Re: JAT -- Cherokees for Truth

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

Subject: Re: JAT

Author:
Davy Crocket

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:35:41 05/02/03 Fri
In reply to: admin 's message, "JAT" on 15:43:44 04/15/03 Tue

I believe the recent ruling by the JAT'S concerning Chad smity's residency has made a mockery out of the Cherokee Nation Judicial system. In light of this one wonders if any Cherokee can get a fair ruling from the JAT? It certainly appears that Smith is calling all the shots from the judicial bench.
We need justice and that appears to be only if the JAT'S are elected on a 2 or 4 year term, but not longer. >
JUSTICE FOR ALL??????????????????????????????
>
>Have you read the JAT's ruling on the Smith Residency
>hearing? They said it was proved that Smith had 2
>residences and yet they said he could run for office?
>I researched the Cherokee Law. The statutes state a
>candidate must have a 'bona fide permanent residence'
>within the historic boundries of the Cherokee Nation.
>The statutes also state 'residence is synonomous with
>domicile' which means residence is defined the same as
>domicile. You can only have one domicile and cannot
>establish a new one unless you abandon the first
>domicile.
>
>Since Smith has domicile in Sapulpa long before he
>rented his apartment in Tahlequah and he still, by his
>own testimony, goes back to the Sapulpa residence
>regularly to be with his wife and children I don't see
>how the JAT could rule the way they did.
>
>This is a good example of why our Justices should be
>elected and not appointed by the Chief!
>
>What did you think you were voting for when the
>question came up on the ballot to require the Chief
>and Deputy Chief live in the Juristictional Boundries?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]