After studying this more I no longer support the way the ICWA law is currently written...I support the ICWA's original intention but not the way it is being mis used.

If anyone has been following the Baby Veronica case then they should already have some understanding about the issue.

Here is a good video to get a good understanding...it is about 1 hr long. We need to spread word about why this law needs to be amended then after we get the word out to enough people....we can start petitions on Sept 1st 2013 to try and get the required 100,000 signatures that is required for the Obama administration to address the issue. Last time the petitions received 20,000 signatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVkRO3jZPk

People can also check out

www.SaveVeronica.org and learn more about the Baby Veronica case.



We should also be aware that under the ORIGINAL Cherokee constitution people who are not married would be unable to use Cherokee rights aka the ICWA law.


Constitution of the Cherokee Nation
'September 6, 1839'
Sec. 5
The descendants of Cherokee men by free women, whose parents may have been living together as "MAN AND WIFE" according to the customs and laws of this Nation, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of this Nation.
Done in convention at Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation, this sixth day of September, 1839, George Lowrey, President of the National Convention.


Another thing we should be aware of is "ICWA sets federal requirements that apply to state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child who is a member of or eligible for membership in a federally recognized tribe." Keyword here is "ELIGIBLE".....since the Cherokee nation "Of Oklahoma" has no blood requirement....it means ANYONE (member or not) who has at least 1 ancestor on the flawed "Dawes" rolls can have their parental rights taken by the Cherokee nation "of Oklahoma". the child, both parents, all grand parents could have never ever been a enrolled member of the tribe or ever lived anywhere near the tribe could still be subject to this even if they never knew a thing about their ancestors. Your grandparents could of been born in Alaska...you and your parents lived whole life in Alaska....never heard of the Dawes rolls before....then you have a child and the Cherokee nation "of Oklahoma" could litterally step in and remove your parental rights and have your child brought to Oklahoma. This was NEVER the intention of the ICWA law yet people are misusing it for this purpose.


Now the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma is a "newly" formed tribe, it is only about 36 years old (formed in 1976 by Ross Swimmer). It is NOT the ORIGINAL Cherokee Nation. However they use a roll that was created in the late 1800's as their "ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT". What this means is your family and ancestors could have NEVER EVER been associated with this tribe yet this tribe can take your parental rights.

To get a better understanding about how dangerous this law can be....tribes themself get to decide their "ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT", As we know the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma has used that right when they took out Indian blood amount requirement. There is over 554 Federally recognized tribes in America, if just 1 of those tribes was to say...ok we are going to change our "ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT" so that any American citizen can join....then every American citizen could have their kids governed by that tribe under the ICWA's current status.

Last edited by Melungeon on Aug-13-2013 at 08:42

This girl's tan skin does NOT come from native american blood...it comes from her Latino mother. The girl is only 1/265th indian and the rest of her is white and latino yet the Cherokee nation of Oklahoma is trying to say the 264th white and latino blood does not matter.

Why is there no amber alert or kidnapping charges etc on this case so far?

Anyone else did this and there would be amber alerts everywhere


"On Friday evening, Dusten Brown, Veronica's biological father, became a wanted man on felony charges of custodial interference after a Charleston County arrest warrant was issued by the sheriff's office. When Brown didn't turn himself in on Sunday morning near Camp Dodge outside Des Moines, Iowa, where he was stationed for National Guard duty, local officials began coordinating with Oklahoma authorities to take Brown into custody. Later Sunday, Brown obtained clearance to leave his post in Iowa to return to Oklahoma for an emergency tribal meeting this morning at 10 a.m. The Post and Courier says tribal officials are "expected to be favorable to his pleas" during the hearing, which is closed to the public. In front of a neighborhood gazebo near the Capobiancos house this morning, Matt and Melanie issued a plea to law enforcement involved in the case, asking "Where are you?" wiping away tears as they explained their anxiety over the girl's safety, saying their daughter "has been kidnapped." In an interview with the South Carolina Radio Network, Melanie said, "We've tried to work so hard to make this a smooth transition," saying that she thought the Browns were "using our kindness against us." Via an emailed statement this morning, the Capobiancos' spokesperson Jessica Munday called it "outrageous that nothing is being done to bring this child home to her legal parents" after two and a half days, "Where's the Amber Alert?" she said. Though the Capobiancos say they are reluctant to take matters into their own hands, Matt Capobianco said today that he would fly to Oklahoma himself, lamenting efforts to abide by legal channels throughout the process over the past two years, telling his daughter, "Veronica, little stinker, daddy's coming."

It's unclear how today's tribal hearing will affect other legal proceedings, but Charleston County Sheriff's Office said Friday after the initial arrest warrant was issued that once Brown is apprehended, "the extradition process to return him to Charleston will begin."

August 12th 2013 Charleston City Newspaper

" Although Birth Father is a registered member of The Cherokee Nation, he did not live on a reservation either. He was, thus, subject to the laws of the State in which he resided (Oklahoma) and of the State where his daughter resided during the custody proceedings (South Carolina). Nothing in the Indian Commerce Clause permits Congress to enact special laws applicable to Birth Father merely because of his status as an Indian.[*2571] [fn3]Because adoption proceedings like this one involve neither "commerce" nor "Indian tribes," there is simply no constitutional basis for Congress' assertion of authority over such proceedings. Also, the notion that Congress can direct state courts to apply different rules of evidence and procedure merely because a person of Indian descent is involved raises absurd possibilities. Such plenary power would allow Congress to dictate specific rules of criminal procedure for state-court prosecutions against Indian defendants. Likewise, it would allow Congress to substitute federal law for state law when contract disputes involve Indians. But the Constitution does not grant Congress power to override state law whenever that law happens to be applied to Indians. Accordingly, application of the ICWA to these child custody proceedings [**17] would be unconstitutional. - Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas in his concurring opinion on Baby V

Really good video put out by the Save Veronica Campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featu...Q6isZO1dw#at=25

COLUMBIA — The biological mother of a girl at the center of a South Carolina adoption dispute has sued the federal government, saying a law governing the placement of Indian children is unconstitutional.

In her lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in South Carolina, Christy Maldonado asks U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for a declaration that parts of the Indian Child Welfare Act are illegal. Those measures — which include a preference for "other Indian families" over prospective non-Indian adoptive parents — should be nixed because the law uses race in determining with whom a child should live and therefore violates equal protection provisions, Maldonado argues.
" http://www.goupstate.com/article/20.../WIRE/130729812

2NEWS has learned Brown also has another daughter with a different woman.

The 10-year-old's mother, Rachael, and Dusten Brown were married in 2001. In 2005, Brown was ordered to start paying child support of $253 a month to Rachael.

According to documents obtained by the 2NEWS Investigators, Dusten Brown got behind on child support, owing more than $7,000 two and a half years later.

In those same documents, the court found Brown in contempt for not paying up.

The couple's divorce was finalized in 2008.

http://www.kjrh.com//dpp/news/local...nother-daughter