalty of ten years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Indian Affairs – Turtle Mountain Agency.

Sentencing for Amyotte and Beston has been scheduled for December 1, 2008, in United States District Court in Minot, North Dakota.

Assistant United States Attorneys David Hagler and Brandi Sasse Russell are prosecuting the case.

Bullying What Is It?

This is a link to poems about bullying. http://circle.nypo.org/bully.html

If your tired of being bullied and want to make a difference this is a great site.

Bullying is not always easy to define. However, experts in the field of the prevention of bullying, says that bullying includes: Physical: Pushing, kicking, hitting, pinching and other forms of violence or threats. Verbal: Name-calling, sarcasm, spreading rumors, persistent teasing. Emotional: Excluding (sending to Coventry), tormenting, ridicule, humiliation. Racist: Racial taunts, graffiti, gestures. Sexual: Unwanted physical contact or abusive comments.

Emotional bullying, like ridicule and exclusion, seems to be more common than physical violence and it can also be the most difficult type of bullying to cope with or prove.

Persistent bullying can result in:
Depression – This may affect the individuals level of concentration as it involves the brain and can cause numerous problems. Low self-esteem – Where one tend to de-grade themselves as a result of being bullied. Shyness – Here individuals are embarrassed to express themselves. Poor academic achievement – Fair of attending school, which may affect individuals academic progress. Isolation – Been abandon by friends as a result of them been afraid of been bullied too. Threatened or attempted suicide – Where one feel like their is no need to carry on living.

More info for Teen Dating Violence

National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline: 1-866-331-9474 (1-866-331-8453 TTY) available 24/7 or connect with a trained Peer Advocate online at www.loveisrespect.org from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. daily (CST).