Years have past since I last looked in on the on going "Drama" and it is Deja Vu all over again. Just wait long enough and history repeats it self. But only if you don't know the history to learn from it.

I, as I am sure many Caddos were shocked by the news letter that came to us in the mail recently. I said "WOW" La Rue" has gotten the tribe together and are now in the 21st century. Great Stuff.

"NO" just more smoke from her camp. Sounds just like all the other "POLITICIAN" out of Washington who will say anything or do anything to get what they want. Coupled with questionable integrity and moral character. Never tacking responsibility for their own actions while taking credit for all the hard and honest work of our real Caddo heros.

The Council5 and the current Council appear to want the samething, real, honest government for the Caddo people.

I hope we all rally around the Council and the many good people of the Caddo tribe and support them in their quest for the CADDO WAY.

I understand that our Chairman told the council there is a petition with 50 signatures to overturn their decision to remove Joyce so she is suspending their vote to remove Hinse. Now, I am not sure what Constitution she is reading but it is certainly not the one she swore by oath to uphold.
There is not a provision any where in our Constitution which gives the Chairman the almighty authority. I knew they would try to pull something but this is so obviously against the Constitution . What is it between the two , what makes people ignore what people have fought years to protect ? Makes me wonder just exactly what is going on that they do not want us to find out , or it is because LaRue can not function without Joyce telling her what to do, or typing her letters, what ?
Bottom line, the council has voted to remove Joyce Hinse today, today is a good day for the people of the Caddo Nation. Regardless of what the Chairman has said, there is no suspension of the vote , Joyce is gone as the Vice-Chairman.

You are correct, Joyce is outta there! The Chairwoman can say whatever she wants to say but if it doesn't jive with our constitution it is not going to stick. She can appoint herself the "Supreme Ruler of the Caddo Nation" but that doesn't mean it is true nor will it hold up against our governing documents. Can these people READ and COMPREHEND our constitution?

L-A-M-E but expected from that group.

Does anyone know what the removal of joyce hines was based on. I guess, like, what was she "charged" with...so to speak??? I apologize if I missed that somewhere else. I just hope it was done right so not to come back and bite 'em. One down council...one to go!!! Good Work!!!

The "COUNCIL 50" is the latest in the LaRue saga to unfold in this episode of "The Buffalo Turns".
It has been many moons since I have read the Caddo Constitution but if memory serves me in my senior momment, there is something about a minimum of 50 signatures on a petition to challenge an act of the council. Beter check this out. La Rue be doo may have something there. Does anyone remember the last time she used this tactic ot change smoething the council did????

1st Council doesn't have the power to remove Hinse unless a recall comes from the people. Read Article V of the constitution that tells you what power the council does have.

2nd, Section 3 of article V gives all power not given to council (or the chairperson) to the membership.

3rd, Article XII is RECALL AND REMOVAL: The Constitution states what must be done. It requires the creation of an ordinance - but the ordinance cannot give power to council that the Constitution doesn't (that's where this action fails). Section 2 is the Recall - done by the people via petition. Only after those steps are done do you get to the Removal in section 3 which must be done in accordance with section 1.

4th, Article IX - Initiative and Referendum, Section 2. "The members of the Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Shall have the power to reject any action of the Tribal Council by petition to the Tribal Council ... of at least fifty (50) of the registered voters..."

Duh - Tired. Makes you wonder if this isn't the election board member who kept saying at the memership meeting, No, but I'm not stupid!!! There is a vast difference between the recall and removal.Yes, the membership does a recall, with a petition of 50 good signatures. Yes Article V says Powers of the Tribal Council.

And yes, Article V, Sec 3 states all authority not vest in the Tribal council is reserved to the membership. Yes.

Yes, Article XII Recall and Removal. Yes it does require creation of an ordinance and no, another one of those but I'm not dumb. There is a recall section which must be done by either a petition or by charges to the hearing board. Must be a valid petition signed by at least 50 registered voters, then the Chairman will call and condut a special meeting of the membership, within 15 days to consider the recall of a member of the tribal council.

Here is where the bright part comes in that you don't seem to get. Sec. 3 Removal - The Tribal Council shall be empowered to remove a member of that body from office in accordance with the criteria and procedures provide in the ordinance enacted pursuant to Section 1 of this article. Such action must be taken at a special tribal council meeting called for that purpose. THIS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, READ IT!!!
Then ramble??? If you can't read it and understand what it is saying, feel sorry for you. Think that most certainly puts you as a Parker follower. She can't either obviously.

Now Tired, on the next one, Article IX, you are most cerainly generating. Got it right. Partly. Right on on referendum, get those 50 signatures and fire away. Worth a try. Initiative, now think this one, with 50 signatures allows the membership the power to establish policy or enact ordinances consistent with the constition.

Right on, youu are batting about 30.

Hi Bullgoggie, why the supercilious attude?

Why the sarcasum?

You can make your point without being mean.

Loose the attack mode!

Can you say woof?

Wasn't the original Bulldog that little guy who pitched for the Dodgers?

Have a nice day. XOXOXO

Bulldog, if your logic (or lack thereof) were to prevail, any majority on council could remove (for no reason) any elected official. That would in fact nulify the vote of the membership. That power is not given to council under Article V for very good reason. I'm not a Larue follower, but I am an expert on constitutional law.

What you and some members of council ignore are the caveats to the authority given to them through the constitution (the ruling document). Their power in section 1 is subject to "any restriction contained in Federal or State laws {as distasteful as that is to Tribal governments}, and subject to the approval of the membership.

So section 1(a) through (f) doesn't give them any removal power does it? If it did, it'd still be subject to the caveats.

Section 2. power they can exercise on its own "subject to any restrictions contained in Federal or State Laws." Section 2(a) thruogh (q) does not give them any removal power.

Again we come to good old Section 3. Reserve Power. "ALL AUTHORITY NOT VESTED NI THE TRIBAL COUNCIL BY THIS ARTICLE" you ought to read that several times...is reserved to the membership - as it should be.

Article XII Section one tells Tribal Council to enact an ordinance outlining proceedures PURSUANT to section 2(a) (another petition of 50 signatures).

Section 3 Removal, where you'd like to hang your hat says it must be done pursuant to Section 1 (which says the ordinance must be done pursuant to Section 2).

All that is happening here is hate mongering for whatever purposes someone may have. Neither side is currently following the Constitution. The membership alone has the power to recall and then have council remove an elected offical. The membership alone has the power to undue ANY action of council. That's how it's written, that's how it should be.

Now you can feel free to spin away.

Tired, how did the council remove the former council 5 and at a later date, Jeri Redcorn?

Answer: The same way Ms. Hinse was removed.

I'm all for the membership having the "power" but why should Ms. Hinse's removal be treated any different from the previous removals. That's the problem we have within our tribal gov't. - DOUBLE STANDARDS. The same standards should be applied to all groups - you solve that problem, then you are on to something.

Petitions are a dime a dozen and either faction can easily get 50+ signatures to overturn anything - but will this be in the best interest of the tribe or will it put us at a stand still, again? Petitions will tie us up for months so that means no casino money, no progress and we are back to square one.

Jen, you'll notice that I said "neither" faction follows the Constitution. I've never said that previous removals were done correctly.

Little Kitty and Tired, sorry. Agree the constitution does this and that, needs revising but right now it is what we have to follow. There is a removal part and to this point it can be done and is, has been used several times sine Ms. Parker has been in there. Basically think the reasons for removla seem to be picked out of the air when it was written. But it exists. Agree with you my comments were very smart alec. One of those days I guess. I apologize.

I got the part about following/not following the constitution but now precedence has been set by the very council of which Ms. Hinse was a member. She was part of these removals and now expects to be held to different standards. If the previous removals were done incorrectly then everyone removed should have a grievance but they don't according to the BIA's promotion of tribal self governance.

I'm really at a loss on this subject because logic is missing from this whole situation.

Tired, how about this one? At the removal meeting the vote was 5 for removal, 2 against. Ms. Parker read the count, stated there was a petition and said "I am suspending the vote on Hinse removal" Can you explain that one? Not being smart, asking.

Please read the Recall and Removal Ordinance

Buldog: not sure exactly what you're asking. If she received a petition, the process stops, petition is validated by the election board (either they're voters or they're not), then the process continues.

Teresa: No ordinance can give power to council that it doesn't have via the constitution - unless of course the membership gives it to them. You have a Recall "AND" Removal ordinance, not a Recall OR Removal ordinance. Council MUST follow the steps provided in the constitution for their actions to be valid - as I understand what's been written and said, they did not. They conducted a removal on charges that THEY brough against Hinse. I heard one of the charges, as rediculous as this may sound, was: Failing to vote along with the majority. Now you don't have to be a legal scholar to recognize how rediculous that charge is. Why would you elect representatives if they could be removed for not voting with the majority? Stupid!

They were not handed a petition, just told that one would be coming, that's not enough to stop the process.

Tired, am not asking you anything. Yeah, guess I am. I am curious why and how you know so much about the caddo tribe and its business????? Makes one think you were an employee there. Also am not so sure yu are a constitution expert. Seems to be more of a picker and someone who wants to control the thoughts of all who respond. Actually, am not impressed with your disecting and response to those Caddo people who read, write and respond to questions concerning "our" documents. No, am not impressed. We will continue to operate under our constitution. Am curious, comments seem very close to home.

As in home do you mean Mustang, OK where the Mrs. is running the show?

Tired, you are not an expert in Constitutional law, there is an ordinance and a vast difference between recall and removal. Simply because a petition has been submitted does not cause the action to stop, the petition would be to reverse their decision, so if it stops there is nothing to reverse.
In addition, we are all familiar with " subject to federal and state laws" within our constitution , we are also familiar with roberts rules of order , Parker and co. have REMOVED several members, and now since one of them has been removed they find the removal ordinance does not apply to them. Funny, I thought the Constitution was for the Caddo Nation, am not familiar with any article or section which states Under Article ---, Section-- the Constitution and By-Laws of the Caddo Nation are not applicable to LaRue Parker and Joyce Hinse. Since you are a self proclaimed expert on constitutional law, be so kind as to reference that section

This isn't about who I am, other than I'm not who you think I am and yes I know a lot about the business of the tribe. But that has nothing to do with this does it?

The authority of council is enumerated in the constitution.

No ordinance can give them authority that the constitution didn't.

None of this matters because there's no forum (like a tribal court) to adjudicate it. So everyone just does what they want.

Tired, how do you know who we think you are, if you aren't who we think you are you wouldn't know who we think you are without being who we think you are so you must be who we think you are.
Oh and by the way the Constitution states the council shall enact an ordinance.

Bitsi, very good. Cute! How about this....How do you know who we think you are if you say you aren't who we think you are then who do you think we think you are.

Come on Tired, not to be a nag but answer Itsie. You claimed to know it all, what article/section

Because I know who the two gentlemen that live in Mustang that you could be referring to.

The Constitution applies to all of council and the chairperson. I've never inferred otherwise. I've also never claimed to "know it all." What I do know is no ordinance can supercede the constitutioni. That's a fairly simple issue.

Tired, that last post, Hey, you sound like an expert on constitutional law. HA HA HA HA all the way to the bank. Why don't we just give this up. It is our constitution and we will live by it and with it. When we want it disected an thrown at us we will ask an expert. And it is not the Council and Chairman. The Chairman is one of the Council. We are all elected.............

"We are all elected............. "

So I'm going to assume that statement means you're one of the elected.

You are all elected, but your constitutional authority is different - hence the distiction in my post. Among the differences between you and I, I don't have a side. Your post is self serving.

I have been elected, I have been removed, I have had jobs, I have lost jobs, never fired, but I am still Caddo. Obviously your day doesnt have anything to keep you busy but getting on here rowling up people, and you have. I would say get a life and/or job, if you can. Quit trying to interpret something you can't, you do not have the expertise, my guess, and most certainly it is none of your business. This will be my last response to your attempts to sound like you got it together.

Most if not all understands an ordinance does not over ride the Constitution, it is however a governing document by which we are to follow to carry out the laws of the Constitution, it does states the council shall enact.
The problem is that some of this council and most certainly the Chairman and removed vice=chairman have used the section of the removal ordinance to remove four other council members, so they most certainly have set a precedent in their by previous actions.
Our Constitution also states we will use Roberts Rule of Order therefore the removal stands by previously accepted removal action(s) of the Council of which the Chairman presided over and the vice-chairman was in attendance.
Two councils have not been able to work with these two individuals. Council members come and council members go but the two constants have been the chair and vice chair. It is time these two bow out so the tribe can move forward. They are the common denominators in all the problems, secrets, lies, and coverups Well, Joyce is out, she needs to realize that, and accept it. If a petition is forthcoming then it will go to a vote of all the people , if they put her back in she is in but I doubt they will. From my understanding , most are happy with this action. But while petitions to overturn council actions are going around, I suggest we get several together to overturn more action of the council or I should say action of two of the council. most certainly ONNAN /True Native, afteral, the Chairman did state she was tired of messing with them and really didn't want them. So I will get started today on that one.

Itsie, as someone mentioned before, we don't have a court or any means to adjudicate our disputes so basically, whatever the majority decides will stick as it did before on the other removals. The BIA promotes tribal self-governance so I have it on good authority that they will not intervene and go against our majority, especially since the council passed that resolution to keep us out of CFR court around the time they removed Jeri (by the same method). So right or wrong the precedent has been set and accepted, so it's over. No court and no dispute resolution = Anarchy, which we have been living with for years so why try to change it now