|
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
     Location: Oklahoma | My friend said she heard on the news that Oklahoma is getting more Indian land??? Or something bout more of the state will be Indian Reservation. Does anyone know what this means? Is this a good thing? |
|
|
|
Expert
Posts: 1681
     
| Channel 2 shared the following news article, however, it says nothing about getting land. https://www.kjrh.com/news/national/supreme-court-rules-that-much-of-eastern-oklahoma-is-native-american-land?fbclid=IwAR1HZN39lY9kFk8tvdPJwOpQ52ZzYNliqEW3d10bDaNbgUKaPs-6-4RqB_4 |
|
|
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
     Location: Oklahoma |
I dont mean getting more land litterally but more of the state will be indian territory. thanks |
|
|
|
     Location: Not Where I Want to Be | Turnburnsis - 2020-07-09 4:56 PM
I dont mean getting more land litterally but more of the state will be indian territory. thanks
can you explain to me in really simple terms how more is not more? |
|
|
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
     Location: Oklahoma | 1DSoon - 2020-07-09 4:18 PM
Turnburnsis - 2020-07-09 4:56 PM
I dont mean getting more land litterally but more of the state will be indian territory. thanks
can you explain to me in really simple terms how more is not more?
I know you are being sarcastic--- Not all of Oklahoma is Indian Territory. So I was asking if they made Oklahoma with more Indian Territory. Or what is the new deal with Indian Territory in Oklahoma. You know, I dont always word things the best... my bad! But by the article that was posted earlier looks like its a loop hole for someone... and nothing bout Oklahoma having more indian territory. So I wonder if someone got it wrong or if there 2 different things going on |
|
|
|
  Friendly horse swapper
Posts: 4122
   Location: Buffalo, TX | I haven't posted in a really loooong time, but saw this post and I did listen to the news this morning when they talked about the supreme court decision involving the indian land. It started when Jimcy McGirt, a Creek indian, was convicted of child molestation in a Tulsa court. He was sentenced to 500 years and appealed the sentence saying he should not have been tried in an Oklahoma court since they were "technically" on indian land. The supreme court ruled that the Creek nation was assigned the land in 1866 that encompassed most of Tulsa. Oklahoma wanted the conviction to stand, but he has to be retried in federal court. The Creeks founded Tulsa and they work well with the Tulsa police, so nothing new to see here. |
|
|
|
Expert
Posts: 1409
     Location: Oklahoma | Cindy Hamilton - 2020-07-09 5:25 PM
I haven't posted in a really loooong time, but saw this post and I did listen to the news this morning when they talked about the supreme court decision involving the indian land. It started when Jimcy McGirt, a Creek indian, was convicted of child molestation in a Tulsa court. He was sentenced to 500 years and appealed the sentence saying he should not have been tried in an Oklahoma court since they were "technically" on indian land. The supreme court ruled that the Creek nation was assigned the land in 1866 that encompassed most of Tulsa. Oklahoma wanted the conviction to stand, but he has to be retried in federal court. The Creeks founded Tulsa and they work well with the Tulsa police, so nothing new to see here.
Thank you! Im not surprised that they are using that as an excuse. |
|
|
|
  Friendly horse swapper
Posts: 4122
   Location: Buffalo, TX | Turnburnsis - 2020-07-09 6:24 PM
Cindy Hamilton - 2020-07-09 5:25 PM
I haven't posted in a really loooong time, but saw this post and I did listen to the news this morning when they talked about the supreme court decision involving the indian land. It started when Jimcy McGirt, a Creek indian, was convicted of child molestation in a Tulsa court. He was sentenced to 500 years and appealed the sentence saying he should not have been tried in an Oklahoma court since they were "technically" on indian land. The supreme court ruled that the Creek nation was assigned the land in 1866 that encompassed most of Tulsa. Oklahoma wanted the conviction to stand, but he has to be retried in federal court. The Creeks founded Tulsa and they work well with the Tulsa police, so nothing new to see here.
Thank you! Im not surprised that they are using that as an excuse.
The bad part is that there have been a lot of convictions over the years of indians in state courts that may have to be retried...what a mess! |
|
|
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 684
     Location: Oklahoma | Cindy Hamilton - 2020-07-10 11:40 AM
Turnburnsis - 2020-07-09 6:24 PM
Cindy Hamilton - 2020-07-09 5:25 PM
I haven't posted in a really loooong time, but saw this post and I did listen to the news this morning when they talked about the supreme court decision involving the indian land. It started when Jimcy McGirt, a Creek indian, was convicted of child molestation in a Tulsa court. He was sentenced to 500 years and appealed the sentence saying he should not have been tried in an Oklahoma court since they were "technically" on indian land. The supreme court ruled that the Creek nation was assigned the land in 1866 that encompassed most of Tulsa. Oklahoma wanted the conviction to stand, but he has to be retried in federal court. The Creeks founded Tulsa and they work well with the Tulsa police, so nothing new to see here.
Thank you! Im not surprised that they are using that as an excuse.
The bad part is that there have been a lot of convictions over the years of indians in state courts that may have to be retried...what a mess!
This is a hot topic in Oklahoma right now within the prison system. There are talks of US Marshals looking at bedspace in the state for this very reason. Its still really early from the Supreme Court ruleing, but it is likely that a lot of inmates whom were convicted on the state level will be reassigned and re-tried on the federal level. |
|
|