This is “Part 1” concerning “DAPL was illegally approved through acts of EXTORTION“.
Everything throughout this page and each additional section of the “illegal approval process” is available in both downloadable PDF pages, & also via written format,, with hyperlinks to source pages for the information.
As mentioned in the aforementioned PDF, the above policy is
Also mentioned in the above document whoever initially instituted the above “Indian Policy”, violated:
Written version of the above PDF:
Note: Sections which are pertinent to the line of reasoning of this case are highlighted in red.
On April 25, 2005 Michael B. White, then operating under the rank of Chief Operations Officer for the Army Corps of Engineers, issued a 7 page document entitled “MEMORANDUM FOR ALL MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS, DISTRICT COMMANDS”, which may be accessed HERE:
On page one of the aforementioned document, the following is written under section 1:
“1. The Headquarters Regulatory Community of Practice of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun the process of revising its procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other cultural resource laws and Executive Orders.“
Section 4 reads:
“The purpose of this memorandum is to provide revised interim guidance concerning the consideration of historic properties during the Corps permit process, until the new permit processing procedures are finalized and become effective. This interim guidance supercedes the interim guidance issued on June 24, 2002. District engineers will continue to use 33 CFR part 325, Appendi C, with the interim guidance provided in the Enclosure.”
Page 2, section 2. of the aforementioned document reads:
“2. Consultation with Native Americans. The ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) regulations contain provisions requiring consultation with Indian Tribes, Alaska Native village or regional corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations. When an Indian Tribe has assumed the functions of the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) on tribal lands, the THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer) is the official representative for the purposes of section 106. If an Indian Tribe has not assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO on tribal lands, the district engineer will consult with a representative designated by the Indian Tribe, in addition to consulting with the SHPO. The ACHP regulations also require consultation with any Indian Tribe, Alaska Native village or regional corporation, or Native Hawaiian organization that places historic and cultural significance to historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, that may be affected by an undertaking, even if those historic properties are located on private lands. Government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes requires meaningful communications between tribal governments and district engineers. If a proposed activity may affect historic properties to which Indian Tribes attach religious and cultural significance, the district engineer will contact the Indian Tribe(s) in a manner appropriate for government-to-government consultation. Public notices alone are insufficient means to initiate government-to-government consultation. Effective government-to-government consultation requires active communication with Native Americans and considering their interests during the decision making process. Guidance for consultation with Native Americans is found in Policy Guidance Letter 57 and the 1998 Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (which are available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp/tribal/ ). Once consultation is complete, the district engineer remains the final decision authority.“
The relevance of the above MEMORANDUM to this case is explained below: a PDF of the aforementioned MEMORANDUM, with aforementioned excerpts having been highlighted, may be downloaded HERE:
On page two of the aforementioned document, the URL link which is said to lead to the “Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy” is broken, however the document may be accessed HERE:
Throughout the Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy, We, the Plaintiff, have hereby Noticed the following sections to be Arbitrary and Capricious & therefore null and void, as they appear to be implemented into the DoD’s official Policy with direct intent to abrogate Treaty obligations as ordained under The Constitution of The United States, as witnessed:
Page 1, (d): “There is no obligation to consult with tribes in advance of a proposal that ‘may have the potential to significantly affect’ tribal interests.”
Page 2, (e): “The phrase ‘protected tribal resources, tribal rights, or Indian lands,’ which appears throughout the policy, works in conjunction with the ‘may have the potential to significantly affect’ trigger to determine when DoD must consult with tribes.” … “[Note also, that individual rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, generally have a right to engage in nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish, wildlife, and other wild, renewable resources on public lands in Alaska. While this right is not a tribal right per se, installations nonetheless may find it both convenient and beneficial to consult with the appropriate Alaska Native entity whenever a proposed DoD action may have the potential to adversely affect the subsistence activities of several members of the same village or tribe.]”
Page 2 (f): “With respect to Alaska, the term “Indian Lands” does not include lands held by Alaska Native Corporations or lands conveyed in fee to an Indian Reorganization Act entity or traditional village council; the term may include village-owned townsite lands (depending on the particular status of the village itself and upon a fact-specific inquiry into whether the area at issue qualifies as a dependent Indian community), and individual Native townsite lots and Native allotments (so long as these properties remain in either restricted fee or trust allotment form).”
Page 4, powerpoint 6: “(Build stable & enduring relationships with tribes by:) Taking appropriate steps to remove any procedural or regulatory impediments to DoD working directly and effectively with tribes on activities that may have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights, and Indian lands”
Definition of impediment: “a hindrance or obstruction in doing something”
Page 4 (l): “Keep in mind that many tribes have relatively few enrolled members and only a limited staff to respond to your requests. This being the case, coordinate your requests for information with other federal agencies whenever doing so may reduce the administrative burden on the affected tribe.” Note: As in, “there is no need to consult with less populated tribes even when projects under consideration by the DoD may adversely affect the tribe”: discrimination.
Page 5, powerpoint 1: “Recognizing that there exists a unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and the tribes that mandates that, whenever DoD actions may have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights, or Indian lands, DoD must provide affected tribes an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process that will ensure these tribal interests are given due consideration in a manner consistent with tribal sovereign authority (m); ‘Consultation’ can vary from simple notice of a pending action…”
Note: By definition, “Notice of a pending action” is not a “consultation”!
Screenshot of the signature at the bottom of the “MEMORANDUM”, signed by “Michael B. White“:
Photos of Michael B. White: (far left)
Photo caption: “Joe Woods (second from left), winner of the ARC Legends Award for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, receives his award from (left to right) Mike White, Chief of Operations for the Corps, George Tabb, Chief of the Corps’ Natural Resources Management Branch, and ARC President Derrick Crandall.”
Although we’re not sure yet exactly who wrote the 1998 DoD American Indian & Alaska Native Policy, we do know that the wholly illegal policy is not only Arbitrary & Capricious, but it is also subversive and seditious: directly in violation to
On 11-28-2016, the following Freedom of Information Act request was issued to the Department of Defense via the following email address: email@example.com: