STEALING FROM INDIANS by David L. Henry (Also known as Whistleblower) Inside the Bureau of Indian Affairs an Expose of Corruption, Massive Fraud and Justice Denied Advocating Freedom for American Indians and Federal Government Reform ----- Copyright 1994 by David L. Henry All Rights Reserved CONTENTS STEALING FROM INDIANS Preface Chapter 1 Moving to Montana SECTION I THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Chapter 2 Introduction to the Bureau Chapter 3 Billings Area Office Chapter 4 BIA Agencies and Reservations Chapter 5 BIA Summary SECTION 2 WHAT I FOUND AT BIA Chapter 6 General Discoveries Chapter 7 Individual Indian Money (Trust Funds) Chapter 8 Docket #184 (Trust Funds) Chapter 9 Irrigation Projects Chapter 10 Accounting and Auditing SECTION 3 BLOWING THE WHISTLE Chapter 11 Harbinger and Warning Chapter 12 Blowing the Whistle Chapter 13 BIA Cover-up SECTION 4 APPEALS BEGIN Chapter 14 Administrative Appeals Chapter 15 U.S. Senate Investigation Chapter 16 Professional and Personal Appeals SECTION 5 INDIAN PEOPLE AND ADVENTURES Chapter 17 The Julie Matt Story Chapter 18 With the Crow People Chapter 19 Stereotypes and Bigotry Chapter 20 The Sting Chapter 21 Maker of All Things Chapter 22 Crow Campfire Chapter 23 Small Nation SECTION 6 APPEALS CONTINUE Chapter 24 The Federal Courts Chapter 25 Summary Chapter 26 The Need for Change SECTION 7 YOU CAN JOIN THIS STORY Chapter 27 Personal Justice Chapter 28 Indian Recovery (In General) Chapter 29 Crow Nation Survival Chapter 30 Federal Reform Chapter 31 Freedom and Justice APPENDIX Appendix 1 IIM Trust Accounts Appendix 2 Audit Responses Appendix 3 Radio Talk Show Appendix 4 U.S. Supreme Court Case Appendix 5 Crow Recovery Bill Appendix 6 Hobbes-Henry Act Appendix 7 Suggested Reading List PREFACE The telephone call did not prepare me for what was coming. The call came to my basement apartment in Billings, Montana, from an Indian Tribal Chairman. Chairman is the title used by the elected head of an Indian Tribe. The call was from Richard Real Bird, Chairman of the Crow Tribe. I knew who he was, although we had never met. He said he'd heard about me, and invited me to "come out and talk to a few people, and have something to eat." When I kept that date a few days later, I found several hundred people gathered on the Crow Indian Reservation to hear me speak, and was told that I was the guest of honor of Crow Nation. I described my experiences as a former employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, what I had discovered there, and how this resulted in my being fired as a whistleblower. Following a feast for those many people, I was included in a "creation" ceremony, and then the meaning of that was explained by the senior Elder present. He said that they had linked my creation with the Crow, and from that day forward I was marked as one of their own. This book will explain how that all came about, but that particular meeting is not the end of the story. It was a demarcation point, where I realized that my actions as an employee of the Bureau of Indian Affairs had a powerful effect on the lives of many thousands of people. I would widen my personal search for justice, to include them also. This search would result in personal hardships for me, and for Chairman Real Bird it would lead to a federal penitentiary. My employment with the Bureau of Indian Affairs lasted less than a year, but my struggle with that organization has continued, at last count, for some nine years. You can count on the fact that the Bureau sees me as a threat, that my words have brought strong reactions from them, and that they have done their best to discredit my testimony and keep me silent. As this story unfolds, you will find that it is not yet over, and you will be offered a role in it to determine the outcome. It's not a "virtual reality" game or entertainment, because the purpose is deadly serious, and it is a true story, not fiction. It's a first-person story about my experiences with the Bureau and with Indians, not a research project by a professional writer. I am one of the characters in this story that tells about the horror of justice denied, and the struggle of Indians for freedom and basic human rights. There is political scandal, billions of dollars are missing from Indian trust accounts, and there is a major Government cover-up. Taxpayers should be alarmed when our Government is corrupt and tax money disappears. Federal employees will cringe at another gag-rule that inhibits their honest behavior, and all citizens should be furious when the Bill of Rights is defeated by Government administrators with the assistance of our courts and federal judges, including the Supreme Court. Free speech simply doesn't exist for Federal employees, at least not where it conflicts with political greed for money and power. Your help is needed to insure simple justice, make it possible for Indians to survive, and to require the Federal Government to be responsible for its actions. That's a huge undertaking, but by working together it can be done. I will ask you to join me as an advocate for the human rights of America's Indians, and to help make the world a better place for our children. Together we can uplift humanity, and with compassion we can restore dignity to the lives of our long abused Indian brothers and sisters. After the events are described, and the facts and arguments presented, you will be invited to make your judgment known. Your decisions, along with those of other readers will be the court of last resort. You will decide the outcome of this story and the fate of the characters in it. The first chapter gives some background about myself to make it easy for you to see through my eyes. We have much to see together. My life was radically changed by this journey into Indian Country, and I believe your spirit will be touched by the story. CHAPTER 1 Moving to Montana After my wife Mary died of cancer in June, 1984 I moved to Kalispell, in a glorious valley in northwest Montana circled by high mountains, near Glacier National Park. I told friends that I selected this place out of desire to live in a beautiful, remote place near the mountains. Deep down, I was running away from death; I needed to start life over and hide my grief for a while alone, to recover strength far away from the spell of death. Mary was from the West, and we had smiled together at Montana on past vacation trips. Her spirit was there in the beauty of the mountains. If there was some lesson for me to learn from Mary's death, it was to help me know the misery that people go through, for I was to find later that Indians as a class often suffered great poverty and despair, and I was able to perhaps better comprehend their situation. Without Mary's death, maybe the story I am going to tell you would never have happened. Both of us had been lovers of horses, and the first time we met we were sharing the pleasant smells of a barn. I was a CPA in Columbus, Ohio who operated a boarding stable as a side line, and it was a second marriage for both of us. To a horseman, the Big Sky Country of Montana sounds like heaven on earth. It was the right place to go. Before leaving Ohio I had a verbal agreement to sell my home (a condominium), and contracted for the sale of my accounting practice. I hoped to live the life of an outdoorsman, and to have a horse or two to ride in the mountains with a fresh start and a new life. My children (from my first marriage) were grown and on their own. They seemed to have little need for me on a daily basis. We had become less intimate with each other through the alienation of divorce and my loss of custody (when they were children) in the days before joint custody was even thought of. There was no way to recover those lost years. Before leaving Ohio, I sold my Cadillac but kept the Jeep. Every man should have a Jeep sometime in his life. Jeep's haven't changed much in fifty years; the Army got it right the first time. I had a metal bracket made that would bolt onto the front bumper and hold the front of my canoe while the back rested on the Jeep's hardtop. With a Jeep and a canoe, I should fit right into Montana; I was already starting to look out of place in Ohio. CPA's in Ohio just don't call on their clients while driving a Jeep. I had no worries about earning a living. I had enough money coming in to live for about two years, and had brought some work to wrap-up for former clients which would take a month or two. I planned to continue with accounting, and design computer programs for CPA firms. I had vague thoughts of writing computer programming books or of work in the area of public service. It was time to question old values and make a fresh start, something that most of us do at various times of personal unrest. My financial situation looked good. Selling the house in Ohio allowed for buying another in Montana, and selling my accounting practice would provide the capital to start again as a self employed professional. Although the "Condo" had been in Mary's name, I provided the down payment, made all of the monthly payments and Mary's will left it to me with the furniture and contents. Her two daughters, Ann and Julie, were given cars, a mobile home, jewelry and other things of hers (and ours) before Mary died. Mary felt this was a fair division, I agreed with her and so did her daughters, who were present during these discussions. I would find out later that her daughters would have a change of ideas after Mary was dead, and they would not honor their mother's final wishes. In a previous trip to see my mother and brother in California soon after Mary died, I bought a cozy log home on three acres of woods in the Flathead Valley, across from forest lands with a dirt road leading into the mountains towards a remote place called Strawberry Lake. It was a dream come true, to cut my own firewood and keep a horse or two. Moving to Montana was a party. A friend of mine, Don Billman, my son Andy, and a former employee Brad Ewart were all sold on the idea. We ended up with two U-Haul trucks, one pulling a trailer and the other pulling the Jeep, plus Don driving his Volkswagen Van. This was our "adventure in moving,"and really great fun. I drove the large truck, Andy and Brad took turns driving the small one, and Don brought up the rear in his Van. We had portable C.B. radios so we could talk to each other on the road. I covered some of their out-of-pocket expenses, but these were volunteers who wanted to help me as well as be part of the adventure. They were contributing friends, not paid helpers. We traveled as cheaply as possible, sleeping at night in sleeping bags under the trucks. It was a game to see if we could get free showers at truck stops, and with Don's strong love for McDonald's, we looked for Golden Arches all the way from Ohio to Montana. A landmark stop was at the highly advertised Wall Drug Store in South Dakota, where we slept under the giant plastic model of a dinosaur. It was a good company, we had beautiful country to see, and each day was better than the previous one. We were surprised when we reached Yellowstone National Park in early October to find snow on the ground. Friends from Ohio, Donn and Gayle Griffith, have a cottage in West Yellowstone, on the edge of the park, and on impulse we phoned them back in Ohio. They guessed what we were after, and warmly offered the use of their cabin where we spent two nights. We took a break from McDonald's, and had real beds to sleep in. There was a roaring wood fire for warmth, and a place to park the trucks while we backtracked to explore Yellowstone Park. The bears were hiding, but we saw steaming geysers, elk, deer and lots of buffalo. When we pulled into Kalispell two days later, my real estate agent and good friend Jan Tow was waiting for us with a key to my new log cabin, where our crew spent about two days unloading and getting me settled. Old friends from the First Community Church "couples circle" in Ohio had sent a surprise gift, a ceiling fan for the cabin, which Don installed for me. The fan would circulate heat from the big steel wood stove. I call it a cabin, but it was a family size house with a cathedral ceiling, a sleeping loft and a porch across the front and one side. The lower floor was more than a basement because it had ten foot ceilings and most of it was finished. There were two bedrooms on the main floor, and with the loft and full basement enough room for a large family. The logs were huge, making the walls several feet thick so the sheer mass provided good insulation. There was enough roof overhang outside to shelter a winter's supply of firewood, and with my own woods there was no shortage of fuel for the stove. The crew made a side trip to see Glacier National Park, then there were farewells as they headed back for Ohio. I took son Andy to the airport in Kalispell, and Don and Brad left for Ohio in Don's Volkswagen Van. I was alone, starting my first Montana winter. It wasn't long before my financial life started to crumble; everything that could go wrong did. First, the proceeds from the sale of my home in Columbus were threatened. To make a long story short, my stepdaughters disagreed with their mother's will, and tried to take the house. I defended Mary's will but the cost of lawyers, the delay and the loss of my verbal sales contract ate away at the value of the property, and having Mary's children fighting over her final wishes was a sad experience. Mary had been generous with them, but it was "in their best interest" to try to get it all, as one of them said very coldly. I had a net loss on the Ohio property after attorney's fees, and Mary's wishes were destroyed by the greed of her daughters. The loss of a personal house, and the attorney's fees to defend it and my wife's will, are not allowed as a tax deduction which added bitterness to the pill. I should have learned a lesson about avarice (greed for money), but I did not. Later I would discover that the Indians have a special name for avarice. They call it the white man's sickness. The second catastrophe was the loss of the sales price from my accounting practice. I had received a down payment, with the final amount to be measured by the next year's revenues. The buyer had a heart attack and related surgery during tax season, so he was not able to provide services to my old clients. I was told this later (when the final payment was due) so there was nothing I could have done about it. The final payment did not amount to much. There was no evil intent in this, just misfortune. The sum total of these little disasters was that I had lost my wife, my home and my business all in the same year. This is not said to solicit your pity, but to explain the abrupt change in my circumstances. I was not really broke, but no longer "comfortable," and needed to get a job. There was no capital that I could use to start another CPA practice of my own. My past career in accounting had been relatively successful. After graduating from Ohio University, I had landed the one job I really wanted, with the international accounting firm, Arthur Andersen & Co., in Cleveland. With that basic training behind me, after about two years I moved to Columbus to become the Controller of a group of construction companies, and about six years later moved on to larger things with Volkswagen. At the time that Volkswagen was taking the country by storm as the first really large automobile importer, I was Comptroller (the German term) for the distributor that had the exclusive market for Ohio, Kentucky and parts of Indiana. I created a computerized accounting system that took the best features from U.S. automotive accounting, and combined them with the mandated German accounting structure, no mean feat in those days when computers were not so "friendly". Volkswagen sent its financial people from Germany to see what I'd done, and borrowed from my creation for all VW distributors, world-wide. That relatively "showy" job led me to a position with the Reader's Digest in New York, where I designed and implemented a new international accounting system, again using creative computer development work to accomplish that task. DeWitt Wallace, the founder of the Digest, liked my work and I was assured a good future. I liked living in the Westchester County area, but my first marriage was failing and my wife insisted that she could only be happy if we returned to Ohio, which I agreed to as a possible solution to our problems. She had become an alcoholic, and I was willing to try anything to solve that problem. Back in Columbus, I decided to start my own practice as a CPA, and continued with that for some eighteen years. The first marriage ended in divorce, and my second marriage was to Mary, who died about ten years later, which then resulted in my decision to head for Montana. The money I had counted on to get established in Kalispell was not coming in. I had no income and the capital from Ohio that I needed to get started in self-employment had disappeared. Instead of rebuilding a new life for myself in a relaxed way, I was in trouble. There was no choice but to abandon my dream of the mountains and head for the city to get a job immediately. I sold the cabin as fast as I could (again, a nondeductible loss) and headed for my Mother's apartment in California. I had to sell the furniture and large items in haste at an auction, and rent a trailer to move out of Montana to hunt for a job. Now everything I owned would fit in one large U-Haul trailer. It is strange when breaking up a household, to learn the things people keep and the things they let go. In one large waterproof box, I carried away a brand new saddle that had never seen the back of a horse. That working stock saddle, you know the kind I mean, was the best one I had ever owned. It had made the trip from Ohio with me, destined for the back of a western horse. You've seen the movies, where a cowboy loses his shirt and heads down the road, but you know there still is hope ahead and another horse somewhere, because he carries a prized saddle slung over his back. It's the one thing a cowboy won't part with. The auctioneer didn't see that fine Crites working saddle, kept safe in the box with Mary's braided reins, blue nylon halters and old leather things that carried the sweet smell of horses. In a small box I kept were two gold bands, engraved inside with initials and dates and carrying the promise of forever more. They were left from a time when the words "till death do us part" were just poetry, with little real meaning.There was my sheriff's badge, number M-16, with a horse on the star to show I could ride. When you're a mounted policeman, nothing less, you get to carry the flag in all the parades. And in that small box was Dad's gold watch, a gift from the hand of his own Dad the day that they sold the farm oxen. Dad was gone, but the watch that he had received on his 21st birthday was something of his you could see and hold. The tax effect was ruinous. The loss on the cabin was again not deductible, nor the moving expense, nor the loss on household goods. The tax system is not designed for the benefit of those who become poor. While in Montana, I had applied for several jobs, including one advertised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Billings. I also knew about an opening teaching at the Indian junior college on the Blackfeet Reservation in Northwestern Montana, and went there to see about the job just before leaving Montana. At Browning, Montana I met Conrad LaFromboise, Dean. I was strongly impressed by the quality of this man who wore his hair in Indian braids, and by the goals of the small college. Their facilities were pitiful, but the young Indian students I met were bright, inspired and really trying. Pay would be $9,000. annually, with no fringe benefits or insurance of any kind. I was impressed by the mission of the college. Inside the front cover of the booklet describing the college is this statement: "The Blackfeet Nation sleeps in the shadow of the Great Rocky Mountains. It is the last encampment of a proud and mighty people who once roamed the prairies of a vast land which was called the Big Sky. "Driven here by a force, we watched an endless flow of persons come and go -- persons sent as servants by the Great White Father in Washington, who came to serve, but only served themselves. "Suffering their diseases, enduring hunger and starvation, deprived of our precious freedom, still we survived, but the greatest loss of all was to our pride and dignity. "So, like the mighty grizzly bear who, when Fall approaches, goes into a winter sleep, we went into our sleep. Now, the winter of our suffering is over and we arise, refreshed with due strength, declaring to all men that we shall form a new government, a new way of life, recapturing our pride and dignity and fostering our culture and our heritage. "Then the last encampment of a proud and mighty people shall be the homeland for all Blackfeet Indians that shall endure for as long as the sun shall rise and these mountains cast their shadows, and the Blackfeet Nation will live in peace and harmony with our brothers and our neighbors forever." My emotions said "do it," but reason cringed at the miserable pay and living conditions. I would have to share a prefab shack with another middle-aged teacher, and there was no future in this dead-end job. The college library was almost nonexistent; the buildings were tired mobile homes that needed repairs. Browning is a rural ghetto of collapsing buildings, faded federal promises, broken glass and dust. When the school had been promised it was a bright hope. Congress had reduced the money needed to run the school, and then cut it again. The Indian's capital had been the buffalo, and they had been most wealthy. We took the buffalo, and never replaced it with anything else. The people hold their heads up, but they have little hope to escape a life lacking comfort and opportunity. The fall session was about to start, and the white teacher who had been hired backed out at the last minute. There really was a need for me, and I was offered the job even though I had never taught school in my life. It hurt to tell Conrad that I would not take the job, and I am still sorry about that. These people needed help through no fault of their own, and were doing their best to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I believe I could have done some good, but at the price of my own destruction. I was not willing to do it; I lacked commitment. This was a lesson to me. There is a huge difference between meaning well and doing well. The gap is immense, and most people never encounter it. To do well can not be done without great cost, and most of us are not willing to pay the price. Bleeding for others is at the loss of your own blood. I had never gone down that road before, and was not ready to take that on in Browning. Sure it would be a public service and would have social value, but I wasn't ready for the sacrifice. So, with this all behind me, and the U-Haul trailer behind the Jeep, I headed for California. In my middle fifties, how wonderful it is to have a mother who accepts me with skinned knees, no job or whatever. She does not always approve of what I do, but still I am accepted. Mom has an apartment in a pleasant group of apartments for the elderly, or as they say in California, "restricted as to age," in Thousand Oaks. The city is just beyond the outer limits of Los Angeles, and has warmth and beauty with no smog and not quite so many people. Attractive as it is, still to me it falls short of the beauty and wilderness that is Montana. Jobs were good in California, and after a month or so I was working for a local CPA firm. The pay was good with a bright future. The work was conventional, mostly tax work for the wealthy. Several of the clients I handled were political appointees who had ties to the Reagan administration. They owned horse farms or estates in the Santa Barbara area, and had been appointed to pleasant jobs in Washington. Money flowed in easily to them from all directions. They, like me, were good Republicans. The earlier application pending with BIA in Billings now resulted in a definite job offer. There would be a cut in pay to less that half of what I had earned in Ohio, but unlike the job in Browning, I could support myself. There was no hesitation, the decision was instant and came from my heart. I phoned my new supervisor, Bill Benjamin, and said I'd come after appropriate notice to the local CPA firm. After the Browning experience I wanted to do what I could to make life a little better for Indians, and Montana appealed to my sense of adventure. Back to U-Haul again. I loaded my boxes into one of their trailers one more time and started on the road from California to Montana. I reserved twenty dollars for the slots in Las Vegas, and planned to stop there for a subsidized dinner and to drop my quarters into the machines. Like most people I never win, but this time I managed to quit while I was ahead and actually pocketed well over a hundred dollars. Good fortune was smiling and the world looked good. There was a new life and adventure ahead. I'd done a lot of driving on the first stay in Montana, and managed to put over 40,000 miles on the Jeep in just one year, mostly on unpaved roads looking at the scenery. While on solitary trips I had developed the habit of driving with few stops the first day, and then sleeping along the road when I became tired, either on the ground near the Jeep or curled up inside, which isn't easy when you're over six feet tall. With that plan in mind, after leaving Las Vegas at dusk, I left the freeway in Nevada and turned onto U.S. Route 93, which heads directly north towards Montana. This is remote desert country, but there was no traffic and I could look forward to some beautiful scenery at dawn. And then, wham. One of the trailer tires had a blowout, and the trip came to a screeching halt, thirty miles from nowhere late at night. U-Haul provided no spare tire, and the rim was bent so there was nothing I could do, except drag the load off the edge of the road and wait. I could not raise any traffic on the CB radio, and after the first hour only one truck had passed, and it did not respond to my attempt to flag it down. The best I could do was to unhitch the trailer and head for the nearest mark of the map, the village of Alamo, Nevada. I found a motel with a pay phone, where I could call the U-Haul hotline. They told me a wrecker was on its way from a few miles north of Alamo, and I should stay at the motel where I could be located. The wrecker would bring the trailer to me with a new tire installed, and I could just check in at the motel. In the morning I would find the trailer ready to go, hitched to my Jeep which I was to leave at the front of the Motel parking lot so the wrecker could find it. The trailer had a secure padlock, and with no traffic on the road and the wrecker on its way, I wasn't worried about theft, so I went to bed around midnight. At three in the morning I was awakened by a phone call from a wrecker service in Los Vegas. Now the story was entirely different. A wrecker was just starting out from Vegas. Again I was advised to stay at the motel and wait for the wrecker to bring the trailer to me. At dawn the wrecker arrived, but the trailer had been abandoned too long. The lock had been cut off, and the trailer was now half empty. Most of the things I had owned were gone. I spent most of the day with a very considerate Sheriff's Deputy, Gary Davis, trying to inventory what was left and determine what was missing. I came up with a loss of well over twenty thousand dollars, which included all of my clothes (even the dirty laundry had been taken) and the personal effects of a lifetime. Gary was sympathetic, and from my own police experience as a volunteer Sheriff's Deputy back in Ohio years earlier, I could tell that his investigation was thorough and professional. Gary visited the scene of the crime, and found the padlock that had been removed with a bolt cutter. He found tracks that showed that a truck had backed up to the trailer, and apparently the thief just transferred the bulk of my load into his vehicle. Gary took several photographs, and checked for fingerprints on the lock and on the remaining goods in the trailer. The small box was gone. The rings would be melted, Dad's watch sold at some antique store, and my sheriff's badge would be trashed. If you go fishing, look around for a good 4 H.P. Evinrude outboard motor. If the serial number is 0317052 you have my permission to snatch it for me, because it belongs on the back of my canoe. If you go places where there are horses and see a fine Crites working saddle, look on the bottom to see if "Henry" is printed there. You let me know, and I'll get there if I have to walk. There will be blood in my eye and hell to pay, and that roping saddle will come back home with me. I felt pretty glum about the loss. If that thief had been caught, I would have gone for his throat. But there was no use in crying over spilt milk. Alamo has remote beauty, marred only by the purpose that the federal government has found for this wilderness. This lovely land is used for testing hydrogen bombs, designed to melt the flesh of men, women and children whose opinions about religion, government and economics may differ from yours and mine. It was time to go, so I told myself that at least I had a lighter load, and the things that people pack in boxes are not so important. I'm not sure I believed that myself, but it did no good to mourn the loss. If I had known what was up ahead, would I have turned back to California? No. Life is an adventure and there was more of that waiting for me than many people have in a lifetime. I got back into the Jeep and headed north for Montana. Footnote: Throughout this book the term "white man" is used as Indians use it, to mean "outsider". The term includes Caucasians, African Americans, and people of all "races," nationalities and ethnic origins who are not Indian. When used as a collective singular such as "the whiteman," it means, from the Indian perspective, those who oppress us. CHAPTER 2 Introducing the Bureau of Indian Affairs In writing this section of the book I have the advantage of roughly ten years of experience in dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. You might find this first part of the book rough going, because you don't share that intimate knowledge, and the ideas and conclusions presented here won't all be supported "in place" with hard evidence. As you read further, the evidence will be presented and the basis for my conclusions will be made clear, and you will be able to fit the pieces together. If you get over loaded at this point, then skip ahead to later chapters that have more appeal to you, and later return to this section. Gradually it will make sense to you. as the bits and pieces come together in your own mind. To first give you some idea of how these ideas and conclusions developed, I'll provide you with two letters that appeared in an area newspaper, the Bighorn County News. This is a weekly rural newspaper that serves the Crow Reservation area. First, a letter I wrote that was printed in the July 29, 1992 edition of that newspaper: To the News: Recent newspaper stories describe financial problems found by U.S. Inspector General audits regarding slipshod accounting practices and misuse of travel funds under the control of financial manager Bill Benjamin and area director Richard Whitesell. This revelation is simply one more item in BIA's history of repeated fraud against both U.S. taxpayers and the Indian citizens they supposedly serve in a position of trust. This story begins in 1849, the year BIA took over its role from the U.S. Army, and since then BIA has continued as an exploiter of Indians, doing the bidding of corrupt federal politicians. As compensation for dirty tricks it keeps a bit of the loot for BIA supervisors, with the implied consent of the politicians. I know this from intimate personal experience. As the first CPA ever employed by BIA in Billings, my audit reports described millions of dollars in cash belonging to tribes and individual Indians [that are simply missing], and similar mischief in irrigation projects. There was fraud or missing money in each operation I was assigned to audit. Bill Benjamin used intimidation to get me to change my audit and "soften" the facts, but I refused to do so and with Whitesell's approval, I was fired for "insubordination" in 1986. I spent the next six years on whistleblower appeals through the specified government agencies, which was fruitless, and continued on (without legal help) up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. All of the agencies and courts sidestepped the Constitution (free speech, etc.,) by refusing to hear the case against the BIA. To do so would attack the political patronage system. Subsequent investigations and audits fully agreed with the facts reported in my audits, but being correct was not good enough. Although I have written thousands of letters, and the facts have been investigated repeatedly by the Inspector General, a Senate Special Investigative Committee, outside CPAs and the like, the American people just don't care enough about government corruption or the abuser heaped on Indians to insist on a just solution. While the taxpayers allow government corruption, BIA will continue to fleece Indians until the last one has nothing left worth stealing. If you gag at this, or object to the lack of free speech for a federal auditor, then write to Senator Daniel Inouye (Select Committee on Indian Affairs), Washington, DC 20510-6450. He personally investigated my case, and calls it an injustice. ack-ko-shish (Whistler) David L. Henry, CPA Billings Next, a response from another reader that appeared in that same newspaper on August 12, 1992: To the News: I particularly liked Mr. David L. Henry's letter to the News. The letter shows to what lengths the BIA and other agencies, as well as the courts, will go to cover up their unlawful, unconstitutional activities. Me thinks that Mr. Real Bird was caught up in this web of intrigue as well. And to add insult to injury, the BIA and courts kept Mr. Moran (former superintendent) hidden, supposedly, in Nevada so that he could not be made to testify to the efficacy of what Mr. Real Bird said. The result, of course, was a foregone conclusion; do not pass go, go directly to jail. Mr. Henry is lucky in one respect, and that is that they did not dream up some charge against him, and give his a railroad job too. In my opinion, the government and its agencies have become so corrupt in most cases, that the situation will soon reach the point of being totally intolerable. (some unrelated comments omitted). G.L. Clark, Roundup, Montana It was in early December, 1985 when I rolled into Billings, Montana. Billings is an attractive place, located in the Yellowstone River valley and bordered on the north by stone cliffs that lead to higher elevations. The local people call these cliffs the "rims" or "rimrock." The city and suburbs are home to about 100,000 people, not really a big-city, but with most of the conveniences you would expect in a larger place. It's the largest town for hundreds of miles, and serves as the shopping and cultural center for southcentral Montana, northern Wyoming and the western Dakotas. After a short stay at a motel in Billings, I found a two bedroom apartment through landlord Dave Selby, who occupied the remainder of the house. I had a few days before reporting to work, and the time was used to buy some clothing to replace what had been stolen, and to make a quick trip back to Kalispell. I had left my small Scotty camping trailer there when I headed for California, and now had a few days in which to retrieve it. After the warm climate in California, I was reminded that Montana can be a challenge in the winter. Driving back to Billings from Kalispell, with the Scotty trailer in tow, I hit some "black ice," as they call it here, and found myself sliding backwards down the highway with the trailer in the lead. When things stopped spinning, the trailer had turned onto it's side, and the Jeep was stuck in a snow bank, but fortunately right side up. A wrecker came along, and with some help I was back in Billings on the Saturday before reporting to work at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The name "Bureau of Indian Affairs," or BIA, doesn't mean much to most people. Those in the Western states have heard the name, but still this is an organization that keeps a very low profile, and for a very practical reason. The work that this Bureau does is nothing to brag about. The Bureau has a very important role in this story, and in the lives of Indians, so you'll need to know what it is and what it does. You'll begin to hear some negative things about BIA, because my knowledge is colored by later experience. I would uncover the largest fraud in Montana in this century, and one of the largest in the history of the United States. It is a fraud that has been kept concealed, and the concealment has allowed it to grow like a colony of termites hidden inside a wall. Like many frauds it is aimed at those with few defenses, in this case at American Indians. The fraud is so large that it spills over to touch the pocket of every taxpayer, including yours and mine. When I started to work, I was not aware of all that, and I just took for granted that the Bureau of Indian Affairs operated in a way that was supportive of Indians. I was terribly sorry to gradually find out that my assumption was completely wrong. People like to see the world through rose colored glasses, because reality can be tough to face each day. The fictions that BIA covers itself with have grown to the point of institutional madness. BIA tries to show a healthy face to the world, but the flesh under it's skin is rotten. BIA is skilled at creating a facade, and the people who make a living by exploiting Indians also cover their deeds with nice words. They, not Indians, are the beneficiaries of BIA, and this will be obvious before we are done. The word "they" does not represent some vague conspiracy and I'll describe who these people are as we go along. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is part of the U. S. Department of Interior. The head of BIA is an Assistant Secretary (for Indian Affairs), directly under the Secretary. Both are political appointees, replaced when a new president is elected. Just below the Assistant Secretary is BIA's chief career employee, the Director of Operations, who during this period was William Ragsdale. If this was the Navy, Ragsdale's job title would be "Chief of Naval Operations," and it would be filled by a four-star Admiral. BIA's career employees either go along with political influence, or else get another job. This is a pyramid shaped hierarchy, military style, which insists on political loyalty. BIA employees devote a lot of time and energy to basic survival in this atmosphere, trying to look good instead of trying to be good. A hierarchy is great for commanding armies, but not the most efficient way to deliver social services, which is a major part of the Bureau's assignment. In the past the Assistant Secretary was called a Commissioner, and BIA was (and sometimes is still called) the Indian Service or Indian Bureau. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs during my time of employment at BIA was Ross Swimmer. Swimmer was feared and distrusted by many Indians, although he was a Cherokee. The fact that large numbers of Indians called for Swimmer's removal from office had no effect on BIA. Turncoats are much in demand, every society has them, and BIA is a place where Indian turncoats control all of the higher jobs in supervision and administration. You'll see lots of examples of this as the story unfolds. It is a mistake to think that since roughly 80% of BIA's personnel are of Indian ancestry, it is a "pro" Indian organization. If you have read about the Jewish holocaust, you know that some of the most brutal treatment came from the "Capos," or petty officials. They were not Nazis, but were Jewish prisoners who would torment their fellow prisoners for a reduction in the torment and starvation that they in turn were subjected to. The psychology is no different here; Indians are suppressed by BIA Indian employees as well as by non-Indians. BIA employees become organization people, and most do what is required by the organization. It is nothing new for oppressed people to turn on their own; history is full of such activity. It is a common human failing, not something that just Indians do. Not all BIA employees are turncoats, but it's difficult to move very far up in BIA without selling out. Indians call these sell-out people "apples," red on the outside but white just under the skin. Norway had one named Quisling, and it's a synonym for traitor. Turncoats, sell-out, apple, Capo or traitor, they are all names that describe a universal human weakness and failing. In human social and political development, in particular in war, it has always been necessary to select leaders, and then to require the followers to be loyal to those leaders, and to who ever wields power. Serfs doffed their hats to the squire and the "gentry," and all bowed to the prince. To this day the military enforces a caste system, where officers are "gentlemen" and their wives are "ladies," while the ranks are referred to as enlisted men and their wives. Our present Indian reservations are not in the same league with concentration camps, but the principal is no different. BIA's Indian employees do what they are told, or else, like me, they are out of work. BIA serves as a colonial office to exploit Indian land. When Indians object, BIA looks for ways to make them shut up or to punish them. At many reservations, you either work for BIA or suffer extreme poverty. Indians have learned to live with this, and are forgiving of their own people in BIA who often oppress them. At least they bring home a paycheck, and some find work at BIA that does not do any direct damage to Indians. The fact that many BIA employees are Indian does not make BIA worthy of Indian trust. BIA is a "white man's" institution. Indians speak of their relationship with BIA as a "love - hate relationship." They enjoy being special Americans with their own federal agency, but at the same time resent what they see as heavy-handed and irresponsible treatment by BIA, which is a gentle way to describe theft and abuse. Many Indian people and BIA employees (in private conversation) would tell you that BIA continues the former Army role of suppression, intimidation, and exploitation of Indians and of Indian lands. From my own experience in working for BIA, and subsequent developments and investigations, I agree with them. By the time you get to the end of this book, I believe you will fully understand and accept the negative remarks that I am making here - they will be supported further on in this book. It's interesting to take a historical look at the federal administration of Indian affairs and of Indian lands. The history books, records of congressional hearings, BIA's own records, and my many conversations with well informed Indians, all lead me to this conclusion: The record of federal administration of Indian affairs and Indian lands is one of repeated fraud, corruption and exploitation, with the direct or implied involvement of federal politicians. Many Indian people say that those who gain from this exploitation are white land owners and operators, including mineral and timber interests, and the federal politicians who give favors (at Indian and taxpayer expense) as a matter of political patronage, and you will find much supporting evidence in this book. I will try to avoid the trap of saying it's all a giant conspiracy, because it is more than that. The actual thrust of BIA's actions are generally local in nature, involving the wishes of the local organized white landowners and those who lease or extract minerals from specific reservation lands. The larger conspiracy, although I'd like to avoid that word, is simply the mind-set or general pattern that exists in politics driven by money. Politicians will do what is wanted by those with the means to buy them, and this is a very profitable, self-serving business, which operates above and beyond the law. Congress has no direct administrative control over BIA's daily operations, but makes the laws that govern Indians, reservation lands, and BIA. Congress controls all federal money, which gives it indirect control over BIA, and tied to this is the motive of political patronage -- there is a pay-off. Back in 1911, Indian Commissioner Robert Valentine stated: "Indian affairs are ... a field for the grafter ... the land and the monies of the Indians offer a bait which even the most sated will not refuse." In 1969, Senator Edward Kennedy said: "The BIA is notorious for its resistance to reform, to innovation, and to discharging its responsibilities in a competent and sensitive fashion." Here are some of the things I learned about the Bureau that will help you as the story unfolds. The Bureau started out in 1849, taking over functions previously handled by the United States Army. That year, 1849, should ring some bells, because that's the year the "gold rush" started. Prospectors were flooding into the Indian lands to dig for gold, and the federal government was looking for new ways to prevent Indians from resisting this most recent invasion of their homelands. What does this Bureau do? It is the primary federal Government agency that has a responsibility for Indians. The words responsibility and trust always come up when referring to the Federal Government's relationship with American Indians. The term trustee implies a high degree of responsible care, and BIA is trustee for Indians, as our laws and courts have decided. We'll say more about what BIA does, but for a minute let's take a close look at this "trustee" business. The Supreme Court declared many years ago that the Federal government was exempt from all lawsuits by citizens, using a legal concept or "doctrine" called Sovereign Immunity. This came from the old days of kings in England, where the king was not willing to let "his" judges in "his" courts and on "his" payroll, give him a hard time or limit his authority. Serfs and peasants in England had very few rights, and using the king's courts to make the king behave was unthinkable. What applied to the king applied to the king's men, so the entire English administration was exempt from lawsuits by the people. No complaints about government administration could be taken to court. Although many Americans came to this country to escape government by kings, our Supreme Court imported this "common law" feature of feudal England into the United States, simply by edict, and it applies today. Since we don't have kings, it applies to the President and the President's men, the entire executive branch of government. It limits the rights of all United States citizens in relationship to government, and since Indians are under tight control by BIA, (part of the executive branch) this "doctrine" is something that they can't escape. Over the years the absurdity of the doctrine led to a few exceptions, one being a law called the "Federal Tort Claims Act," which lists some actions for which the federal government CAN be taken to court. Still, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is alive and well, and is the general rule that shields federal agencies from lawsuits. You can see that although BIA holds the power and authority of a trustee, there is no way the beneficiaries (Indians) can hold it responsible for doing an adequate or trustworthy job. This might be news to you, but Indians are painfully aware of this limitation on their rights. It's a one way street. BIA has power OVER Indians, but can't be held accountable for what it does TO Indians. There is no federal law against fraud, if the fraud is done by a federal employee under "the color of his office." In their private lives, they are subject to state laws, so you're protected if a federal employee (in his private capacity) does some harm to you. But if that federal employee does something remotely connected to his job, he is fully protected by sovereign immunity, and the person (and his agency or bureau) are untouchable. Indians have no protection from fraud done by BIA, and as you will see further on, there is no shortage of fraud at BIA. The result is that the words "trust" and "responsibility" are deceptive. BIA has no liability and can not be taken to court. This produces pretty words and empty promises to cover irresponsible behavior. In Indian eyes, "the whiteman" can feel good about himself while denigrating and stealing from Indians; just one more example (in Indian eyes) of the whiteman's sickness, endless greed. This federal Bureau, BIA, performs functions defined by law, which means that Congress is where it all begins. Congress controls the budget that finances BIA, and what BIA does is set by that budget, with specific functions or operations called projects. The budget sets aside money for each project and for general BIA administration. In this way the budget for the Billings Area Office is produced. The Area Office budget includes the reservations within it's area, and the dollar amount for each "project" is known at the start of each year. A project can be something like road building, police protection, social services, and the like. BIA's responsibilities that are assigned by Congress consist of two types, trust and direct. These are defined by treaty agreements, by past and current federal laws and court cases, and by tradition and common usage. The laws relating to Indians are gathered into one book, and you'll find that volume in the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR-25. Every BIA employee has a well worn copy of those "rules and regulations," and Indians have copies of this "BIA Bible" in their tribal offices. Concerning Federal Government financial accountability, the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 7) requires: .".. and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." If you would like to see a copy of the financial statements for the Billings Area Office, or any of it's Indian reservations, you won't be able to find one. BIA claims that such reports don't exist. I can tell you that BIA does keep books, segregated by area office and reservation. I have seen the general ledger (BIA's "books"), and a copy is available in Billings. The general ledger indicates that BIA "keeps books," but if you want to understand financial transactions, you need a financial statement. Remember that I'm a CPA and I worked there. With today's computers, it is a simple matter to order a printout or financial statement by location, but BIA will tell you it can't produce the reports. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I tried to get a copy of BIA's financial statements later, after I had been fired. I had been talking to newspaper reporters (from the Arizona Republic) , a major Phoenix, Arizona, newspaper, who tried to get a copy of BIA's financial statements, but none of them had any luck. As an accountant I knew how to describe what I wanted, and I knew the names of BIA personnel and the offices in which the records were kept. It took months, and I wrote to many people at several BIA office. The process wears you down, and there were delays and referrals but not one honest answer. Months later I received a blurred copy of several pages of numbers. As a CPA I know how to read financial statements, but these figures shed no light on BIA's activities, so the request was defeated and the time was wasted, like that of the reporters before me. Score zero for the Constitution. I can tell you that each financial transaction by BIA carries a location code along with the entry, such as C50 for Billings. This is helpful to federal politicians who want to tell taxpayers in their districts how much federal money was spent there, and BIA can and does produce financial reports based on location codes. BIA spends a lot of time and effort to hide financial information from reporters and critics, and even from it's own employees. There are no financial statements for reservation employees or even for area office accountants, which is what I had been as a BIA employee. Does BIA defeat the Freedom of Information Act, that was designed to make government accountable? Does it ignore the Constitution? You have some facts about that and can reach your own conclusion. As a BIA accountant, early in my employment I thought it would be sensible for me to find out what the accounting rules were that BIA was required to follow. The law at that time directed all federal agencies to follow the accounting standards set by the General Accounting Office, known as GAO. These rules were listed in the "GAO Manual for Guidance of Federal Agencies." I asked to see the Area Office's copy of the manual, which should be updated frequently with new changes reproduced and distributed by the Government Printing Office. Most of the accounting employees had never heard of the manual, but finally an older employee recalled that there was a file of GAO Manuals, and located it for me. This was in late December, 1985, and I was amazed to find that the latest update was dated December 24, 1959, twenty-six years obsolete. In time this made sense, because BIA accounting completely ignores GAO, and none of the accounting employees knew that there were any rules to follow. BIA's actual standard was to do whatever it was you did last year, right or wrong. The free subscription to the GAO Manual was allowed to lapse because nobody read it and it was one more useless thing that had to be filed away. Our historical perception of "Indian Problems" led to changing federal policies in the past, including conquest, mass destruction and relocation, and in recent years the announced federal policy is called "self-determination." The idea is that tribal government can and should contract (with BIA) to provide governmental services (as defined by Congress) to Indian people directly, rather than have BIA provide those services. Past treaties and long custom require the Federal Government to pay for tribal services with taxpayer money from the federal budget. When the tribe contracts with BIA to provide these services itself, a contract is entered into and the dollars are transferred from BIA to the tribe. This is not charity, and the few benefits that manage to filter through BIA's sticky fingers are part of the price for the Indian lands. I suppose you can call this "guilt money," since all U.S. citizens benefit from the land that was taken from Indian owners, either by force, coerced treaties or land swindles. Whenever I speak to a classroom or group about BIA or about Indian matters, Indian friends always ask me to please tell the audience that they don't receive a monthly check from BIA. There are no special federal checks for Indians, simply because they are Indian. Many live in poverty and receive welfare payments, but Indians are treated the same as all other citizens when it comes to welfare. When there is a check from the federal government, it comes from the individual's own money. Most often this is from land rents, grazing fees or a share in oil-well royalties, which are collected by BIA before being paid to the individual owner. In the past there was money for old land settlements, but there is NO allowance for simply being Indian. There can also be checks directly from the tribe, which are the equivalent of a corporation dividend. Often there is some tribal land held in common ownership, and rentals or profits are divided up and paid out from time to time to each tribal member. The self-determination policy is phony. When the elected government (the tribe) passes a law, it must be approved in writing by the BIA Superintendent before it counts. By this means, BIA keeps absolute veto power over self-government and self-determination. By law, any contracts for the hiring of tribal attorneys also require BIA approval. The result is that BIA can (and does) suppress any serious attempt by tribes to bring lawsuits that might embarrass the Federal Government. Congress knows which lawyers they can "trust," and which contribute to their campaign funds. Lawyers who might serve Indians honestly are never approved. This is great for BIA. Aggressive attorneys, who might take a strong stand for Indian rights, are not approved. Only politically friendly attorneys can be hired by Indians, so dissent is throttled at the source. This may be news to you, but not to Indians. They are painfully aware that their rights are suppressed from all directions, and that they are a class of people with fewer legal and human rights than any other American citizens. Self determination and tribal sovereignty will never be a reality while a federal employee, not elected by the tribe, can veto laws passed by Indian representative government. This is an abuse of federal power to suppress democracy; it is tyranny. Later in this book you will find BIA's official mission statement. The first item claims that BIA will: "...recognize and preserve the inherent rights of tribal self-government and to strengthen tribal capacity to govern." The third mission statement of BIA is to serve as an advocate of sovereignty and rights in dealing with "other government entities" and the private sector. The contrast between words and reality is obvious. BIA is not an advocate or defender of Indian rights, but was designed from the start to divest Indians of their property. Indians say "BIA is here to watch us because the federal government does not trust us." I have heard that said by several different tribal leaders and at more than one reservation. Sometimes a remark is added, "they're here to see if we are arming ourselves, or preparing to revolt." Tribal government is required to account (to BIA) for money received, and to provide an estimate or budget of what will be required during the next accounting period. This requires some accounting work from both parties, and a method to transfer funds from BIA's bank to the tribal bank account. Here again BIA has the veto to stop anything that Congress (and friends it favors) might not like. It can and does disapprove budgets and it can and does stop the flow of federal funds that were previously approved. You can't blame BIA for everything, since it must obey federal politicians. The politicians in turn wish to remain in office and respond to pressure from voters and in particular to the "vote" of money contributed to their campaign funds. Some examples will be described later in this book. BIA holds title to the reservation lands. It maintains records of Indian land holdings (like county offices do elsewhere), recording transfers, land left by deceased Indians to their heirs, etc. Since the land is held by the Federal Government as trustee, it is exempt from real estate taxes. Your first thought about this exemption from real estate tax may be that Indians have an unfair advantage. I will tell you that Indians are the poorest identifiable group of people in the United States, and among the poorest on earth. The trust-land is not available as security for mortgage loans, which makes it nearly impossible for Indians to borrow to construct buildings and improvements on the land. This feature has a negative effect on possible Indian farming and business ventures, but it does protect the land from foreclosures by banks and creditors. You already know more about BIA than most other Americans, and it will begin to make sense to you as we get deeper into the story. Before we are done I'll put my own activity into some logical time sequence for you, but the more background you have first, the more sense it will make to you. Next we'll see what's concealed behind the door at the Billings Area Office. CHAPTER 3 The Billings Area Office The Billings Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is located downtown in the Federal office building. The building is shared by BIA, the Federal District Court, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, FBI, and other Federal agencies. BIA occupies most of two floors in this five story office building. The building is an off-white color, and appears to be constructed from slabs of poured concrete, a cold and ominous looking place with narrow slits for windows. If you count the total number of BIA area offices, the total amount of Indian reservation land and the number of Indians living on each reservation, you find that Billings is representative of about one tenth of BIA's total Area Office operations. On a Monday morning in December, 1985, I first met the man I was to work for, Bill Benjamin. Previously there had been some letters back and forth, and a few telephone conversations, but now he was to become my supervisor. Bill is a Blackfeet Indian (the word is always plural, there is no such thing as "a Blackfoot"), he was pleased to have a CPA on his Financial Management staff, and he had a list of work he wanted me to take on. Any new job is a little difficult during the transition stage, and much of my time went into filling out personnel forms, meeting fellow workers and finding out where the various offices and files were located. A major task was to start learning about BIA. This is a different world. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is always referred to by Indians as BIA. As I learned later when studying the Crow Language, the word in that language for "BIA" is, you guessed it, BIA. All three letters are pronounced, just as you would say "CPA" in English, and similar to the way CPA is written, the periods after each of the three letters in "BIA" are omitted. The Billings Area Office is a regional office for the administration of the Indian reservations located in Montana and Wyoming, with the exception of the Flathead Reservation, which is handled by another area office. There are about forty five thousand Indians on seven reservations included within the Billings Area Office, organized as follows: Blackfeet Reservation, Montana. The U.S. part of the Blackfeet Nation. Others live in Canada. Rocky Boy Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Chippewa and Cree. Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Assiniboine and Gros Ventres. Fort Peck Reservation, Montana: Certain bands of Assiniboine and Sioux. Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Montana: The entire Northern Cheyenne Nation. Crow Reservation, Montana: The entire Crow Nation. Wind River Reservation, Wyoming: Part of the Arapahoe. Part of the Shoshone. After my first brief field trip to a reservation (Northern Cheyenne) as a BIA employee, I was introduced to the Area office's Employee Handbook. Here is what BIA says about itself, as found in that "Employee Handbook" which is given to each new employee: "Welcome to the Billings Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to the challenge of providing services to the Indian People of Montana and Wyoming. "The Bureau's mission, as established by Congress, can be summarized in the following four key statements: "1. To recognize and preserve the inherent rights of tribal self-government and to strengthen tribal capacity to govern. "2. To provide resources for tribal government programs. "3. To serve as an advocate for the sovereignty and rights of American Indian Tribes in dealing with other governmental entities and the private sector. "4. To fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust obligations to American Indian Tribes." It was a gradual process, over a period of time, for me to discover that BIA's handbook is self-serving and there is little truth in it. BIA does allocate money as appropriated by congress (item 2. above), but that's about where the truth ends. It does not do ANY of those other fine things that it so grandly speaks of, or else it does them so poorly that the mission statement is completely misleading. In most cases it does exactly the opposite of what is claimed. I will refer to many of BIA's claims further on and show how they are a facade that conceals injustice and fraud with phony words. All of the Agency Superintendents for the seven reservations in Montana and Wyoming (where there are BIA "Agencies" or branch offices) report to the Area Director in Billings. The Area Director also has some responsibility for Indians in his area who do not live on reservations. To complicate things, there are also Indian trust lands that are not located within reservation boundaries. Often Indians retain some element of ownership, such as rights to hunt and fish, cut firewood, or extract coal and minerals, on former reservation lands. Very often these rights, other than perhaps mineral rights, are not honored by our state or federal courts. The abbreviation IIM stands for Individual Indian Money, and in effect it is a banking system operated by BIA. Accounts are maintained by computer in each area office, and most of the entries into the accounts are made by computer terminals located remotely in the Agency offices at the reservations. Unlike other banks, which have internal auditors, outside auditors and systems of internal financial controls, BIA is very wary of good accounting. Hundreds of millions of dollars are simply "missing" from the trust accounts that belong to the Indians. You will hear more about that later on. The office atmosphere is one of fear, frustration and boredom. There is little incentive to do a good job, so the emphasis turns to trying to avoid complaints. The best way to avoid a complaint about what you do is to do nothing. Certainly there is no risk taking, no innovation, no serious attempt to correct basic problems or improve the system. BIA takes care of those who try to make improvements - it gets rid of them. It supports a hierarchy of loyal thieves - those are strong words, but we'll support them later on. On occasion a mistake is made - someone is hired who really cares. Most of them give up and leave in frustration. The few who take on the system are fired on one pretext or another. Those who go along with the system rise to become top management, which produces corrupt management and stagnation. The method of management is best termed "divide and conquer." Employees are assigned to perform routine tasks with little or no information about departmental goals and responsibilities. As a relic left over from the Army, BIA has a semi-military command structure. Supervisors don't suggest, they issue commands and directives and keep tight control over any initiative that might crop up from time to time. All thoughts must flow through the chain of command, which prevents innovation and creative thinking, and there is a careful watch to avoid dissent, which is called trouble making. All authority is in a very few hands, which includes the Area Director, two Assistant Area Directors, and a few department heads. If the Area Director is out of the office, even for an hour or two, this is all shuffled around and the remaining employees assume the title of "acting" Area Director, and the like, similar to the command structure of an Army. All letters and "directives" of any importance must be signed by the Area Director, and in a few cases by department heads. There are absolutely no exceptions, and no creativity or personal initiative is allowed. One of the many complaints about BIA from Indians is that so much of the Indian Budget is consumed by administration and overhead. With this in mind, BIA avoids the word "administration," and job titles are constructed to take credit for "operating" assigned programs and functions, rather than administering them, simply a play on words. This resulted in my job title of "Operating Accountant," even though I had absolutely nothing to do with accounting operations. Benjamin made it very clear to me from the start that I was in charge of absolutely nothing, and my job was "staff" rather than "line," meaning that I also was not in charge of any person. If this had been a business organization, as the only qualified accountant I would have been in charge of the accounting personnel, or at least in some way responsible for the accounting function. Not true at BIA. I was allowed to talk to the accounting people and ask them what they did, but I could not comment on their work, point out errors to them or recommend that they make improvements or corrections. I was to work for Benjamin only, accept only work assigned by him, and report directly to him. Over a period of time, I gradually discovered just what it was that he wanted. First, he wanted a better understanding of the accounting process in general, and of BIA accounting in particular. He had been exposed to some college courses in accounting, but had no related experience at all, and wanted to increase his knowledge. I found nothing objectionable about that, except that it was for his personal benefit rather than related to my job assignment. I did try to teach a bit as we went along, but accounting is really learned by doing, and by exposure to a variety of work experience found in the "real" world. He did not have enough basic experience on which to build. As a second matter, BIA was becoming more aware of auditing, and now and again there would be an audit by the General Accounting Office. Their findings and recommendations required answers, and a trained accountant could deal with such things, while Benjamin could not. I was to respond to these demands, drafting letters for his signature. Related to this, a new law had been passed (the Single Audit Act), requiring outside CPA audits of Indian contracts administered by tribal governments. The problems raised by these audits had to be handled or administered by someone, and I was to be the person who took care of that. No problem, that's well within my background and experience as a CPA. The remaining area Benjamin wanted me to cover was to review and report on the accounting records maintained by the Area Office. That is a useful function, although I feel Benjamin saw it as just another way for me to teach him accounting. To review, report and recommend (the three Rs) is auditing, and BIA was forbidden to employ auditors, since that function "belonged" to the General Accounting Office (GAO) and to the Inspector General. Government agencies protect their "turf" or territory, and the practical result was that since GAO performed audits, BIA could not do the same thing. For whatever reasons, the function was also assigned to me, and it would lead directly to big trouble. The problem, as you will later see, is that what Benjamin really appeared to want from me, was a clean bill of health, the very thing I was unable to produce. CHAPTER 4 Agencies and Reservations The local branch offices of the Bureau, located on Indian Reservations, are called Agencies, and are headed by a federal employee known as the Superintendent. The Agency is located in a central place on each reservation, usually in the main village or town. Often the name of the town reflects this, as in the case of the Crow, where the central town is named Crow Agency. Often traces remain of the old Army post, such as old brick or frame Army buildings or stables, and the remains of a military parade ground. Each Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Agency has from about twenty to a hundred federal employees. Due to Indian Preference laws ,(which give Indians first chance at BIA jobs), most BIA employees are of Indian blood, although not always from the same tribe where the agency is located. There is usually a medical clinic or small hospital in the area, operated by the Indian Health Service (IHS), a federal agency not part of BIA. After a very few days in Billings, I traveled with Bill Benjamin to the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, in South Central Montana. We did our work at a federal government office there, in an old remodeled school building, which the locals simply called "the Agency." The word nation where it relates to Indian tribes can be a little confusing, since nation is often misused to mean country or state. The definition of "nation" means a group of people who share common customs and history and who frequently have the same language, race or religion. The term correctly applies to American Indian tribes, and there is nothing negative about that. You should be aware that people who are anti- Indian use "Indian Nation" in a scathing manner, to imply that Indians are foreign or disloyal to the United States. The idea is that they should be eliminated, and the Indian Nation distinction should be abandoned. "State" refers to a self-governing political body, and since all of our tribes were fully self governing before there was a United States, and many remain at least partly self governing today, they are properly described as nation-states. Neither of these titles were somehow given to tribes by the United States. The are simply terms that correctly define the acknowledged status of Indian Tribes in the United States. "Country" means place or location, and in that fashion Indians speak of the reservation land as "Indian Country." There are many variations among tribes, at different locations, and within the structure of BIA itself. For instance, in some locations there are BIA schools, in others the State operates schools and receives funding from BIA, and churches also operate religious schools. Rather than list endless details, here is a typical situation for the Billings Area in Montana and Wyoming. Each reservation consists of several small villages and rural areas. There is a branch BIA office on each reservation (the Agency), usually located not far from the office of the Tribal government (which is elected by the members of the tribe). In the past BIA provided medical services. There were so many complaints about BIA corruption in health care that this resulted in public outrage. Congress transferred Indian health care to another federal agency. The historical record about this is clear and well documented, but Indian health care remains a disgrace even though BIA is no longer the federal bureau that provides the health care. Many local government functions are provided by BIA. BIA likely will handle police, fire, highway maintenance, and sometimes schools, public utilities, social services, parks and the like. Tribal government may contract with BIA to provide some of these services, and when this is done BIA reimburses the Tribe for its expenses (within federal limitations). This whole process leaves BIA with tight control over tribal government. In Montana, Indians have the right to attend public schools, which are reimbursed by BIA since the children live on land which is exempt from state taxation. This was set-up as a specific condition for the former Territory of Montana when it became a State, but that tax exempt situation is the same in most all states that have Indian reservations. The tribal police are supposed to support both federal and tribal laws. However they do not report to the elected tribal government, but instead (in most cases) report to the BIA Superintendent, which undermines tribal government and law enforcement. It is a routine matter for any government to control its own laws and police, but our Indian tribes are not allowed to do this, in violation of the basic international concepts of the "law of nations." Tribal courts exist, but are limited to minor crimes, the custody of children, handling of estates and wills, etc. White ranchers don't like the concept of tribal courts or laws, which would (and should) have jurisdiction over them. At the Crow Reservation, where the Court became "uppity" in the eyes of the powerful whites, BIA (through Area Director Richard Whitesell) immediately moved to cancel the tribal court budget, to put it out of business. You can assume there was a phone call to a congressman from the offended whites, then a verbal order to BIA to find a way to defeat the tribal court. That's how things are done; Indian sovereign rights are under constant attack from BIA. The elected tribal governments do not have full control of their courts, laws, or police. The Crow Tribe is not a "reorganized" tribe, as some are called. I won't go further to explain that legal term, except to say that tribes that were "reorganized" gave up their court jurisdiction over whites on the reservation. Because of this, the Crow Tribal Courts do have (in theory) their original (before there was a United States) complete civil jurisdiction within the reservation over such things as minor crimes, contracts, land titles, etc., which makes their courts feared by whites. Crow Courts can (in theory) settle disputes between Indians and whites as to land ownership and land leases. This is no different than if those white ranchers had elected to buy land in Canada, which would then have complete jurisdiction over their legal matters, and as non-Canadian citizens, they would have no right to vote in Canadian elections. You can bet the tribal courts fear to exercise their jurisdiction over white ranchers, and that the white ranchers do their best to undermine and sneer at the tribal courts, through their political influence with federal politicians and BIA. To date, the ranchers are winning and the Crow Tribe is failing in this struggle. Unlike other states, tribal governments do not fully have the power to regulate the behavior of all people within their borders. All tribes have lost their jurisdiction over major crimes, such as murder, rape, arson, etc. This was accomplished years ago with a federal law called the "major crimes act," which placed all such crimes under federal (rather than tribal) jurisdiction. That law (which also violates the nation-state concept) still stands. No other American citizens are deprived of their basic civil right to make and enforce their own laws on such intimate local matters - except for Indians. With no jurisdiction over major crimes, usually no jurisdiction over non-Indians even for minor crimes, and with BIA having a financial veto power over what's left (through the budget for tribal courts and police), you can see the haphazard mess we have made of Indian law and order. This is all to meet the demands of whites who live on or near Indian reservations, and is a form of racial and political discrimination that degrades Indian citizens. Tourists from the East and from Europe enter Indian Country with curiosity, eager to see an Indian reservation. There are seldom signs, and the land is not marked with gates and fences. I have been asked, "how do you know when you're on an Indian reservation?" The whites near Indian Country often give a bigoted answer to that question, such as "follow the trail of discarded trash, wine bottles and disposable diapers," but that's not an honest answer. I've been on many reservations many times, and I haven't noticed any difference in trash disposal compared to non-Indian lands. There is trash, but the cause is poverty, and you will see the same in any really poor area, white or Indian. The difference is poverty. Where there are no fine homes, but only poorly maintained prefab houses crowded with too many people, lacking paint and maintenance with no basements or garages, then you're on the reservation. Many of our Indians preferred round houses such as teepees, and in respect of their strong religious beliefs, the door always faced to the East, the direction that honors nature and greets the morning sun. The government houses are rectangles facing in random directions, which ignores the Maker of All Things. That simple matter, the shape of houses and the direction in which they are turned, is a slap in the face by an arrogant federal master. It is a daily reminder to Indians of the lack of respect given to their religion, culture and special status. Round houses are designed to keep family members in contact with one another, while square houses have boxes within (rooms) isolating the generations from each other. What's so terrible about a round house that honors the circle of life? Often the land is poor, and the place where you enter a reservation is marked by where the green grass ends and the desert or badlands start. The good land is almost always owned or controlled by the whiteman, leaving the brush, desert and mountain sides (rocks, sand and ice) for Tribal ownership. There are no fine cities, just poor villages on badly paved roads where even the dogs are thin. You won't find super-markets. Most stores are small convenience outlets that stock poor quality food, always owned by whites (licensed by BIA) who charge high prices. Recent model cars are rare; most are at least ten years old and Indians themselves speak of "Indian cars" with a certain wry amusement. For two or three hundred dollars you could take your pick of most of the cars you'll see on an Indian reservation. Certainly there are exceptions, and there are a few well off or wealthy Indians, but very few compared to the whites. The gas-stations are owned by whites, the public utilities are owned and staffed by whites, and the goods purchased by Indians in off-reservation white owned stores are delivered by white employees. The cattle owned by white ranchers are hauled to auction-yards owned by white investors, and the sugar beets and grain crops raised on white-controlled ranches (on Indian land irrigated with Indian water) are hauled away to non-Indian markets in white-owned trucks driven by white drivers. The money produced on Indian lands invariably goes into white pockets, while the Indians remain in deep poverty. The whites like it that way, and sneer at the Indians for being poor and "worthless." I've stayed at the motels near Indian country, where white men travel through in nice cars going who knows where. Soon after dark, the parade begins. Young Indian girls, with straight black hair walk from motel to motel. To me they look young, like they belong in high school, but some are old beyond their years. Poverty begets prostitution. They go in the back doors, and late at night they leave the motels and head for the all-night convenience store, where they buy food and other necessities before heading home. I think I know what's said, when they are met at home by waiting fathers or husbands. They're greeted with "Hi, I was worried about you so I waited up. Are you OK?" The answer must be something like, "I got a bottle of milk for the baby, and we'll have good food tomorrow for the whole family. There's gas in the car, I got some cold beer, here are your cigarettes, and I love you." The reservation area is similar to a federal "territory," as we understand that term from the days before the western states were admitted to the union. Land titles are held "in trust" by the federal government for the beneficial owners. The beneficial owners are individual Indians, and usually the tribal government owns a large amount of the less valuable land (the rocks and ice) which is held in common for all tribal members. Critics of Indians claim that tribal ownership of land is communistic. I will tell you now that that view is without merit. Indian tribes are unrelated to communism, and by definition part of the American Way. Communists may have copied some features from tribes, but tribes have copied nothing from communism. Indian traditional belief about land is neither communistic nor capitalistic. Except perhaps for small individual homesteads, their belief about land is that it is not something that can be owned by anyone. Land is of God and it is beyond price and individual ownership. Land is something to cherish rather than to exploit. Land, like the forest and streams, has it's own right to exist and to not be destroyed. This world view fits well into that of preserving the environment for future generations. A person may hunt, but not destroy all the wildlife, cut a tree but not destroy the forest, drink the water but not pollute the stream. The people of Holland hold their surface lands in private ownership, and yet the oil and underground resources are owned for the benefit of all, by their federal government. We don't call the Dutch communists because some of their property is held in common. The idea of land being owned by a tribe is simply a defense to protect it from the grasping hand of exclusive white ownership. The traditional non-Indian ethic has been to get what you can, now, with no concern that the land might be forever destroyed in the process. A logger will scream "jobs" while he cuts down the last tree, leaving only an eroded hill for his child's future. This is foreign to the Indian view of life. There has always been, and still is, white pressure to get this remaining land away from tribal ownership, destroying the tribe in the process. The whites are winning, and you'll soon understand why. It's a common mistake to assume that all the land on Indian reservations is owned by Indians. In many cases much - or even most - of the land is owned by whites, and usually it is the most valuable land, such as the river bottoms or land where irrigation water is available. Indians are often left with just the sides of mountains and bad-lands, and if these contain minerals or timber, the whites want to get their hands on that also to exploit it. Indians are simply "in the way," a nuisance keeping the capitalist away from some asset not yet fully exploited for a quick return of cash. At the Crow Reservation, 95% of the land is now either owned or controlled (leased) by non-Indians, and similar statistics are common to other reservations. That percentage is so well documented from so many reliable sources that I see no need to provide detailed support for the percentage. Just how the whites got the land is a long story. Historical records describe that most of it was taken through some form of fraud or deception. The federal government used law, force or threat of force to benefit non-Indian voters, friends or special interest groups. Often it was determined that the Indians had more land than they "should" have, and Congress either gave the land to whites or "sold" it to whites for bargain basement prices. Indian objections were ignored and overruled. Whites simply moved in and took the land, and the federal government then moved to make the actual displacement of Indians "legal" through coerced treaties or agreements. You've heard about homesteading and the Oklahoma land rush. Oklahoma was originally set aside as Indian country, a place of refuge for displaced tribes. Civil war debts were heavy, and the government needed cash. It collected cash by selling what it did not own, the land rights of the Indians. It did not ask Indian permission to do this; the land was taken by military force or intimidation. If you read the treaties, the promise was usually some cleaned-up version of "we won't kill you," but will allow you to live in peace under your existing tribal government, if you simply sign over the land and move away. After the Indians had moved, the process was repeated for the next plot of land where they had moved, and so on, chipping away at the Indian land base which grew smaller and smaller. Some bargain! Very often this was in violation of "the law of the land"; federal treaties agreed to ten or twenty years earlier that had promised "forever." The U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts cooperated with the politicians in dishonoring treaties and the U.S. Constitution. When it comes to Indians, they still do. Some three hundred treaties (which in our legal system rank second only to the Constitution) have not been enforced (where benefits are due Indians) and are routinely violated by our federal courts. Where benefits are due whites, such as title to the land, the treaties are absolutely enforced to the full letter of the law. In many cases the various Christian churches urged that the land should be taken from the Indians "for their own good." It was difficult to win converts from people who were self-supporting and happy with their existing religion and way of life. Indians preferred existing tribal social, ethical and religious values to those offered by their invaders, and to a large extent this is still true. More on that later. When Indians were brought to the point of mass starvation after the buffalo were all killed, it was much easier to "convert" and "civilize" them. Starvation, and withholding promised rations, was a most effective weapon. Now the message was "you poor things, if you simply change your ways you can be just like us." The word is "ethnocentric," a fancy way of saying be like me or die. Now that we've taken away your land and capital, we'll give you charity, so we can feel good about ourselves. It's interesting that much of Glacier National Park was owned by the Blackfeet tribe. When that land was taken for a national park, the federal government agreed that the tribe could retain hunting rights and the right to cut timber on the land that was signed away. Every year or two, a tribal member shoots an elk or moose in the park as allowed under federal treaties. They are, of course, arrested and fined. The legal rational is that the current use (read popular white demands) of the land supersedes the formal laws, treaties and federal Constitution. Perhaps an attorney could explain it better, but you get the idea. Federal treaties and promises, and the United States Constitution do not mean what they say when Indian are involved. I suggest the obvious; your rights could be next if you allow the Federal Constitution and Indian treaties to be trashed. After treaty-making was ended, treaties were replaced with "agreements" to cede land. Herein lies a great problem. In the hurry to grab Indian land, many of the agreements simply specified that the land was to be sold or relinquished, and did not bother to remove the Indian legal jurisdiction that the tribe had over that land as part of it's original reservation. The agreement simply described the land that was sold. In theory, the tribal courts (of non-reorganized tribes, such as the Crow) retain their legal jurisdiction over both whites and Indians on that "ceded" land, which remains part of the reservation. Do Indians fear to exercise their legal jurisdiction over that white-owned land? You better believe it. In most cases BIA leases the land to whites, and when that is done BIA collects the rent (grazing fees, oil and gas royalties, etc.) in trust. Proceeds from land are then credited to the Indian's Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and checks are issued to the beneficial Indian land owners. Much money disappears during this process. "Much" means millions, hundreds of millions. BIA supervisors have "sticky-fingers" and simply pocket what they think of as their share. This is described in other chapters, has been done for over a hundred years, and continues today. BIA sets the price to be charged for land usage, and prepares all contracts for rentals, grazing, oil drilling and the like. Historically BIA discourages or prevents Indians from operating their own land as ranchers or farmers - they are called incompetent. BIA rents the land to white land operators for a price well below what the land is worth. (No one at BIA disputes the bargain rental rates, which are well documented even by BIA.) These below market prices provide "patronage" or a systematic method of transferring (I call it looting) the value of Indian lands to whites, and has continued with little challenge for a hundred years. Where Indians have the right to lease their own land, still BIA insists upon dividing it among heirs when someone dies, rather than returning it to tribal ownership. By this process, the land is cut-up into ever smaller pieces, an ideal situation for white operators who use divide and conquer tactics. Where white ranchers deal directly with Indian land owners, the "good old boy" network enforces below market lease payments, the whites never, never bid against each other. I have heard many reports of this from Indian friends. Similar, as to irrigation water provided at the expense of the taxpayers. There are no accurately controlled records kept of billings and payments. In this way large non-Indian ranchers and farmers get water cheap or free, out of the federal budget for Indians. You'll find extensive third-party documentation about that subject in this book. CHAPTER 5 BIA Summary BIA controls Indians through the lack of accountability and the use of hierarchy to control BIA employees. It can and does veto the legislation of elected tribal officials, vetoes contracts, limits the use of attorneys to those approved by non-Indian politicians, and leases or otherwise controls land for the benefit of non-Indians. It withholds money and information about money (even tribal funds), limits sovereignty by tribal government and the authority of tribal courts, controls the police, undermines Indian self-government and democracy, steals from the poor, and hides behind phony words. The non-Indian land operators (ranchers, miners, loggers, etc.) are politically active, and their organizations give financial support (PAC money, etc.) to the western politicians. Aside from the PAC's, whose operations are open and legal, this can't be clearly traced, but if you try the pay-off idea as a theory, it explains why this outrageous system is never reformed. In the same way the non-Indian western public lands (or political lands) are looted. Like BIA, the Bureau of Land Management and U. S. Forest Service also rent land for grazing (at prices as low as one-tenth of market value) to white land operators. There are also subsidized timber sales, mining with no royalties, petroleum fraud, and the list goes on. The rules of capitalism and the market are trashed to produce a subsidy for politically favored classes, at the expense of all citizens. It's a tax kick-back that got started before any of us were born. The lack of improvements in federal accountability can be traced to this logic. If federal employees had to be responsible for their actions, they might refuse to do the "dirty work" for the politicians. Honest bookkeeping would make all of this traceable, so politicians don't want internal controls, effective audits, or honest financial reporting. BIA exploits and steals from Indians, and it manages to continue doing this because you and I let it happen. We have a collective responsibility to change this system, and this book will offer a specific way to get it done. CHAPTER 6 What I Found - General "The search for justice is the Christian message." Bishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa I was fired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in October, 1986, for the stated cause of "insubordination," but in truth for being a whistleblower. There is always a trumped-up cause, because firing a person for exercising the right of free speech (in an appropriate manner) wouldn't sound good. Nor would firing an auditor for issuing an honest report, while performing his assigned duties in an honest and forthright manner. The events leading up to my being fired will be described in more detail as we go along, but it's time to tell you about the underlying problems that led to the loss of my job a year after starting work at BIA. We're jumping forward in time to see what those problems are, and then later we'll back up and see how all this fits together, and organize the sequence of events for you. One of the problems that I found at BIA made the front page of the Arizona Republic, a major newspaper in Phoenix, Arizona, about a year after my being fired by BIA. The newspaper had been investigating BIA for some time, as a result of many complaints from both Indians and other citizens. In October, 1987, they began a series of articles and editorials that were eventually reprinted in booklet form, titled Fraud in Indian Country, a Billion Dollar Betrayal. Editorials described BIA as "the worst-managed agency in the whole U.S. Government," and both of Arizona's Senators (DeConcini and McCain) had scathing comments about BIA that were quoted by the newspaper. Congressman Mike Synar, of Oklahoma, stated that rather than making substantive changes, the Interior Department often finds it "easier to simply discredit the bearers of bad news about the BIA," exactly the position I found myself in. The newspaper articles, among other things, reported that: 1. Information fed into the agency's computer system is disorganized and erroneous. 2. An estimated $5.8 billion has not been collected (since 1979) from companies that pump oil and gas from reservation lands, thus robbing Indians. 3. In some cases, money that belonged to individual Indians and tribes was deposited in slush funds through accounts set up under phony names. 4. There are thirty recent incidents in which federal employees were allegedly involved in theft, embezzlement and fraud on Indian reservations, yet few are prosecuted. 5. Indian programs failed to improve the economies of reservations, and BIA failed to provide quality education for Indian children. 6. Housing programs are riddled with scandal, and housing in many areas is shockingly substandard. 7. Indian health remains poor, with diabetes reaching epidemic proportions on some reservations. 8. BIA cannot manage its own money, or account for millions in equipment and supplies. Arizona is an oil producing state, and many of the stories concentrated on that particular issue, but the newspaper series as a whole produced a terrible picture of BIA. My case was about to be noticed by the Arizona Republic. I had been struggling with BIA for about a year since being fired (in 1986), and there had recently been some local newspaper and TV news stories in the Billings area about my case. In early November, 1987, I had a call from Kennard Real Bird, a younger brother of Richard, Real Bird, then Chairman of the Crow Tribe. Ken had told Chuck Cook, an investigative reporter of the Arizona Republic about my case, and in turn Chuck Cook phoned me. Chuck wanted to come to Billings to interview me, and phoned to make an appointment for us to get together. I had dinner with Chuck on the evening of November 10, and the next day we met at his motel room, along with Julie Matt. Julie is another BIA whistleblower, and you'll find her story later in this book. This was the first time I had met Julie, and together we were questioned by Chuck Cook. On November 22, 1987, the Arizona Republic ran a story about me on the front page of the Sunday edition. The story continued on page 6, with my photograph, and with a related article about the Crow Tribe. My story was headlined "Accountant Challenging BIA Firing," and starts out with "The Bureau of Indian Affairs fired an accountant for insubordination and refusing to conform with government policy after he found a $7.5 million discrepancy in money the BIA handled for Indians." You've seen how the newspaper covered it, and now let's look at what was behind that story. The first item we will describe is the "$7.5 million dollar" issue. Be aware that although this is the name of this issue, it does not begin to measure the much greater dollar amount of the money missing from Indian Trust accounts. This book will support my findings with third-party evidence, analysis and audits. I'm providing that evidence because a favorite way to discredit whistleblowers is to label them as "crazies" who are lashing out in an unreasoned way with no hard evidence. There is clear and convincing evidence behind my claims; they are not vague slander. I found fraud in every one of the several BIA financial systems I examined, and what can only be seen as criminal neglect in BIA accounting and auditing in general. The loss to Indians from fraud, and the liability to taxpayers to replace missing money in BIA trust accounts is more than a billion dollars. That's the equivalent of a thousand successful bank robberies of a million dollars each. Sometimes when I'm asked to speak in public about this, I say that the center of organized crime in Montana is located in the federal office building in downtown Billings. That's a novel idea for the audience and usually brings some nervous laughter, but by the time I'm done talking, the idea is no longer absurd. It's a substantial fraud that can no longer be swept under the rug, and every taxpayer will feel the bite from increased taxes or a larger deficit. We, as well as our fellow citizens who are Indian, have been robbed. Most of BIA's services involve money. BIA collects money that belongs to Indians (Trust funds). It also controls federal funds (your taxes) that are budgeted and used for the legitimate needs of Indians. Where possible I'll avoid technical terms, and try to explain this in everyday language so you won't need a business or technical background to understand the issues. If you have that kind of background, you'll be able to skim lightly through some of the explanations. You will see here what BIA really does, and how it responds to criticism and complaints. First we'll take a look at the billions of dollars in trust funds maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. CHAPTER 7 What I Found Out About IIM Trust Accounts The first (of several) frauds that I discovered and reported has to do with Indian Trust accounts. In its position as trustee for Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) collects rents, grazing fees and such on Indian personal and tribal land holdings. When this money is collected, it's deposited in a federal bank account and credited to the accounts of the Indian owners. This is close to being a banking system, and the accounts are similar to savings accounts that earn interest. BIA avoids the word "bank," but since some Indian reservations are located far from banking centers, money is often allowed to accumulate in these accounts for safekeeping and to earn interest. BIA calls this the IIM (Individual Indian Money) system. Indians who live on reservations all know what "IIM" stands for, so by learning about this you will increase your knowledge about the lives of today's Indians. IIM is not taxpayer money; it is the personal income of Indian people held in trust. Most of the accounts are for individuals, but there are also large accounts for tribes and tribal groups. The reason for IIM accounts dates back to when Indians were mislabeled as incompetent, thus enabling BIA to manage their money for them. Using this theory, BIA could control all personal and tribal income as one more way to control Indians, and BIA supervisors had the opportunity to pick the pockets of Indians. That should come as no surprise. Historical accounts are filled with stories about petty theft and grand larceny directed against Indians by those entrusted with their care. Traditional Indians believed in sharing with their greater family, the tribe. No individual should be too rich or too poor. It was a grand gesture (and to some extent still is) among Indians to have a "giveaway." If one tribal member managed to accumulate more wealth than others, he/she would have a public party and give the excess to tribal neighbors. Our transplanted European culture found this to be stupid, dirty and anti-capitalistic, and it was discouraged. In Canada, for instance, the potlatch was declared illegal. BIA disapproved of this. Part of "civilizing" Indians was to teach greed as a virtue. After all, it was a sign of capitalism. Indians were forced to conform to the white concept of values. Greed is good and sharing is stupid according to the whiteman's rules. The Indian ethic of sharing had no value. The trust funds provided a source for the embezzlement of funds by BIA officials. Autocratic control, little or no accountability and immunity from lawsuits makes for easy picking. Over the years, BIA reduced it's function of control over the use of these funds. The Agency Superintendent still serves as guardian in some cases (for minor children, adults in mental institutions, etc.) but in most cases money collected for an account holder (or what's left of it) is paid out to the account holder after a few days. There are computer terminals at each reservation in the Agency offices. BIA does the billing for land rents and similar transactions. Money is received at the Agency office by a federal cashier, and entries are made on the computer terminal to credit the accounts of the owners. A typical transaction would be grazing fees received from a non-Indian who leases Indian land. The computer terminals are connected by direct wire to the Area Office (in this case, Billings) where the IIM accounts are maintained. The money (mostly checks) is mailed to Billings, where work is done to deposit the money in a federal bank account. You might hope for a tight connection between the entries made by wire from the Agency offices, and the actual flow of money into the federal bank account. There is not, there is only a very fuzzy connection, which is a terribly serious problem. It's possible to make entries at the Agency without any cash reaching Billings. It's also possible for cash collections to arrive in Billings, without any entry to credit the individual accounts. I am the first CPA (other than the rare federal auditor) to examine this in detail, and I tell you that's what I found. There is a near complete lack of control and accountability. One of my first assignments with BIA was to study the IIM accounting system. My job description said I was to "review, report and then recommend" any improvements needed in the system. This is a very standard assignment for an accountant or auditor, and with thirty years experience in corporate and public accounting and auditing, I was qualified to do the work. You're going to keep hearing the word "reconciliation" when we talk about this, so it's important to understand what that means in this particular context. The term is very broad, so it must be defined to fit the situation at BIA. Let's assume you have a checking account. Each time you make a deposit or write a check, you add or subtract from your old balance to arrive at a new balance on your check stub or check register. Each month you receive a bank statement in the mail, and you compare your balance with what the bank shows. Often the amounts don't agree, so you look for bank service charges, checks outstanding, and so forth. This is what people think of as reconciling, and it's necessary for catching errors. For household checking accounts, the mysteries usually aren't difficult, so you can do the job yourself, or a trip to the bank solves any remaining problems. For a large commercial account with millions of dollars and thousands of transactions, the job is more difficult, but trained bookkeepers or accountants can solve the problems. For large accounts, reconciling is essential. For BIA IIM accounts, there are two things to be reconciled. One is the individual's account, which is maintained on the computer in Billings. That is the computer that the Agencies are connected to by wire. The accounts are totaled at the end of the month and that's the equivalent of your household checking account balance. The thing to match is the total shown on the bank statement. The Billings office does not see the bank statement since it's kept by another BIA office (in Albuquerque, New Mexico). Billings does get a copy of the Albuquerque bank records, which serves the purpose of a bank statement. (For the technical reader, it's a copy of the general ledger account showing cash in the bank). So far there's nothing evil in this. Billings has the information it needs to reconcile the IIM accounts. The problem is, I found that Billings does not reconcile the accounts, and had never even compared the two balances. At first thought that sounds more sloppy than evil. The problem is that it's somebody else's money, BIA is supposed to provide a high level of care for it, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars missing from the accounts of people who live in poverty. BIA has such sloppy records that there is no way to find out what happened. The money is gone. Where it went is unknown, since nobody at BIA is willing to look. Old records have conveniently been destroyed, making it impossible to reconstruct past transactions. It appears to me, after examining the situation in depth until I was stopped short, that this is the result of decades of unrestricted theft by BIA personnel. But what about our national concept of assuming innocence until guilt is proven? Pretend for a minute that you find yourself relying on a trustee to hold your money, and you have some idea about how much he is receiving each year. Year after year he pays out less than received, and he refuses to give you any reports about your balances. Authoritative experts report again and again that your trustee does sloppy work and refuses to make any improvements in his system. Years go by, always the same, and you are always missing money, lots of money. I suggest that at some point in time, based on these facts, the burden of proof shifts to discredit the person holding the cash. Your suspicions are based on reason, and it is the trustee who needs to prove his honesty. Billings is not the only BIA Area Office where this has happened, although that would be bad enough. The same thing has happened in EVERY BIA Area Office. The Indian's trust accounts have not been handled in a trustworthy fashion, and the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to replace the hundreds of millions of dollars that are missing. Let's not play games, to be correct about it, the only logical conclusion is that the money has been stolen. There might not be a legal obligation, but there is an ethical and moral obligation for BIA to return the missing money. That is where this reaches into your pocket. At Billings, my initial report was that the missing amount was $7.5 million dollars, which was the NET of shortages and excesses. The gross amount is much greater that that, and what happened to the money will never be known. It is a fact that the money is missing, and the only possible explanation is grand larceny. After the first hundred years or so of a continuing problem, I believe the burden of proof must shift to the party whose hands are in the cash box, and that party is BIA. To prepare for my audit assignment I looked for any earlier studies about the IIM system. I found the following: EARLIER REPORTS: The General Accounting Office (GAO), an auditing arm of Congress, had issued a report in 1982 titled REPORT TO THE CONGRESS, signed by the Comptroller General, dated September 8, 1982. Page 17 of that report stated that BIA's trust fund accounting was not reliable. Local offices did not complete required reconciliations, and the accounts were out of balance by millions of dollars. The situation had not improved since a previous study in 1968. (Note that they said "out of balance," not "missing money," as I would say later on.) On page 29, it strongly recommended that reconciliations should be done, and on page 33 BIA said it would "require that these reconciliations be done." During my work I discovered that BIA's response to the earlier audit was false. There had been no changes or improvements since 1968, a period of eighteen years. BIA's response was an empty promise. BIA knew the promise was empty when it made it. To "require that these reconciliations be done" means that BIA would issue a "directive" or instruction. There are several catches that make a directive like this deceptive. First, the system is so poorly designed that without improving it, reconciliations are impossible. Note that the directive does not even mention improving the system. BIA does not have the trained people on its staff who could perform the reconciliations, even if the system was improved. BIA's directives are not addressed to a particular person or office with the authority and responsibility to accomplish the task, and the directives are not enforced. BIA's promise was in 1982, and yet in 1994 the accounts still are not being reconciled. The accounts in Billings were not being reconciled, and in the memory of employees, they never had been. I learned that from my own audit work. In continuing my search for earlier studies, I found a report issued by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General. INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT - SEPT. 1985: On page 13, their study of another area office showed the cash accounts at that office short by forty two million dollars. Later, an informant that I believe to be reliable told me that the other office had a fictitious account under the name of R.L. Larson. The Larson account was used to skim cash from Indians, for BIA expenses and for the personal pockets of BIA employees. I do not have personal knowledge of this but it seems most likely. Cash does not evaporate, and Larson is a cute name for larceny. That word "short" s mine, the previous audits are never that definite, and never speak of grand larceny. I was to be the first person to call it what it is, larceny of the poor. On page 14 of the report, OIG auditors made a grave error. They said: .".. all agency accounts for ... Billings ... had been reconciled. We concluded that these reconciliations were being accomplished timely and accurately ..." That quotation is very important, and I want you to remember it; I will refer to it again. In my reports about the IIM system I said the OIG audit was deceptive, which is a simple fact, and in a later letter to me (dated 12/15/87) OIG auditors admitted that in their earlier report (stating reconciliations were being accomplished) "we did not verify ...." In straight language, that means they did not bother to look. That letter from the Inspector General is in my files, copies have gone to Congress, etc., so it's a public record, not some unsupported claim. BIA referred to my report (that the OIG audit was wrong) as "frivolous and unwarranted," and in my boss, Bill Benjamin's, letter of dismissal my report about OIG's error was used as grounds for firing me. Benjamin knew at the time that the OIG audit was wrong. I told him about it several times, and gave him clear proof and written evidence to show that the accounts were not reconciled, which Benjamin fully understood. That's important. I spent hours discussing this with Benjamin, and he understood the accounts were not reconciled, and he knew this was important. He knew my report was correct but still used it as grounds to fire me for insubordination. Long after being fired, I received a letter from James R. Richards, Inspector General, dated April 19, 1988 in answer to repeated questions and letters from me and pressure from a congressional representative. Referring to the 1985 OIG audit, the Inspector General's letter states: "we have concluded that [the statement in] our prior audit was not factual." The final paragraph in Mr. Richards letter reads: .".. we agree that ... our prior audit ... was in error and ... may have misled the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We regret if this ... in any way contributed to your problems with the Bureau." What a joke!. Contributed to my problem? It was used as a false ground to fire me, and at the time I was fired Benjamin knew it was false. I was financially ruined over this "error," one hell of a price to pay for preparing an honest report. I spent several months reviewing IIM, so it's necessary to give you a summary. After researching earlier studies, I gathered all the information available on the computer system and programs, and learned to use the computer to inquire about accounts. I spoke to the programmers and computer operators to learn what they did, and I studied the information produced by the computers. Much time was spent with Donna Boyer, the head of Billings IIM clerical work. One of her main jobs was to prepare what was (in error) called a reconciliation. Whoever designed her job didn't understand what a reconciliation was, because what she produced was not a reconciliation at all. She was loyally and efficiently doing her assigned work, but it had no connection to reconciling, just unnecessary wheel spinning. The individual accounts are kept on a computer in Billings, controlled by that direct wire from the Agencies. The cash is deposited in a federal bank account in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This will start to make sense to you in a minute or two. It is obvious that the two things should agree. The total in the depositors accounts should be the same as the amount of cash in the bank. However, I soon discovered that more cash was coming in than was being credited to the depositors accounts. The idea of matching the two, or reconciling, is something that commercial banks, savings and loan institutions and credit unions do every day. At banks reconciling is sometimes just called balancing, or balancing the books. Banks hire accountants and auditors of their own. Each state employs auditors and so do the Federal agencies that inspect banks. At the Billings Area Office, there is one person with final authority over cash controls and bank reconciliations. It is a man we will get to know better, Bill Benjamin, my boss at BIA. The IIM account balances in Billings amount to around fifty million dollars, which makes BIA one of the largest "banks" in Billings. If you assume that BIA employs accountants and auditors, like the banks do to watch over their money, then you are wrong. I was the first accountant employed in Billings in anyone's memory, and they had never employed an auditor. In fact, BIA has very few accountants, and among it's thirty thousand employees, not a single auditor. If you take a course in accounting or in business law, you will find that when it comes to a trust fund or trust accounting, high standards are required. If you are paid to take care of somebody else's property, your work should be above suspicion. The words in Black's Law Dictionary that best describe the duties of a trustee are: fiduciary, obligation, confidence and faithfully. The rule handed down to us from English law is that a trustee is liable for providing a "high degree" of responsible care. If a (nongovernmental) trustee fails to do that, he or she is liable for the missing money, for fines and for a prison sentence. At the very least, BIA has an ethical and moral obligation to meet the standards that apply to trustees. In an earlier chapter, we quoted BIA's words that part of it's mission was to "fulfill and execute the Federal Government's trust obligations to American Indians." Now we see that BIA does not provide good trust services. BIA seldom tells the truth about itself or about Indians, and here you have a concrete example of that. So, what did I find? I had asked Donna to compare the two totals; the individual accounts with the balance in the bank. She found the individual accounts were short by more than six million dollars. She was close, and when I did my (more exacting) work I found that as of 2/28/86 the exact net difference was $7,584,313.82. There was more cash in the bank than had been credited to the accounts of the Indian owners. Most accountants would tell you - and I will tell you here - that if bank records are rife with errors, never balanced and out of control, it is wise to think about embezzlement and stealing. I did not find it, I was stopped; fired by Benjamin before I could look any further. Accountants also know that in a situation like this, there could be both positives and negatives (shortages and excesses) within some net balance. My report only described the NET difference in the balances. There is room to play with words here. From the viewpoint of the Indians the accounts are short. The money that was collected was not credited to their accounts, so there is no way they could draw it out. BIA will play with words if it is to their advantage. It took BIA several YEARS before they agreed that the facts I reported were correct,and they still imply that it is not a serious problem. All my reports on this give an exact date and amount with good reason. One way BIA handles problems is to generalize them, such as to respond that there may have been some minor inaccuracy at some point in time, but that generally there is no problem. My specific complaint about a specific problem at a specific date prevents BIA from doing an end run. Now, if you had a bank where the deposits were not added to your account, what would you call it? Most people would say they were robbed, most would call the police. You would certainly look at your bank statements carefully, but then BIA does not send statements out very often, and in some cases almost never. An OIG audit of the IIM accounts at the Fort Peck, Montana, BIA Agency office found in 1985 that "statements have not been distributed since 1979." (Audit W-IA-BIA-18-84). That's six years with no detailed accounting to the account holders. Would you like to have BIA take charge of your money and never give you a bank statement? After leaving BIA, a tribal government in another state phoned me. I will be vague about identities here to protect them from reprisal. A top administrator of that tribe told me: "BIA is robbing us, and won't let us have a record of our account. Without access to our own money to operate tribal government, our tribe is failing." Let me remind you - this is not Federal money, it is the tribe's earnings from property the tribe owns. BIA was holding back the tribe's own money. BIA's action did not match it's mission statement to "strengthen tribal capacity to govern." In reality, it was destroying the tribal government's capacity to operate by leaving it with no cash. This was not the Crow Tribe, but you will see elsewhere in this book that the same thing was done in a vindictive fashion to the Crow Government. I believed the person who phoned me, but there was nothing I could do, and I had no answer. BIA's trap is effective. There are no police to call, our legal system makes BIA exempt from lawsuits, and the FBI does not investigate when a federal agency harms American citizens, at least not if the citizens are Indian. In Billings, I reported my findings to Bill Benjamin including a copy of Donna Boyer's findings on April 17, 1986, and gave him a more detailed report on April 29. Nothing was done. After urging him verbally several times, and waiting over two months, I wrote directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Indian Affairs) on July 9th. There was no response from Ross Swimmer. On July 23, I made a formal report at a committee meeting. There were several reasons to report this, in addition to a general suspicion of fraud and grand theft: 1). Job assignment, as described earlier. 2). Job description, to use professional judgment. 3). CPA professional ethics, and the basic requirement of full disclosure. 4). Federal laws about waste, fraud and abuse. 5). My Federal oath of office. 6). Past military service oath. 7). Congressional Code of Ethics for Government Service. Article 9 states "expose corruption wherever discovered." 8). Legal requirements of trusteeship. 9). Dictates of religion and conscience. During my follow-up after being fired, I wrote to Montana's Senator Max Baucus. He asked for a response from BIA. Here is what BIA's Director of Administration, Nancy Garrett, had to say about the problem in her letter of 5/29/87 responding to Senator Baucus: "In performing its trust responsibilities, the Bureau's intent is to achieve the highest degree of accuracy and quality possible. As with any large accounting system which carries data for a high volume of ... accounts, errors may occur. However, these errors are detected and corrected through the account reconciliation process which is required to be performed on a monthly basis." Garrett's letter is not just worthless hot-air, it is deceptive, and she had to know that when she wrote it. Her words "required to be performed" are unrelated to the factual situation; her response amounted to a lie. Garrett wrote a similar letter on 07/02/87 with almost identical wording to U. S. Representative Ron Marlenee. As of 1994, the reconciliations are still not done and the missing millions are not accounted for. In my follow-up after being fired by BIA, I was assisted by Montana's Senator Max Baucus who asked BIA to respond to written questions from me. The question about IIM was "do you agree with the factual situation." It took BIA five months to answer that, but here is the response of William Ragsdale (BIA's chief career employee) dated December 17, 1987. "Yes, we agree that there was a difference of $7,584,313. [at 2/28/86]." Ragsdale's letter said there would be a training program to "address the problem." OIG audit (No. 88-116), which resulted from my "allegations," as BIA always puts it, was finally issued in September, 1988. The audit, rounded to the nearest dollar, stated that the unaccounted for difference was $7,584,314. It went on to say: "...the Area Office did not know whether the 39,000 ... accounts valued at $51 million were correctly stated." In ordinary language that means the records are not right and the system is out of control. The $7.5 million I reported was a net difference. When the accounts (within that net) are segregated by type, the individuals accounts (just one part of IIM) are short by $27 million dollars, according to OIG's own figures. The gross differences that I add up from OIG' figures are over 60 million dollars. So, although the NAME of this issue at the Billings Area Office relates to $7.5 million, the measure of it is around $60 million at just this one location. The situation for America's Indians is a real mess. After my many complaints, the international accounting firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. was retained by BIA (after a shove from various Senators) to do certain audit work on these trust funds. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I obtained hundreds of pages of audit reports, some of which are referred to in this book. Here are some of the words from one of those pages, which I will enclose as Appendix 2. The date was February 20, 1989, but I believe it is typical of the continuing situation. It is a report about replies received from IIM account holders who were asked to respond if their IIM balances were in error: "The majority of the negative comments are from the Phoenix and Billings areas. ... The most common complaints are (in order of occurrence) .. 1.) Haven't received checks listed on statements. 2.)... in many instances, had never seen a statement prior to this mailing. 3.) Have no knowledge of even the existence of the accounts confirmed." All BIA Area offices have a similar situation. The total cost for BIA to straighten out this mess, replacing cash missing from the accounts of Indians, based on what I know, could easily reach a billion dollars (not counting interest). You can bet that BIA will say shortages are offset by overages, to make this issue of minor importance. I won't buy that for a minute, because it's dead wrong. The benefit of any doubt (remember the high level of care required by trustees) does not belong to the trustee, it belongs to the beneficiaries. That is the rule we get from our system of law, and here we are dealing with oppressed human beings, not just "accounts." The OIG reports lean in favor of BIA, not the holders of the Indian trust accounts. That is bias rather than independence on the part of the auditor. Let's see how the OIG report treats the discrepancies that I described while employed by BIA: "We found that this difference ... resulted primarily from computer system design and reconciliation procedure deficiencies that existed for several years. ... our adjustments tend to explain all but $374,000 of the $7.6 million net difference ... In theory, these adjustments should not have any effect on the underlying individual and tribal account balances ..." So, OIG makes it a relatively small matter, and "tends to explain" that the problem should have no effect on the accounts. Yet on the same page they make the other statement (quoted earlier) that BIA "did not know whether the 39,000 ... accounts were correctly stated." I tend to think they are lying through their teeth, and OIG has a forked tongue. Just who pocketed the roughly 60 million dollars that was skimmed off the Billings Area trust accounts over the years? According to OIG, apparently the computer did it. If I call it $60 million, and the Inspector General calls it $374,000, who is right? To me the OIG audit is a soft (kissing-up) report about a real and massive problem; a sad example of "no fault government" where nobody is responsible for problems and the problems are treated lightly. I suggest that the federal courts should decide the issue, and there should be a jury to determine the amount including interest and damages. OIG's people who do the actual auditing may be basically honest, but their final report is written or edited by those who they make things look as good as possible to keep their jobs. Another potential loose-end concerns the accounting work done at Albuquerque. Their reports (general ledger) are supposed to agree with the cash in the bank, but I had no way to test whether or not their records are accurate. From what we've seen of BIA's accounting, I believe that the Albuquerque reports should be audited by independent CPAs. As a matter of fact, that has happened, I believe at least in part because of pressure from me. Following the investigation of BIA by the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, BIA was required to hire the CPA firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. to audit trust accounting and certain irrigation operations. It also just so happens that my first job out of college was with Arthur Andersen. My first thought about this development was hopeful, because I have a warm place in my heart (and a lot of respect) for AA & Co., as it is called, which is now one of the world's largest CPA firm. Times have changed, the great CPA firms no longer have untarnished reputations, but have Washington DC offices which are cozy with federal politicians. The major CPA firms are hard to distinguish from other "consulting" firms that buy favors and remain kissykissy with politicians. The national CPA firms pay large sums into congressional campaign funds, no different than the other "consultants," and they expect a profitable return for their money, such as million dollar audit contracts. They know where the money comes from, and don't bite the hand that feeds them. So - who do you trust. I trust that the dollar amounts in Arthur Andersen's audit reports of BIA trust accounts are as accurate as possible, although I don't necessarily agree with the opinions and reasoning shown in their reports. Let's take a look at some of the recent audit reports, obtained by me through the Freedom of Information Act. In an audit report dated January 31, 1991, AA & Co. reported that: "Summaries of daily deposits prepared by field offices do not agree and are not reconciled to the general ledger.".. and "we found a lack of overall coordination and standardization ..." In another report (as of September 30, 1990), Arthur Andersen & Co., reported that the Billings area office's unaccounted for trust account balance was $6,470,098 (net) which is not much of an improvement from the $7.5 million net shortage I reported in 1986. This outside audit by AA & Co. puts the lie to OIG's bald-faced claim that all but $374,000 was accounted for. So, with three different figures, who can you believe? I was there, and I suggest that either the AA & Co. amount, or mine, is close enough as a NET difference, although NET doesn't mean much compared to the GROSS shortage to taxpayers and Indians in these "trust" funds controlled by BIA. Tne real difference between me and AA & Co., my years-ago employer, is that I was getting paid thirty-one thousand dollars a year, while AA & Co. is collecting about a million dollars a year in audit fees out of the Indian budget. I was financially ruined because of my report, while AA & Co. is well paid. Members of congress can count on contributions into their campaign funds from the nations large auditing firms who kiss-up to them. How do you measure the total dollar amount of this problem? There is no exact way, so an estimate is the best I can do. I call it about $60 million at the Billings Area office, and then multiply that by ten since the Billings Area represents about a tenth of the whole. That makes $600 million before interest. The problem has continued for one hundred fifty years, so interest must be added. At a very modest minimum, that should double or triple the amount. Then add the cost for more audits, courts and attorneys. I estimate that stealing from Indians will cost our taxpayers not less than two billion dollars in total. A newspaper article by columnist Jack Anderson in August, 1993, called the problem a "Fiasco", and he is absolutely correct. A repeated pattern begins to emerge, and you can see how BIA handles whistleblowers. First the claims are treated as false, and if they conflict with BIA's self image, whistleblowers are called disrespectful of existing authority, which is insubordination. If the claims are proven accurate, then they are an unimportant trifle, nothing new. Surely BIA can't be accused of suppressing information if that information is neither original nor important. If the claims prove to be both original and important, still they were disrespectful and their suppression by BIA was an innocent error, not worth correcting. After all, the whistleblower has an opportunity to dispute the matter through specific government channels, so we must wait for that result. If not much time has passed, reference is made to the appeals procedure, and BIA will tell you that procedures must be followed. After years are spent on fruitless appeals, then the issue is so old that it no longer is important. Yes, the people who suppressed honesty have been promoted, but after all, they are worthy and loyal employees and anyone can make an honest mistake. This pattern is used again and again to defeat honesty and to hide massive fraud. Now it is time to learn about Docket #184, and see what that strange title reveals about Bill Benjamin and BIA. We'll start hearing about Julie Matt, a Northern Cheyenne woman whose life was changed when she discovered problems with the way Bill Benjamin handled Docket #184. CHAPTER 8 DOCKET #184 The Fort Peck Indian Reservation in Montana is shared by portions of the Sioux and the Assiniboine. The largest town, Wolf Point, was named for the tens of thousands of wolf pelts shipped from there in the last century by white trappers. Next in size is the town of Poplar, where the BIA Agency office is located near the tribal headquarters. There are four smaller villages along U.S. Highway #2 that passes through the Reservation. They are Frazer, Brockton, Fort Kipp and Oswego, which (along with Poplar and Wolf Point) makes six towns that are involved in Docket #184. If you look at your road map or atlas, you'll find these towns in the northeast corner of Montana. In 1981 there was a court settlement for old land claims of the tribe, and the money awarded by the court was paid to BIA in trust for the tribe. The Docket #184 name comes from the court action where the money originated. Several accounts were used by BIA but we can think of it as one account or one pot holding Docket #184 money. After lawyers were paid, most of the money was paid to tribal members, leaving a balance of over two million dollars in the pot, under the supervision of BIA. That sounds like a lot of money, but not when you remember these are among the poorest people in the world, who were once wealthy with endless lands. The money is spread very thin among poor people, and they received a low price for their hundreds of thousands of acres of rich grasslands and minerals. You can be sure they wanted to keep the land, which they saw as holy, and to protect it from white exploitation. In truth the land was bargained away at the point of a gun, like the wolf pelts long ago. Indians thought the wolf had a right to live, but the trappers saw only money and came to take whatever could be hauled away. It was portable wealth. The wolves were all killed, there are none today. It appears to me that our Indians are likely to go next; they are also being sold out for money, so their land can be exploited for a quick profit. An agreement was reached to divide the remaining Docket #184 balance among tribal towns and villages for community projects, like fire fighting equipment, community buildings and similar projects. So far, no problem. All parties agreed that each of the communities owned a certain percentage of the balance in the fund. At this point, Bill Benjamin made a costly error. I am not aware of anything malicious about it, but he decided to keep the balances for all six communities in a common pot, instead of opening an account for each community. Now the problems start. Several years went by with the money in this common pot, drawing interest. The communities were holding it for future needs, although some took part of their money for current projects. While I was at BIA the communities were asking for a report of their balances, and I was assigned by Bill Benjamin to determine the share that each had in the remaining fund. The Indian trust beneficiaries had not had a report on their cash in years. If you happen to be an accountant who is reading this, the job sounds easy, but it was very complex. As I got familiar with BIA's trust accounting, I found that about a third of all bookkeeping entries were errors. If and when the errors were caught, and some went unnoticed for years, it took a large number of entries to correct the errors. Some of the corrections themselves were in error which required still more entries. This is the way it is at BIA, even inactive accounts show a flurry of bookkeeping entries, inadequate work, mistakes and general confusion. I speak of a common pot or common fund to keep the story simple, but this fund was scattered over many bookkeeping accounts which made the task complex. Bill Benjamin had done some work to try to figure this out, and his assistant Bill Ellingson worked on it, but neither was able to solve the problem, or perhaps they just didn't want to see the truth. To make order out of chaos, I needed a computer. Although the business world relied heavily on computers at this time and I had used them in my daily work for thirty years, there was nothing available at BIA. At home I had a computer left from my accounting practice, so most of this work was done on my own time at home at night and on weekends. I used my computer to rework the five year history of Docket #184. You will see in another chapter where Julie Matt found an illegal payment had been ordered out of Docket #184 by Benjamin. Even though I knew nothing about Julie Matt then, I found the same item. The account had been overdrawn by Benjamin in his hurry to get the money into the hands of a private investment firm. In addition I found something even more significant. Benjamin had paid out too much money to Wolf Point and Poplar, at the expense of Frazer, Brockton, Fort Kipp and Oswego. The money was gone from the federal trust and I saw no way to recover it. It was not paid to some person who could pay it back, but went for general community benefits. The cash was gone and could not be recovered. Since the cash for all six communities was held in a single fund, the four remaining communities had been shorted. They lost their trust-money and the interest they would have earned on it. They had a legal right to the money, so the shortage would have to come from the federal treasury, or perhaps from Benjamin's pocket. The shortage I computed was $94,525.88 and the payment took place in April of 1983 so there would be several years interest due. I don't know that Benjamin made any personal profit from Docket #184 because he fired me before I finished my work. He also fired Julie Matt earlier when she noticed the illegal payment he made. That type of action by a Financial Manager should make an auditor's scalp tingle with suspicion that all is not right. I reported the facts to Benjamin verbally, and in a written memo on April 29, 1986. I did not place any blame nor was I judgmental about it. He did not agree with my report then or later. Rodney Young (a BIA accountant who was called in by Benjamin from BIA's Albuquerque office) stated in his report on 9/16/86 that: "we have reviewed ... Docket #184 and have found no erroneous or excessive disbursements," and [Henry's] report was "frivolous and unwarranted." There will be more information about Rodney Young's report, which I call a serious cover-up (and fraud) done (apparently) at Benjamin's request to conceal the cash shortage. Rodney Young spoke with forked tongue, and this book will give you absolute proof of that. After being threatened with dismissal I filed a grievance. Benjamin responded on September 24, 1986 with "there were no excessive disbursements." The problem was also cited in Benjamin's letter which fired me later that year. In my follow-up with BIA after being fired, BIA's William Ragsdale (BIA's chief employee) repeated in his letter to me dated December 17, 1987 that: "There has been no over distribution." We need to settle the facts. Almost two years went by before OIG performed an audit (in response to the complaints from me) and released it's official audit report number 88-116. Here is what that report said as of September, 1988; "two communities have overdrawn their shares by about $93,000. ..." "[Henry] ... raised the issue that the Bureau may be potentially liable for the overdraws ..." "[Benjamin] did not agree ..." "We disagree with [Benjamin] ..." Auditor's Recommendations: "direct the Billings Area Office ... to ... provide the ... tribes ... with an accounting ..." There is no doubt about the facts. Julie Matt was correct and Benjamin fired her. I was correct and Benjamin fired me. OIG's recommendation lacks guts, because it leaves the problem in the hands of the very person who caused it. Bill Benjamin is the person to prepare the accounting that reports the shortage, so I assume he will force those destitute Indians to accept his error. If I had written the OIG audit report, I would have ordered the missing cash paid to the shorted communities with interest, and I would have ordered the Interior Solicitor (attorney) to recover the amount from Benjamin. Where does this stand today? Julie Matt still suffers her indignity, and I suffer mine, financially ruined for life and unemployable. The four Indian communities don't have their money. The Billings Area Director has been promoted. Rodney Young has apparently been promoted. Benjamin is still employed in financial management, but has been promoted to control a much larger piece of BIA. Ellingson is (or is about to be) retired, drawing Federal pay for the remainder of his life. In a later chapter about fraud and reprisal, we will refer to Docket #184 again. Now let's take a look at BIA's irrigation projects, a long term and continuing source of fraud that takes property from Indians, and millions from taxpayer pockets. CHAPTER 9 What I Found - Irrigation Montana is arid, and parts of it are desert. Not much grows without water, so on several of the Indian reservations there are Federal irrigation projects operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). These projects consist of dams, waterways and ditches to carry the water to farms and ranches on the reservations. Within the Billings Area, irrigation personnel keep their distance from the general BIA administration, with their own local offices and personnel. They have managers, bookkeepers and employ ditch-riders who turn the water on and off at the various locations. They have manual bookkeeping systems to record what is owed and paid by water users. Collections are turned over to BIA's cashiers and are recorded on BIA's books for each irrigation project. BIA's accounts receivable system does not work. It is so unreliable that little attention is paid to it. Within irrigation projects, there are no complete and balanced records about who is billed for water, who pays and who does not. BIA has no auditors to review irrigation records, which is very convenient for white ranchers who might not want to pay for their federally supplied irrigation water. It is possible for a water user to get a completely free ride -- that is, if the user does not pay his water bill (assuming he receives an accurate bill in the first place) there may be no record to show an unpaid balance. Users learn that if they ignore their water bills, there seldom are problems and the water keeps flowing down the ditch. There is wide open opportunity for fraud and collusion. A bookkeeping system that does not work, disorganized and unbalanced manual records, no auditing, and no sign that anyone cares or is even interested. If the systems lose money, and they do, Congress just appropriates more money to cover the loss. It is justified as a necessary expense for Indians. You already learned that most of the usable land on reservations is either owned or leased by whites. If irrigation makes the land productive (it does) and most is used by whites (it is) then most of the cost of BIA Irrigation is for whites, not Indians. You might wonder how much taxpayer money escapes through this sieve. I have no exact figures, so a rough estimate is the best I can do. At the Billings Area office I believe it's at least a quarter million dollars each year. How long has this been going on? Almost a hundred years. That amounts to over twelve million dollars, and with the other area offices perhaps a quarter billion dollars in total. I assume that since large ranchers make political contributions to federal politicians, that is the reason that nobody in power wants the system corrected. Why else would BIA refuse to improve the system? They can't blame in on lack of funds; they have enough people for that and the improvements needed are not complicated. I was assigned to review this system and to report on it by Bill Benjamin. My job description, signed by Benjamin, said: " ... [Henry] insures the propriety of ... reports [and] ...recommends solutions." As to irrigation, "reviews the books and accounts ... makes recommendations to ... improve the ... system." I found that the Area office had no accurate records of water billings and collections. The BIA computer system for recording accounts receivable was bypassed. There were few internal controls, and they were ignored. Irrigation offices were seldom (if ever) audited. The systems were losing money. BIA's official record - the general ledger - was in complete disarray, and showed large negative balances (over a million dollars) for water receivables, which is a logical impossibility. I reported this verbally to Benjamin, and made offers to repair and improve the accounting system. The reports were ignored and the offer was refused. My memo to him on 4/29/86 reported: "You are aware of the negative accounts receivable problem. The system is deficient and very large losses to the government are possible. The situation has been out of control." After being fired, I received a letter from BIA's William Ragsdale (BIA's head administrator) which has been cited earlier. Concerning irrigation receivables, his letter states: "Mr. Henry's report was essentially correct." We can learn still more by looking at a relevant audit by the Inspector General, (OIG). The audit is only a partial answer because it refers to just one project, at the Fort Peck reservation. That audit (WIA-BIA-18- 84A) dated 1/16/86 states: "accounting and controls ... are inadequate [and] BIA's general ledger ... showed a credit balance. ... assessments were not recorded for several years... internal controls over collections and deposits were weak ... and only minimal efforts were made to collect past due accounts." The irrigation matter was not specifically referred to in my letter of dismissal as a cause of firing me, but in an indirect way it was. My offer to work to repair the damage in this and other systems was found to be arrogant. Let's explain that "negative accounts receivable" business. The Billings irrigation system showed a negative balance for accounts receivable, and BIA nationally had negative receivables in excess of ten million dollars. The simple part is that it means the accounting records are a complete mess. More importantly it means that ten million dollars of income from water collected from customers has not been shown as income. Most elected politicians are lawyers, not accountants, and it's unlikely that they would notice the accounting part of this problem. With the ten million left off as income from water sales, the irrigation operations would look even worse than they really are. That means congress (and the taxpayers) because of this particular error have had to supply ten million dollars more in cash (to operate the irrigation projects) than BIA really needs, because of BIA's poor accounting. When BIA "crooks the books" it deceives Congress and all citizens as well as Indians. In response (at least in part) to my complaints, OIG conducted an audit of BIA's irrigation system. They did not cover all of the Billings Area irrigation projects, but at least two of them were included along with five projects that are assigned to other area offices. I won't bore you with all the details, but here is a brief review of OIG's audit report number 88-42 which was released in February, 1988: "We concluded that the Bureau was not assessing, billing, and collecting ... in accordance with stipulated requirements" Referring to an earlier audit at Fort Peck, the Agency was "not assessing ... non-Indians." At the Pima Agency, they noted that land was "leased to non-Indians but ... not assessed" and that "records of payments were no longer available." Since 1981, thousands of acres (leased by non-Indians) were not billed for water used. At Wind River, Wyoming "lost revenue in 1986 alone could total $26,599." For a Crow project, $27,000. was spent without authorization on the basis of "verbal instructions from a Central Office official." For nine non- Indian leases, collection action was not taken on about $9,000 of delinquent accounts of non-Indians. About that $27,000. Just who do you suppose authorizes spending on the Crow project? Bill Benjamin of course, with assistance from his budget officer, Bill Ellingson. At the Wapato project in Western Nevada, "bills of $656,000. ... were prepared but never mailed to water users." For the seven projects reviewed delinquent accounts (that got on the books) increased 300% from 1984 to 1986, and amounted to $1,332,460. At San Carlos, water charges on 1,573 acres "leased to non-Indians but not billed" amounted to $65,000 over three years. Page 15 of the audit report noted "the inaccuracy of the ... general ledger account receivable balances." For just four projects (BIA has 71 projects) the general ledger did not agree with detailed accounts by over seventeen million dollars. I hope you noticed the instances where non-Indian water users gained special advantages from the system. With amazing frequency, they are not billed or required to pay. It is my belief that these are the people who contribute heavily to political campaign funds. By this route your taxes get into the pockets or campaign funds of federal politicians. I have no way of knowing if the four selected projects are typical. If they are, and four out of seventy-one are off by a total of seventeen million dollars (according to OIG), then that indicates a $300 million dollar bookkeeping problem in BIA's national irrigation accounting. If we add the $300 million to a possible two billion in trust account problems, we easily can see the extent of accumulated financial and accounting problems within BIA. No wonder I got fired; I feel very fortunate that I was not killed. I am the first person who raised these issues in a powerful and public way. White ranchers don't appreciate my efforts. The items listed above from the audit report are typical. Nothing good was said about BIA's management of the irrigation systems. Common problems were failing to bill or collect non-Indian accounts, missing records, bad bookkeeping, and unrestricted access to cash that is not accounted for. For 1989, the international auditing firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. (AA & Co.) was retained to audit the San Carlos irrigation project, managed by BIA. Here are a few extracts from the AA & Co. tentative audit report dated September 30, 1989: "The accounting system ... suffer from a variety of procedural weaknesses ... so pervasive and fundamental as to render the accounting systems unreliable. " ... accounting records do not accurately reflect the Project's financial position ... and results of operations ... "General ledger balances ... have not been reconciled... "... cash account ... not being verifiable ... " ... customer deposits ... differed ... by approximately $400,000. The San Carlos audit describes that mail-in deposits and walk-in payments are stored in the vault overnight, and: "As access to the vault is open to anyone and as most employees can open the vault lock, this presents opportunity for ... theft." "There is no reconciliation of the cash deposited to the customer payments ..." Other irrigation audits describe cases where the materials storage areas (where rolls of copper wire, etc. are stored) are unlocked and unguarded at night, and there are no adequate inventory records. In addition, supplemental electrical power purchased from non-government sources is not measured or metered. By this process, suppliers could bill BIA for much greater amounts of power than is supplied, with the taxpayers paying for unrestricted fraud. The 1989 audit information might at first appear to be obsolete, except that situations like this at BIA are seldom if ever improved. BIA is noted as an organization that resists change when it relates to stealing from Indians, or pilfering taxpayer cash. My mother, Marion Bishop Henry, will be 100 years old in December, 1994. She has written her memoirs in a book titled Memories, which includes some accounts of years long ago. During World War I (yes, that's World War I, not II) she was a civilian employee of the government in Washington, DC. Here is one paragraph from Mom's book: "I was to work for a Board of Officers who were to arrange for settling the property problems between the Bureau of Aircraft and Production, and the Department of Military Aeronautics. In going through the records, I found an instance where a single bill for furniture had been submitted and paid four times. The furniture was all numbered, so somebody at the company must have known about the duplicate payments. I used to see that contractor around our building, talking to government employees, so I feel sure that was not the only phony bill that had been paid more than once. Mom's book is telling about things that happened over seventy years ago. There's not much new under the sun when it comes to the lack of accountability by the federal government. If you look back at the history of Indian irrigation projects, you will find that much of the investment money for dams and ditches came from Indian funds received for the "sale" of Indian lands. This Indian money was then used to create irrigation projects for white ranchers, a rather typical story from BIA's past history. As in most BIA fraud, there are wheels within wheels, or fraud piled on top of fraud. Here's a look into how just one "spoke" of this irrigation fraud relates to the current lives and "fortunes" of some Indian people I know. Late in the winter of 1992, I was the only non-Indian invited to an "underground" meeting on the Crow Reservation. Many Crow Indians were invited by word of mouth, and the word got out, but very few were willing to take the risk of coming. The building was easy to watch, and the fear was that "their whiteman," meaning the person holding the lease on their land, would be told, and anyone at the meeting would be in deep trouble. Now just who do you think would tell? Kissy- kissy Indians who want to please "their" whiteman, that's who. In every society the Quisling or sell-out is feared for good reason; they honor no standard of loyalty. Perhaps you can see how the control of leased land by the whites results in a form of peonage for Indians, who lose their dignity and freedom to white masters. The subject of the meeting was the injustice practiced by white controlled irrigation districts. To give you some background, many of these districts are the result of what I will call leap-frogging. The late 1800's and early 1900's were a time of heavy pressure from whites on Indian tribes to "cede" land to them, and plot by plot, section by section, large chunks of land were removed from Indian ownership, usually with some modest payment of a dollar or so an acre to make it look "legal" and let the whiteman relieve his guilt. He could call it a smart buy rather than the extortion of helpless victims, and keep going to church on Sunday. The money earned from these forced sales was not simply paid to the tribes, but placed in "trust" by BIA where federal supervisors could pocket their share and control the remainder for the benefit of whites. Some was left for Indian "charity," generally to feed the hungry, because at the time Indians were literally starving from the loss of land and destruction of their buffalo herds and wild game. Out of this "trust" money, irrigation projects (dams and ditches) were built for the NEXT plot of ground that the whites planned to take, and where in many cases they were already squatting by force on the land. By this process, they leap-frogged onto land with irrigation facilities already in place, paid for with the Indian money from the previous land sale. The process could be and was repeated several times as Buffalo Country was destroyed with the plow for short- term profit. It would take several decades for the fragile plains to be eroded and destroyed by irrigation salts, after a million years of productivity which had not been diminished by ten thousand years of Indian stewardship. Another spoke in the wheel is that after the whites controlled even the remaining Indian owned land through leases, BIA in it's generosity to whites simply gave away many of the existing irrigation projects, to be operated by the ever controlling whites. One more spoke -- the charges for irrigation water on Indian owned land are charged to the Indian owners, while often the white users of the land (my Indian friends told me) pay nothing for their water. Now, the purpose of this "underground" meeting I was talking about. On the Crow Reservation, Indians have the right to deal directly with white land operators, rather than going through BIA. Indian land owners go to collect their pitiful amount of lease money from "their" whiteman, and are told they won't be paid. The water bill was sent to BIA, and a "hold" was placed on the lease payment. It is required that the Indian first pay for the whiteman's water, and then he can have what's left of the lease payment. My Indian friends hoped that I could offer them some help with this injustice. I had no remedy for them, but at the end of this book a permanent solution will be offered to solve many of these basic problems of injustice that impoverish and degrade our American Indians. CHAPTER 10 Accounting, Auditing BIA's cover-up, suppression, falsification of official records, conspiracy to defraud, finger pointing, stone-walling and illegal reprisal will be described further in chapters that follow. The Inspector General contributes to the problem by poor auditing which in turn can be traced to the lack of independence. Other federal agencies aided BIA in making it's retaliation against me effective for reporting these issues. But that's another story, and it's described later. While employed by BIA I examined several financial systems. Each of them had problems with missing cash and fraud. BIA's track record for integrity and honesty was zero. I was stopped before I could go any further, and Congress and the courts have allowed that to stand. Both Congress and the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, are fully informed about this mess (by me, if no one else), and they just let it continue. Don't let your Senator or Congressional Representative kid you that this is new information they were not aware of. They do know about it, and by allowing it to continue they appear to like it. Many of BIA's financial systems do not use double entry accounting, in the full meaning of that term, and internal controls (a system of checks and balances) are frequently ignored. When an accountant issues a report on a system, he or she is required by the standards of the accounting profession to report any basic failures in the system. My job description also required me to recommend improvements, which I did. To prepare myself to review, report and recommend improvements to BIA's various systems, I studied reports made by other authorities about BIA's general accounting. Here is that background information: U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article I, Sec. 9: "... and a regular statement and account of the public money shall be published from time to time." WASHINGTON POST, 12/26/85 Article: This Washington, DC newspaper had an article titled "Federal Accountant's Find Huge Losses." It said: "The federal government lost billions of dollars this year because of poor management in virtually every major agency, the General Accounting Office concluded this week. ... widespread and often long outstanding weaknesses and breakdowns in agency internal controls continue to result in wasteful spending, poor management and losses involving billions of dollars in federal funds, Charles A. Browsher, comptroller general and head of GAO, wrote in a letter presenting the report to Congress ... WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 12/18/86: This report was issued by the Department of the Interior, from the office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Budget and Administration. "The Secretary's statement provided reasonable assurance that the Department's systems of internal control are adequate, except for the Bureau of Indian Affairs ... " Two programs within other agencies were also described as deficient. GAO/AFMD-82-71: This was a report by the Comptroller General to the Congress of the United States, titled Major Improvements Needed in the Bureau of Indian Affairs Accounting System: "[BIA] has lost accountability over hundreds of millions of dollars ... because its ... accounting and finance system produces unreliable information. ... GAO believes that the Bureau's system must be completely redesigned." Page 1. "Bureau managers have not acted to correct these design deficiencies ... Financial information was unreliable and internal controls were inadequate ... system is not maintained on the accrual system ..." Page ii. ... "Key trust fund accounting records were out of balance by millions of dollars ... bureau personnel did not follow prescribed accounting and internal control procedures." Page iii. "Bureau personnel ... did not complete required monthly reconciliations of detailed subsidiary ledgers ... bureau managers ... acknowledged that the information was unreliable." After studying BIA's accounting system I agree that the information given by the reports above is correct. I did not find that any improvements had been made by BIA since those reports were issued. The system is not poor; it is terrible. I discovered a few more problems on my own that were not mentioned in the above reports. One was that in many cases double- entry accounting was not used, in defiance of rules established by the Comptroller General thirty years earlier. The Area Office has from 600 to 800 employees working at Billings or on the reservations, and a budget of more than thirty million dollars. In an enterprise that size you would expect to find several accountants and auditors, and a usable system of financial reporting. I found that there was no clear listing (journal) of accounting transactions. There were no financial statements; no balance sheets. Trust accounting was near worthless (see IIM ), and the general accounting system was riddled with errors. This was unbelievable. I wondered if all federal agencies were like this. There was another agency in our office building, so I visited the accountant for the Bureau of Reclamation. Their accountant had two personal computers for his own use, and he had journals and financial statements. Their accounting personnel used double entry accounting and believed they were in compliance with all standards set by the Comptroller General. The fact that my reports referred to accounting deficiencies in BIA's system was cited in Benjamin's "Notice of Removal" as a cause for my being fired. Recommending specific improvements, and offering to design or install them was seen by Benjamin as a matter of personal arrogance. This was also cited as a reason for my being fired. While at BIA I had pointed out a way to greatly reduce overhead (by $2.5 million annually) by some simple improvements in our accounting. Part of BIA's general accounting work (computer processing, sorting, etc.) is farmed out to Martin Marietta, a huge corporation. In approach, this was a throwback to the days of using outside service bureaus, before computers were generally available. I devised a way to do this work on our existing BIA computers, at little or no cost, thus there was no need for the $2.5 million Martin Marietta contract. A private business would jump at a chance like this, but in BIA it was not given serious consideration. Why? Well, two reasons. First, Martin Marietta is a sacred cow, and BIA veterans know you don't mess with sacred cows. If you take a look at contributors to election campaigns, Martin Marietta is high on the list. They won't lose that contract, even if the work is a total waste, which it is. Congress will protect them. The second reason is that I had just come from the "private sector," my mind was still free to think of creative things, and I had accomplished many improvements of this type during my career. Even with no help, I believed I could make system improvements that would allow for this change to be accomplished after about three months work. In the eyes of my supervisor, Bill Benjamin, this kind of thinking was so outlandish as to be absurd. To give him the benefit of all doubt, perhaps within the federal government he's correct. And, you don't mess with sacred cows. Another sacred cow is the Mellon family, another huge political contributor. When the heat grows heavy on BIA accounting and trust services, a favored alternative is to suggest farming-out various functions to the Mellon National Bank. Good for Indians? No way, it would eliminate many Indian jobs. Cost savings? Not really, but great for the friends of our politicians. If a BIA employee points out the flaws related to sacred cows, he's in trouble. I did, and I was. Unlike other large enterprises, BIA does not employ auditors. BIA's auditing is done by a related agency, the Office of Inspector General. Both agencies are part of Interior and both report to the same administrator, the Secretary of the Interior. I call that a "sweetheart" audit, and you have now seen enough examples of OIG's kissy-kissy work to form your own opinion. Rarely, there is an audit by the General Accounting Office (GAO), a branch of Congress, but that is still part of the Federal Government, so even their work lacks full independence. The Single Audit Act (a relatively new federal law) applies to tribal governments. It requires independent audits by outside CPAs, most of which are honest and reliable. There is a problem here of lower requirements for BIA (with no independent audits) than for tribal government. This is a case of one rule for the ruler and another for the ruled; tyranny. The Interior OIG does sloppy, substandard auditing. You saw an example of that earlier where they congratulated the Billings office for reconciling it's IIM accounts in a "timely and accurate" manner. After I pointed this out, it took another two years for OIG to admit that their report was wrong, and they did that privately rather than publicly. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I requested a copy of OIG's audit papers for that 1985 audit. The only work they did to arrive at their wrong conclusion was to ask the clerk if the accounts were reconciled. The clerk answered "yes." OIG did nothing to verify the answer, which was wrong. You don't have to be an auditor to know that's not good auditing. In this country auditing standards are well established. It is very clear what an auditor must say in the audit report when reporting on a situation like BIA's. If the books don't balance and are unreliable, the auditor must say so. If the organization has no journals and financial statements, the auditor must say so, or simply refuse to be associated with the client. I won't list everything to be included in an audit report, but you get the general idea. OIG does substandard work and issues "sweetheart" reports that do not meet minimum auditing requirements. OIG's reports (that I have seen) lightly skip over or ignore the problems described above. The reader is not warned that the OIG audit report can not be fully relied on. It is not possible to perform a good audit (and produce a meaningful audit report) if the records that the audit is based on are in a real mess. Almost six years after the events at BIA took place, I had a letter from Senator Daniel Inouye that I believe you will find interesting. The letter is dated April 24, 1992, and is addressed to me from Senator Inouye as the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. "Thank you for the copy of your letter of April 3, 1992, to the House Committee on Government Operations detailing your efforts to seek vindication before the Merit System Protection Board, the Federal courts and the Investigations Committee that was established following publication of the newspaper articles that appeared in the Arizona Republic. "Upon receipt of your letter, the General Counsel of this Committee reviewed the pleadings, orders and exhibits that are on file with the Supreme Court in your case. It appears that your appeal from the adverse personnel action by the BIA was dismissed by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. Because of this decision, the Board did not deal with the additional question that was raised regarding the timeliness of the filing of your appeal. This decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, as you note, the Supreme Court denied your Petition for Certiorari. "It appears that your work was among the early efforts that revealed the greater problem with Indian trust fund management and accounting that is now recognized to pertain to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The accuracy of your findings and calculations was later confirmed and acknowledged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Inspector General. However, the grounds given for the termination of your employment involve work related matters that extend beyond the accuracy of your findings. Since you had worked for the Bureau for less than a year and were still in a probationary status, the protections afforded you under the law were very limited, and this, of course, led to the Board's decision based on jurisdiction. "The power of Congress to regulate employment within the Executive branch is limited. The legislation that has been enacted to establish the rights of Federal employees provides processes for civil servants to lay their case before competent authorities. Despite the laws we have enacted to govern the civil service, injustices do still occur and may well have occurred in your case. Because of the fact you were still in probationary status and the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction over your appeal, there was never any hearing on the merits of your case. "You express concern with the inadequacy of the Federal Whistleblowers Act of 1989. I must, unfortunately, agree with you that the "whistleblower" legislation enacted over the years has had a limited effect in providing protection to those persons who have had the courage to expose problems in the Executive Branch. However, as you know, aside from its decision on the jurisdictional question, the Merit Systems Protection Board held that the 1989 Act was not applicable to your case since the conduct complained of and the termination of your employment had occurred in 1986 - - three years prior to the enactment of that Act. "Insofar as your personnel case in concerned, it appears that you have exhausted your administrative and your judicial remedies. I do not believe there is anything further that I can do to assist you on your employment grievance. Nevertheless, I do believe you have performed a valuable service and I intent to consider your work as this Committee reviews the current efforts of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to correct its systems for management of Indian trust funds. "Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. "Sincerely, Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman OK, he said some kind words to boost my ego, but in effect it was just too bad, he couldn't help. He did insert a few digs - to blame the Executive Branch, rather than Congress, and to repeat BIA's claim that I was fired for something other than whistleblowing. Do you think that BIA would list "to suppress honesty" or to "restrict free speech" as the reason for firing an employee? He noted that my finding proved to be correct, and that there was an injustice, but leaves it at that. Inouye covers himself nicely, but he has known about these problems for years and has not used his very powerful position to correct them. He profits from business as usual, so talk rather than action is what you get. He's a Senator from Hawaii, whose Native Americans have one of the worst deals going, and he has not done much to make it better. I appreciate the kind remarks in his letter, but he has the power to raise a real stink about this, and has not done it. In a later chapter you will see how these problems were reported to BIA and how BIA handles those who report problems. Now let's take a look at what it means to blow the whistle. CHAPTER 11 Harbinger and Warning From my own experience, whistleblowing is an activity that most people would like to avoid, at least if they value their comfort and security, and cherish life itself. It's a good way to get yourself killed, or at the very least to suffer serious damage from the retaliation that always follows. At first whistleblower was a description used to describe my situation, but in time (to many Indians) it become my name, with more meaning than Dave Henry. As many Indians will tell you, European names are just labels, similar to a social security number. A "real" name describes the person, an ancestor, or perhaps personal accomplishments, goals or ambitions. A name should have some meaning. "Likes To Dance," "Plenty Coups," "Tall Bull," and the like are real names, as is "Whistleblower." So, my Crow friends call me "Whistleblower," and refer to me in the third person as "The Whistleblower." In Crow this is "ak-koo-shish." "ak" means "one who," "koo" is the name for a whistle, "shish" is the intimate ending added to the name of someone you know. This is similar to English structure, where we understand that "rifle" and "man" put together to become "rifleman," describes an infantry soldier or someone who carries or uses a rifle. Over a period of time what started out as a description became my name, it is well meant and I accept it with pride. Whistleblowers have been around as long as recorded history, and the art and science of blowing the whistle is a catalyst for reform and social justice. A whistleblower has an important message or lesson to deliver, and by definition he or she meets resistance. In his classic tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen described a population so busy fawning over royalty that they could not recognize the truth before their eyes. The story was fiction, but it offered a lesson and warning about human nature (kissing-up) in an entertaining way. Whistleblowers do not kiss-up, at least on matters of importance to them, and there is a cost for refusing to yield to authority. I did not intend to become a whistleblower, and didn't even think in those terms until my final days at BIA, when it became obvious that I was going to have to pay a price to retain my integrity. You will learn much about my personal experiences at BIA. Let's look outside BIA for a moment to see what whistleblowing is, and examine the stories about other people who have had experiences similar to mine. Who are the whistleblowers? They are people with a unique cause, a discovery or a message that they feel strongly about. That could also define a preacher on Sunday morning, so here is the essential difference. The whistleblower is a herald of truth, and has an honest warning to deliver. Something is terribly wrong. The message is usually inconvenient, uncomfortable, or hard to deal with. There is a force or authority that does not want the story told. The message is important, you need to know. Some people have difficulty separating the idea of whistleblowing from terms like rat, fink, and stool pigeon, but there is an important difference, and an example is the best way to describe the difference. So - as a whistleblower, you have made your discovery, and you feel it is important for others to know about it. Next you have to find a way to express it, and then to communicate it to others. Your only choice is the spoken or written word, unless you are perhaps an artist, and since writing is more exact and lasts longer, most choose writing. I spent three years of my youth in the Army, so from that perspective let's look at the behavior of infantry soldiers. Let's say there is some talking in the ranks, or somebody drops a gum wrapper or trash on the parade ground, a minor offense. The sergeant questions "who did that," and from any group of experienced soldiers, there would never be any response, even though several of them (or perhaps all) would know who the offending soldier was. The sergeant would issue some mild group punishment (all to do push- ups, for instance), and that would be the end of it. In this situation the group sticks together, and by such things happening over and over, a unit cohesion forms having the rule (or ethic) that all soldiers within the unit support and defend each other. It is almost instinctive. This idea of group loyalty works, the next time the group will police itself from within, and the sergeant will be commanding a unit instead of a bunch of individuals. If in this example one soldier was an informant and told the sergeant which soldier caused the offense, the group's sense of unity would be damaged. The group would feel betrayed and would punish the informant at the first opportunity. I once saw an Army recruit thrown through a closed second story window for stealing from his fellow soldiers, which invaded their sense of unity. He was nearly killed, and although I was not a member of the group that applied this savage discipline, I saw the justice in this powerful act of revenge and did nothing at the time to oppose it. I suppose you can call that group dynamics, or basic rules for survival and solidarity, and violators are rightly called rats, finks, stoolies, or given some other negative title. Whistleblowing is quite different. The cause or importance of the revelation goes beyond the immediate group and is a social imperative. The whistleblower sees that Principle is more important than group dynamics, and chooses to follow the high road rather than look for approval from his or her immediate surrounding. If you first pause to see which way the wind blows (will "they" approve of your action), then you miss the point, and you have taken the usual low road of loyalty to your immediate superiors or social group. The really big shakers and movers are people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The price they pay also gives them unique power and a stature that we feel in our bones. Their loyalty is to something higher, and they are willing to accept the risk of that, rather than straddle the fence looking for social approval. They become transformed, and give us a new look at social conscience. We can't all live up to our ideals at all times, but still everyday people like you and me now and then can rise above ourselves and take a stand for things that are more important than our own self interest, or what the group wants. Remember Rachel Carson? Her book Silent Spring was written in 1962 to alert the public about the dangers of insecticides. Three years later Ralph Nader gave us Unsafe at Any Speed, a warning that the Chevrolet Corvair could roll over when least expected. Ralph Nader's role was to present a problem found by others, while Rachel Carson was a scientist presenting her own discoveries. You can see the possible variations. In some cases the person finding the problem presents it, and in other cases the functions are split between those who discover (or uncover) and those who present the problem to the public. Sometimes the person was looking into problem areas, and at times the problem just presented itself. The whistleblower was in the right place (or perhaps the wrong place) at the right time, and was motivated from within to obey the dictates of conscience. This is how it was for a small town lawyer, Michael Consentino, who served as a county prosecutor. In 1980 the publisher AND BOOKS printed the story, Reckless Homicide?, by author Lee Patrick Strobel. A Ford Pinto was rear-ended at a moderate speed by a larger car, and although the structural damage was limited, a fire resulting from a ruptured fuel tank engulfed the occupants of the Pinto, resulting in the tragic death of three teenage girls. Consentino was assigned as prosecutor, and felt that what contributed most to the deaths and destruction was the faulty gas tank location, rather than the accident itself. It appeared to him that the accident would have caused only minor damage if there had been no fire. This became a historic trial when he filed criminal charges against the Ford Motor Co., and he did his best to battle a very powerful legal opponent. The jury acquitted Ford, but the message was established that it was now possible to take a manufacturer to court with a criminal prosecution for producing goods with alleged criminal negligence. Most publishers won't read manuscripts submitted by whistleblowers, so getting the story told is one more hurdle and any publisher takes a considerable risk that the book won't sell. The results of blowing the whistle upset the apple-cart, challenge the establishment or reveal hidden problems, and sometimes stir a motive to "kill the messenger." Society resists change, because the process of questioning old ideas is uncomfortable, and can result in a monumental headache, thus the response, "I don't want to hear it." Right there you see the publisher's risk, perhaps very few people will spend their money to hear unpleasant reports. In 1989 a book titled The Whistleblowers, written by Myron and Penina Glazer, was published by Basic Books, Inc. This provides a great overview of the subject, and includes case histories of many notable whistleblowers. It uses the term "ethical resister" to describe those who speak out on matters of importance, shows how they draw their strength from personal religious beliefs and ethical standards, and describes the retaliation and damage they suffer. A major oversight I see in most studies of whistleblowers is that they fail to point out the difference between those who blow the whistle on the federal government, and all others. If the culprit is a business organization, the whistleblower has access to the court system, and a claim for money damages can curb misdeeds as well as attract help from lawyers. If the culprit is a state or local government, there is still access to the courts, because most states have reduced or cut back the sovereign immunity that originally applied to them. There are two basic differences in blowing the whistle on a federal matter. First, our "Bill of Rights" was designed to protect individuals from the federal government. With that in mind, you would expect federal employees, because of their intimate relationship with government, to be able to freely exercise those rights, including free speech. In practice this is NOT true, and the federal supervisors who swear to protect the constitution are the ones who abuse it most. The second difference is that the federal doctrine of sovereign immunity makes it immune from most law suits. As you will see in my case, it was not possible for me to get a court hearing, no matter the importance or the third-party evidence that proves the merit of my case. As a practical matter, when the federal government is the culprit, there is no way to force it to be responsible for it's acts. Lack of accountability (immunity) encourages irresponsible behavior by federal government officials. A few whistleblowers are well received, but more often they are treated miserably. For urging free thought, Socrates was required to drink the hemlock, and for disturbing religious leaders, Christ went to the cross. In the Bible, the story of Judas illustrates what I refer to in this book as "kissing-up" or selling-out, all forms of betrayal. Galileo spoke honest words but was forced to recant, and both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., were killed. Disturbing the group's self image is often received with hatred, the "kill the messenger" idea once again. As an example, my own local church was facing declining membership, and raised the idea of advertising and such to attract new members. I spoke out (it becomes a habit) to suggest that our local congregation was not living up to the high ideals of our denomination, and that if we simply improved our ways, new people with similar ideals would be attracted to us. This was received with hostility, and suddenly I was shunned by a large number of the members who did not care to examine their own behavior. At a later church dinner, I discussed this in whispered tones with the person sitting next to me, who happened to be a professional advisor working in the mental health field. I thought her advice (about being shunned by church members) might be helpful, but instead I received a furious response. Excuse the bad language, but she said with anger, "you shit on me, and I shit on you". I had questioned the behavior of her group, and she wanted to punish me rather than to even consider the behavior of the group. There are always some fakes and frauds, who raise whistleblowing (after the fact) as a defense when it was not the real reason they were fired or discriminated against. Some people do the "right thing" for the wrong reason, such as to gain power or fame, or to join a popular band-wagon, rather than in genuine support of a worthy cause. Most of the fakes can be weeded out by a close look at their activities. There are also the nothing to lose people, who speak out only after reaching some safe haven, such as retirement. The too-much-to-lose bunch claim they could not speak out, because "I need my job", "I have a family to support," or "I had to obey orders." That's enough about other people, it's time to resume this particular story. I believe it offers an honest message, and it does report that something is terribly wrong. You almost certainly will find personal discomfort in it, but it leads to corrections and lasting reforms. The story is not over, a solution is offered, and I promise you a personal and positive role in the story. Together we can make a difference. CHAPTER 12 Blowing the Whistle "Man's dignity, our dignity, lives in our thoughts. Thereby we rise. Only thereby. Not through space; and not through time. Never can we fill either. So we take pains, such pains as we can, to think well. For therein lie all morals and all principles." Pascal, 1623-1662 First I'd like to relate to you a story that I was told by Ben Pease. Ben is a Crow Elder, and we have become good friends. He was located elsewhere while I worked for BIA, so he learned about my experiences there after the fact, and he was deeply disturbed about my situation. The story Ben tells is about himself, as a child enrolled in the small rural public school in Lodge Grass, Montana. The location is in the heart of Crow Country, but his story could have happened anywhere in any school, Indian or non-Indian. The time was in the 1930's, when the country was in a deep depression, and most people were financially hard pressed. It was a day set aside for high school graduation, and was planned with the usual speeches, a lunch and then a formal graduation ceremony. Parents were present, and Ben sat at a desk, with the chore of checking in text-books and collecting fines that had been assessed on damaged books. A few days earlier there had been an argument between two boys and a bully had thrown the books of his victim down a stairwell, which resulted in one book with a broken binding. For this a maximum fine of two dollars had been assessed, much higher than the usual pennies for torn pages. The State school board had an absolute rule that all fines had to be paid before students could take part in the procession and graduation ceremony, so it was no small matter. As Ben sat at his desk collecting nickels and dimes and pennies, the two sets of parents came together to his desk, and they were arguing. The victim's parents stated that since their child did not cause the damage, the bully's parents should pay the fine. They in turn responded that since it was not their child's book that was damaged, they had no responsibility and would not pay. The argument continued and got louder, so at last Ben (who had some money from part-time jobs) said, "if you'll just stop this arguing, I'll pay the fine myself." They did stop arguing, and Ben paid the fine. He added, "of course they all hated me." Ben's story shows his understanding of the whistleblower's plight. Although you've done nothing wrong, many people see you as having a "holier than thou" attitude, and are angry that in some way you are demeaning them by pointing out that they are less noble than yourself. A common reaction people have to this story is that the parents would feel cheap or inadequate, and they would project the blame for that onto Ben, when actually Ben was the only person who behaved well in this situation. This leads to responses like "get off it" or "just who do you think you are," and anger at the whistleblower. The next step in this chain of events is that if your whistleblowing act was found to be commendable, then people expect and demand perfection from you in all things, else your other failures are held against you to discount the action that was good. Witness the fault finding where our national heroes are found to have feet of clay, and our attempts at myth making such as "George Washington never told a lie." To be clear about myself, I am a very ordinary person with plenty of faults and failures, and I have gone through painful episodes of my own, caused by reflecting on my many shortcomings. The episodes in this book are something that I take pride in, but I believe there are many, many people who would have done the same or better if they had been in my shoes. I don't believe my future should have been ruined through reprisal by the federal government, yet it was, and I do rebel at that injustice. I am not ashamed to be called a whistleblower. To some the word means troublemaker, an angry person out to cause harm to others. That includes violating the privacy of others or searching through personal files to discover something negative to report. As to problems in government, people just don't want to hear that, because the knowledge would require them to do something, and they certainly don't want to hear that! You're different, because you're reading this book, and I appreciate that fact. Rather that hide from the truth when the truth is unpleasant, I believe it is better to have the facts, even if they cause you to feel uncomfortable, so that as a citizen you can make informed decisions based on fact rather than myth. We need to take human nature into account as it really is, containing both strength and weaknesses. It's no big deal for an accountant or auditor to issue an honest report. In the business world this is done routinely. The system has self-policing rules. If the report is not honest and if people are injured by relying on it, for instance shareholders and investors, the injured person can take the accountant to court. Accountants soon learn to be careful and reliable sources of information, and the public is well served. Accountants and CPA firms are held responsible for what they do. In the federal government there is no comparison. Because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the injured do not have access to the courts. The idea of self-policing does not work, and federal employees take advantage of that fact. In our federal system, whistleblowers could serve a valid function, but the system inhibits them from speaking. The price for honest words is too high. The reporter is often attacked personally and frequently destroyed. Current whistleblower laws do not provide for damages to reputation of for punitive damages. The most a federal whistleblower can hope for is to get his job back with the same outfit that fired him. By these rules whistleblowers almost never win. Justice doesn't have a chance. Federal accountants who issue reports are not held to the same standards as independent accountants and CPA firms. Sovereign immunity protects them from personal responsibility. It should come as no surprise to you to discover that federal officials often make dishonest statements and federal accountants routinely issue misleading reports. There is no "fine-print" in the Constitution that says that freedom of speech does not apply to federal employees, but in reality it does not. The system does not discourage fraud; it rewards those willing to corrupt themselves and discourages those who speak honest words. The system perpetuates itself. By getting rid of reasonably honest people and by rewarding those willing to corrupt themselves, the results are obvious. All the work I did was required. I was ordered to do the work by my supervisor, Bill Benjamin. The job description signed by him said to review, report and recommend improvements using the independent judgment of a professional accountant. The professional work of a CPA has nothing to do with being a snitch or tattletale. The records I worked with were public federal records available in the financial management department. I reviewed systems, not people. None of my reports placed blame on individuals. Accountants and auditors learn not to issue reports containing personal accusations. To criticize individuals is unkind as well as not productive. If there is only one person covered by the report, then the action is criticized rather than the person who performed the action. Later I was to find that blowing the whistle was not just a figure of speech. After being fired, when I decided to stand with the Crow, I bought a bone whistle and hung it around my neck. As a white man, I needed some Indian symbol to mark me as a person who identified with their cause. At a dinner in Billings I met William Tall Bull, the principal Priest of the Northern Cheyenne. If you don't know the history of the Northern Cheyenne, you have missed one of the most powerful stories in American history. I call them the Children of Heroes. Their heroic escape from exile, and the desperate flight to return to their homeland in Montana is an inspiring lesson in human courage. Most of the people of their Nation died, but a few powerful souls survived to pass on their heritage of great strength to the world. Tall Bull laid his hands on my whistle, and told me I should not be afraid. When confronted with evil, I should blow the whistle and the evil would be driven away. William Tall Bull is a traditional Priest, you would call him a medicine man, well thought of in white churches as well as within his tribe. Traditionalists say that power radiates out in front of a holy man, and when this man walks they move out of his path to respect the direction of his spirit. Those who might think a bone whistle is a toy don't know William Tall Bull, and they haven't met the Children of Heroes, the Northern Cheyenne. If you identify yourself in the past with the exploits of the U.S. Army as it directed its forces against American Indians, the story of the Northern Cheyenne is one of horror. They were being starved into submission, and the people in charge of this situation represented us; our federal government. I suggest that is not the way to look at the story. You can choose who you identify with, and instead of relating to the Army in this story, picture yourself as a brother or sister of the heroic Northern Cheyenne. They behaved in a truly heroic and glorious manner, which rates space in any book on American history. The act of identifying yourself with the heroes instead of the monsters gives strength to the good rather than to the evil. If you can accept your relationship to these Indians as your surviving American brothers and sisters, rather than to the Army, then you are part of the goodness in this powerful bit of American history. In early July, 1992, I was present at a meeting at Plenty Coups Park, on the Crow Reservation, concerning the arrival of Columbus on the shores of America five hundred years ago. Heywood Big Day was one of the Crow speakers, and his son William Big Day, an artist, was also present. Haywood is better versed in the Crow language than in English, but related to us in English some of the stories that are passed down from generation to generation by the Crows. During this, he stated that the Crow People make a strong identification about "who they are," and they are taught role models from the lives of their past Chiefs and tribal heroes, including Chief Plenty Coups, on whose estate the celebration was held. That Chief is often forgiven his role in signing away huge chunks of tribal land, under pressure from the whites, although many see him as "the whiteman's Chief." During that talk, Haywood said "I even tell my son what he should look like," and he held up a photograph for us to see. It was a picture of Heywood and his wife, both dressed in formal tribal regalia. Heywood wore a beautiful headdress of eagle feathers, and his wife wore a white buckskin dress decorated with fine beadwork. I looked over at William Big Day, and his eyes were shining, full of admiration, respect and love for his father. It is not a bad thing to know who you are and what you stand for. We are not all Indian, and do not have a clear picture of ourselves as presented by Heywood to his son, but still we can choose which roles to honor and how we want to lead our lives. At that same public meeting, Phil Beaumont, a highly educated and respected Crow Elder who I had never met before, came to shake my hand. He said "we love you for all you have done for us." That type of kindness from the Crow People, often repeated by others, helped give me the strength to continue my struggle with BIA after almost a decade of financial ruin and personal hardship. Thank you, Phil Beaumont. (In Crow, aho!) I did not find fault with supervisors or fellow workers. The purpose of all of my reports was to point out problems and suggest solutions. When I called attention to faulty auditing by OIG, my report was aimed at the audit, not the auditor. There was nothing about my work that was not direct and upfront, nothing that degraded any person. BIA did not respond that way. Bill Benjamin in particular went for my jugular vein, and his reprisal was aimed below the belt, at the reporter more than the report. We'll describe that in a following chapter. Benjamin was relatively gentle with me at first. After all he had hired me and he appeared to want me to be a successful employee. As I made my reports to him, at first verbally, he told me I was wrong. He told me how I could change the reports to make them "correct." For instance, don't call the $7.5 million problem a cash shortage, simply call it a reconciling problem. I was told to "go look again," and was offered the chance to re-do my reports. This happened at least six times. I was a little slow to catch on. In studies of accounting ethics, this is called subordinating your judgment. Ethical accountants absolutely are not allowed to do it, and I would not. Missing cash is missing cash, not a bookkeeping error or reconciling problem. It was my failure to take Benjamin up on this opportunity to redeem myself that made me insubordinate in his eyes. I was stubborn about refusing to corrupt myself and unwilling to issue soft reports about hard problems. As the only CPA in the organization I was not willing to subordinate my professional judgment to agree with the wishes of my department head for a clean bill of health. Later, I was to blow the bone whistle twice for the Crow. It was requested; they asked me to blow it at BIA to reduce the evil there. They believed in the ancient Sundance legend of the Whistler who is commissioned to seek justice for the tribe, they believed in the power of the Eagle Spirit, and they hoped I could be strong enough to confront the evil that destroys them. Benjamin repeated his offer to me many times, so I can not say that he was personally unkind during the first weeks of my employment. Later this was to turn into a personal attack, and what he was really up to was intimidation. In the non-Indian sense of the word, whistleblowing means to call attention to a problem. The job of reviewing, reporting and recommending improvements in financial and accounting systems is a very normal job for CPA's, and all auditors are (or are supposed to be) whistleblowers. Towards the end of this book. I'll describe the farewell party given by loving friends when I had to leave Montana, unable to face personal destruction any longer. A truly fine man, Joe Omelchuck, made an impressionist drawing as a gift for me. It was the Christ Crucified, blowing a bone whistle from the cross. It was not a joke, but was offered with love as perhaps the greatest personal tribute I have ever received. My soul cries out to tell you there is a terrible truth in what that drawing represents, and as I write this there are tears streaming down my face from the pain of what I must say to you. No matter what your religion is, the Christ story symbolizes a classic and true human paradox. Any person who refuses to yield in support of some ideal or principle will learn what agony is; he will discover the monster within his own soul. If the abuse is heavy enough, at some point you find you are mortal and have limits. The monster I met was failure, and the face on that monster was my own. I went as far as I could go and I could go no further. I found the point where my strength of character failed, I could take no more. I can imagine no greater personal horror than this, and the collapse and breaking of your own inner strength comes to you in complete isolation. No other person can help you or decide for you what your limits are. Earlier in this book you learned about the work I did and the problems I discovered. The whistleblowing part of the job was to report what I found to the appropriate people. Who do you report to? Generally the next level higher on the chain of command. In this case Benjamin was not the next level since he was in charge of the department with the problems. What if an engineer is ordered to build a bridge, but knows it will collapse? What if a physician is ordered to inject a drug that he knows will kill the patient? Obviously some common sense must be used when orders are received. Professional rules say that the engineer must refuse to build a structure that will collapse, and a physician may not do deliberate harm to a patient. By this same logic, if an auditor is ordered to make a study and issue a finding of fact and opinion about what is found, then the report should be correct and the opinion should be based on fact. Facts are not smoothed out or revised to make them look nice or to cover up problems. When an apparent fraud is discovered, it must be reported at some level beyond that of the supervisor of the system in which the fraud is found. In this case, it had to be reported at some level beyond Benjamin. Principles come first. They are more important than following orders, more important than self-interest. That is the whole idea of federal constitutions, of religion, and of professional ethics. Our country is based on that noble ideal. This country is founded on religious ideals. We are free from domination by any specific Church, and simply borrowed for our Constitution the principles that are common to all religion. It is good and worth dying for, and still better it is worth living for. You and I likely differ on just what it is that we call God, and yet I owe my deepest allegiance to That, and I simply could not do the fraud that Benjamin demanded. I'm convinced that millions of Americans feel the same way, that there are some absolutes. There is a financial value in having information that nobody else knows. In the journalistic sense, you can only "let the cat out of the bag" once. If I had wanted to use this information for personal advantage, I could have kept my mouth shut and kept my job, or I could have joined the thieves and politicians to become a rich man. The first time I blew the bone whistle for the Crow was at a gathering at Crow Agency, long after I was fired by BIA. There were speeches and a feast. I was to speak, and an Elder asked me to blow the whistle at BIA. I asked for better treatment for Indians from BIA, asked for the winds to blow the evil away, and blew four notes to honor the four directions. That day a BIA man in Billings met with violent death. What can I say, I did not wish him dead, I saw no connection to the whistle and I greatly regret that he died. I had known Calvin Tillison only casually, and I liked him. Some of the Crow say that the Eagle Spirit determines its own path, and some believe the Eagle whistle caused this death. Later in Billings I received several phone calls from people who thought the man had been murdered by BIA officials. The theory was that he "knew too much" and was a threat to those stealing from Indian pockets. I relayed that information to the office of the county Sheriff. The Sheriff was not interested and said the death was clearly a suicide. I could have kept my job with BIA, and then I could have resigned when the book or story was ready to be published. Former President Reagan has called this "kiss and tell," sort of a classic Judas story or a wolf in sheep's clothing. I did not do that. Or, the threat of revealing it could have insured me the protection of a blackmailer -- the information could have been held as a weapon (over the heads of my BIA employers) to insure me a safe haven. A guarantee of employment - I'll keep quiet if you treat me right. I would guess that at least a few BIA employees keep their jobs in that fashion. I did none of those things. The reports were made public, as you saw in the previous chapter. They were given freely; no price was asked. Instead, a price was assessed against me by BIA and others. People ask if I worried about being killed; of course I did, and still do. The present system does not need to kill dissenters, you are simply driven to personal and financial ruin; nobody pays much attention to a man or woman who is down and out. A second time I blew the bone whistle for the Crow. It was at an outdoor gathering at Crow Agency. Barney Old Coyote described the fact of the earlier death to the crowd, and there was nervous laughter along with shouts of "go ahead." I was careful to say I wished no harm to anyone, and called for reform and honest treatment of Indians by BIA in Billings. The whistle was blown. That day another BIA employee in Billings, relatively young at forty, died from a sudden heart attack. I had known Craig Olson fairly well, and enjoyed him as a person. I was sorry to hear of his passing. Craig was a programmer, and when I was examining the trust accounting system I needed access to the computer programs, to look for flaws in the way trust money was accounted for. When I asked Mary Jo she refused, and the computer terminal she assigned me was blocked by her so I could not examine the programs she managed. Auditors are curious when doors are slammed shut and money is missing, and no other auditor had taken a close look at these programs, so I tried to find a quiet way around her. Craig was willing to help, but feared his supervisor Mary Jo. He was no coward, but he was afraid to ask her permission or to go over her head. Later I would understand why. I reported to work at BIA in early December, 1985, and was assigned a desk in a large room about six feet from the door to Benjamin's office. As a new employee I had the usual questions about where various files and reports were located, and frequently asked questions. My very first assignment was to get familiar with the IIM system that was described for you earlier. There were other assignments, but by mid February, 1986 I was reaching some tentative conclusions about the IIM system. On May 8, 1986 I gave Benjamin a one page memo recommending an improvement in the IIM interface, that would do much to solve the problems that had been reported above. It included a request for a minor change in the data processing department in Billings. He refused to approve this request, with the following verbal explanation to me. I made notes of what he had said immediately after talking to him, and here is what my notes say: Benjamin described his reasons for refusing the request as follows, (as restated in my words). There is a great deal of friction in working with Billings IMC [data processing] due to a romance between the Area Director (Richard Whitesell) and the department manager (Mary Jo Dimich). Mary Jo could be expected to complain to the Area Director when extra work was requested, and her complaint would be sustained by the Area Director. I also discovered that Benjamin was not interested in correcting the IIM problem. On July 9, 1986 I wrote directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Indian Affairs), Ross Swimmer. After introducing myself, the letter reads: "When you spoke in Billings you said it was possible to contact you directly without going through the chain of command. I am choosing that route not because I am angry at someone, but to propose a solution to a problem that can't be solved otherwise." ... The letter goes on to describe the IIM problem, and states that I had found "an apparent cash shortage of several million dollars." I offered to design a new IIM accounting system to eliminate such problems in the future, and suggested I could complete it in four to five months time. I listed some similar computerized accounting systems I had designed and programmed, and gave him my home and office addresses and phone numbers. There was no visible response, at not least then, but a storm cloud was building. The third time I blew the bone whistle was for a white man. It was after I had fled to California to take refuge with my mother. Harold Bohnsack is an atheist who believes in God, but don't let him know I told. He is a kind old man who rides a bicycle to church every Sunday morning in Billings. He says it is not logical to believe in God, and he recites the poems of Robert Ingersoll to prove it. Harold has the soul of a poet, and he and I are buddies. His ears don't work very well but he has a twinkle in his eye. Harold's wife tends a garden, he invents things that never sell, and he brings candy to church for the kids. On nice days he rides his bike around town, and he delights in causing discomfort to stuffy people. I was phoned by a friend in Montana, to tell me Harold was in the hospital with a bad leg that might have to come off. I felt sad; there was nothing I could do and I didn't have the money to pay for a phone call to Harold. There was an eagle overhead when I went out to blow the whistle, and I knew it would be there. I prayed that kind spirits would hover over Harold's hospital bed, and sounded notes to the four directions. It may sound foolish to put hope in a bone whistle, but I tell you the eagle headed north like a shot, and in two days Harold was walking again. Atheists are supposed to go straight to hell, but there must be a corner in heaven for old men who recite poetry and bring candy to kids. Harold has years yet to go. When his time comes I'm sure that God will listen to Harold's poems with a smile, and the two of them will ride their bikes together for all eternity. Mr. Swimmer did not acknowledge or answer my letter. I later discovered that Benjamin was informed immediately by Swimmer's Washington BIA staff about my letter, although Benjamin said nothing about that at the time. Later my letter would be used against me, never mind what Swimmer had said in his talk to us about no reprisal for contacting him directly. Swimmer would make me pay for that. Two days later, on July 11, I was called into Benjamin's office. He had prepared my efficiency rating for the previous six months. I was sure I had been doing superior work, and was shocked to find he had graded me as just "satisfactory," which in government jargon means barely adequate. Benjamin told me he had downgraded me because I was "failing to work within the system." I responded that I thought my work to date should rate as superior, and that the downgrading was unfair. He did not like the complaint, and said he would add to the report that I "did not get along well" with his secretary, Jackie, and that the meeting was over. He added the negative remark because I complained about the grade, but there was nothing I could do about it. If you're a federal whistleblower, you had better understand in advance how these methods will be used against you. After reading about Julie Matt in another chapter, you may begin to see a pattern in Benjamin's actions. When she made a complaint about his actions, he responded (with innuendo) that she was objectionable to other office employees within his department. Innuendo is a tough thing to disprove. Work was not hard, mostly it was learn, study and review. The systems were a mess, so complex without necessity that at once you knew they were designed by someone without knowledge. Things that are beautiful are simple, even accounting and computer programs. This was a patchwork, with patches to cover errors in logic that again were covered with patches to cover errors in logic that again, and so on. When I came across this sort of thing as a corporate controller, I would simply redesign the system so it would become both simple and beautiful. The words "creative accountant" are used as a joke to mean one who "crooks the books," but in truth there is creativity and there can be beauty in all things. But there was little beauty at the Billings Area Office. The rule of the day was fear and suppression; just do what you're told and keep your mouth shut so you can keep your job. If you're Indian, you must use your intimate knowledge to turn against your brothers and sisters. And what about the two men at BIA that died. If you have an uneasy emotional feeling about their untimely deaths, you are not alone. With $300 billion here and more millions scattered elsewhere, the stakes in this game are high. Let me tell you now that I cherish my life, my ancestors live long, my health is excellent, and I drive that old Jeep with great care looking back over my shoulder, and on occasion I keep a loaded pistol within reach. Still, a pistol has no soul. My real protector is the Eagle whistle, because it's song blows evil away. Does whistle blowing accomplish anything? Looking just at me, certainly it has brought nothing but negatives. I was attacked personally and caused financial ruin, and there have been no remedies. But what about BIA, has anything positive been accomplished by speaking out? There is a long way to go before BIA can be called reformed, and not as much as I would like has happened, but some positive things have taken place as a result of my loud complaints. Let's examine the results to date. The press does have power. The story about me in the Arizona Republic was just one of several in a series, but taken together the series has had an impact. The U.S. Senate did form and fund a special investigative committee, documents have been gathered, and there have been public hearings. The publicity produced more public awareness of Indian problems. My Crow friend Marlon Passes says that if you are fishing with a wooden spear, and you throw it and it sticks to the bottom of the pond, if you wait long enough the spear will come back to the surface. I take that as the Crow equivalent of "the truth will out." I have not seen any pressure from the Congress or the Senate for reform. They profit from the existing system, and there is no financial incentive for them to improve it. I see their motive in holding public hearings as part of a personal power struggle. By discrediting the executive branch, they can increase their own share of power and influence. Still, public awareness will result. Popular demand by informed voters is what produces reform, and there is at least an atmosphere that could lead to improving life for Indian people. I will take some of the credit for that and I will continue to push hard in that direction. BIA is very aware of the spotlight that has been placed on responsible trust accounting, and they can no longer conceal the problem. Something will be accomplished in this area before it's over, and my complaints have stirred up things at BIA. There is not a single financial employee working for BIA who hasn't heard about reconciliations, simply because of my pressure. They have had training sessions and countless meetings on the subject. The problem at least is out in the open and a matter of record instead of being hidden. Concerning audits of BIA, several auditors have spent several months examining and reporting on the problems with reconciliations and trust funds. The reason this happened is because of pressure from me, and the audit report specifically refers to my complaints. Montana's Senator Max Baucus should get some credit here, he continued to push for me and did not give up. As to the Office of Inspector General, I see better work. I won't call it adequate yet, but their performance has improved in some of the exact areas I complained about. Their latest audit failed to mention that their previous audit (about Billings doing a good job in reconciling) was in error. Well, you can't win them all. At least they had admitted it to me in writing (letter referred to elsewhere in this book). Irrigation? There was an audit because of my complaints, and it adds evidence to what I had reported. Before my complaints were made, nothing had been done for decades. Now we have more exposure, public awareness is coming and improvements will happen. Public complaint and confrontation does force a response, and the truth, like a wooden spear, will come to the surface. I believe that my complaints have had more positive effect on BIA than the combined efforts of the Secretary of the Interior and of Ross Swimmer. I don't see where either of them have accomplished anything of worth during this period. The comparison of myself to them may not be fair, because I don't believe they wanted to do anything positive or creative. They both sold-out. In June, 1993 I heard on the PBS radio that the Indian Trust Funds are now thought to be short by two billion dollars, and attention is being focused on that. I will take some credit - I was the first person to call attention to this problem in a forceful, public and positive manner, and it could not be swept back under the rug. Swimmer worked to reduce Indian benefits, such as housing assistance, rather than to advocate Indian rights. He served well as a turncoat, the whiteman's tool. BIA has resisted change and dragged its feet. Response has been slow, but at least my complaints have brought some modest improvement, and I have stirred up the hornet's nest. Evil is diminished when exposed to light - I believe that. There is one other episode of whistleblowing that I believe had some value, although it defies measurement. To tell you about this I'll have to use some language that I would rather not use, but it is pertinent and necessary. It happened after I was fired by BIA, and as I began to support the Crow. The Crow were having great problems with BIA. Funds had been cut off that were needed for the truly poor. There were aged people sick at home with no heat during the Montana winter, and there were nursing mothers and newborn infants without adequate food, and of course the Tribal Court had it's funding cut off. BIA's Area Director, Richard Whitesell had halted charity funds for the poor, and other federal agencies were following his lead. He has the power to do that. The charity recipients could have their needed funds if they would simply agree to bypass the tribal government, and apply directly to BIA and other non- tribal sources. If you fail to recognize what this is, it is a classic "union busting" tactic to destroy the organization, tribal government, and funding was canceled for the Tribal Courts to reduce sovereign tribal powers. Was BIA following it's mission statements? It speaks of recognizing the inherent right of tribal self-government, and of advocating the rights of American Indians. I tell you the mission statement is a lie. BIA's public reason was the usual "they can't be trusted," but I knew better and so did the Crow People. The reason was to weaken tribal government and encourage tribal members to bypass the tribal unity that gives them strength and identity. The motive behind that is age old. To divide and conquer, and get control of the Crow land. Try it, it fits. I was invited to meet with a member of the Crow administration, DeWitt Dillon, over a cup of coffee at a downtown restaurant in Billings. We were joined by Steve Devitt, the news editor of the Big Horn County News, the Hardin city newspaper that serves the reservation area. DeWitt was going to tell us the results of a Crow meeting with Richard Whitesell that had just taken place at the BIA area office. In August, 1987 the Crow Tribe, under the administration of Chairman Real Bird, sued the Bureau of Indian Affairs for withholding funds and financial information, and for mismanagement. Note that this is the issue (Indian Trust Funds) that I had raised a public stink about earlier, and for which I was fired by BIA. The federal government responded with armed men. They came to Crow Agency carrying guns, and raided the tribal offices. They seized the financial records of the sovereign Crow Nation. BIA's Area Office refused to approve the Tribe's annual budget, which meant the tribe did not have access to its own money. (No, not federal funds but income from tribal land rentals.) Tribal officials had gone without their paychecks for months, and now even charity funds had been stopped. They could not even pay to bury their dead. A Crow delegation arrived in Billings, with petitions asking for Crow funds to be released. Steve Devitt (the journalist) witnessed that Area Director Richard Whitesell yelled at them to keep their papers, because "I use them for ass wipe." End of meeting. The Crow were stunned, and returned to the reservation, feeling like whipped dogs. Richard Whitesell, as Area Director, is responsible for maintaining government to government relations with the Crow Tribe. He is the final and highest federal government official the Crows deal with. He used his authority to punish them for filing their peaceful petition, and to demean their leaders in public with abusive words. The U. S. Constitution protects the right to petition the Government. Richard Whitesell, sworn to uphold the Constitution, chose to violate his oath. The Crow were under the thumb of this abusive man, and I could feel that they were demoralized. The thousands of Indians in Montana and Wyoming knew about the abuse within hours, and they all had their pride diminished by Whitesell. Being shamed in public is no small matter for people who have a high regard for honor and pride. I was an unemployed accountant with no authority, so there was nothing I could do about the tribal money. However, I had one advantage the Crow didn't have. They and their families were vulnerable to further reprisal from Whitesell, but BIA had already done it's worst to me, short of murder, and I was free to respond. I could confront this man and get the Indians back their pride. I decided to go see Whitesell at his office. The man who heaped deliberate shame on the Gentle People would have to look in my eyes and see the disgust and contempt I felt for him. To be very obvious and make a clear record of what I did, I prepared a single sheet of paper titled "Whistleblower Award," and here is what that certificate said: You have qualified for presentation of the Whistleblower's teepee Award, in recognition of disservice to humanity: 1). For cutting off electricity to homes of the poor and elderly; 2). For undernourished mothers and infants; 3). For grinding down tribal self-government; 4). For cover-up, repression and reprisal; 5). For meeting the appeals of destitute Indian People with obscene words In the name of old people who are cold, mothers and children who are hungry, tribal leaders you refuse to hear, and for the truth and justice that you suppress, you are hereby awarded the teepee Award. Your symbolic award is one roll of Delsey's finest (toilet) tissue." There was no bad language, no abusive remarks; honesty was scathing enough. I signed the "award" and made copies at the local print shop. At BIA's Area Office I handed out copies to the employees. I was sure they would be reproduced, and copies would be mailed to all the Agency offices. News moves like a whirlwind through Indian Country, and BIA employees headed for their telephones with copies in hand to tell their friends. There were handshakes and laughter from the BIA rank and file, who all disappeared when supervisors were in sight. When I reached Whitesell's office, the door was open but he was gone, and I was told that he was hiding from me. I placed the certificate and award on his desk, made sure his secretary and everyone in the front office had copies, and left. The coup was struck. Was this action cheap behavior on my part? Of course it was, and about as low as I go. Was it appropriate? I believe so. This low quality man, Richard Whitesell, deserved to be publicly confronted with what he had done. Seven thousand humiliated Crow Indians had their dignity uplifted, and no longer had to lower their eyes in humiliation. They could laugh at Whitesell's discomfort. If giving the whistleblower award makes me look cheap and low class, then so be it. A small coup was struck for humanity! The suppression of honesty and free speech by BIA continues daily. BIA rank and file call their administrators "whores" regardless of gender. They don't get the top jobs unless they "sell-out". One BIA contact, whose name I can not give you, is creating a personal list of recent BIA employees fired for honesty, and on that list (in September, 1993) I am identified as number twenty-seven. To remain in contact with that informant, I use the telephone of a friend. It's good sense to assume that our phone calls just might be monitored. CHAPTER 13 Cover-up "Call a spade a spade." Favorite phrase of the late Sid Beckert, Professor of Accounting, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. Many Americans, in addition to Indians, are cut off from the American Dream. Government for and by the people has been corrupted by dishonest federal politicians and administrators who feed their personal greed for money and power. Throughout this book there are many instances where as Americans, we might feel a sense of collective guilt. It helps to blame the problems on BIA, and then that can be traced to our elected officials, another scape goat. If we look closely enough the ultimate cause of the problems gets dangerously close to home, it might just be ourselves. Whoops, quickly look away, not me, not me. Look at our past and present treatment of Indians, or world history in general, and how we hide ourselves from so many things. We often cover bad actions with phony words or escapism. To rub our noses in sadness does absolutely nothing to improve the world. We want to feel good about ourselves, and to avoid the pain of collective guilt. Are we really responsible for what our ancestors did, long ago and far away? Forget about collective guilt. It accomplishes nothing beyond momentary sadness and a poor self-image. Instead, let's substitute collective RESPONSIBILITY. We are stuck with living in this world, and conditions are the result of past actions, so we must deal with them, that's responsibility. We can look honestly at the dark side of human nature and learn from it, without any need to feel collective guilt for what our ancestors did. Instead we can change our attitudes and systems so our own generation (and future generations) can avoid repeating those same problems. Now we are moving away from the negative and towards the positive, and we can accomplish something. To give you a starting point in looking at federal reprisal, first let's take a look at the laws on that subject during the time in question. Although in my case the laws were sidestepped by the agencies charged with enforcing them, they show the principles that supposedly apply. Nice words, anyway. In 1978 Congress passed Public Law 95-454, the Civil Service Reform Act. It describes principles of the merit system for federal employment. In condensed form, major provisions are: 1. Hiring based on ability, knowledge, and skills. 2. Fair treatment of employees with no discrimination, and proper regard for employees privacy and constitutional rights. 3. Equal pay for equal work. 4. Employees to have high standards of integrity and conduct. You get the general idea; the law establishes fair employment practices. Item 9 is specific about whistleblowing. 9. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employee reasonably believes evidences - (A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. The law also defines prohibited personnel practices. It says that no federal employee in charge of others may: "take or fail to take a personnel action" [such as firing] ... "in reprisal for - (A)."a disclosure of information by an employee ... which the employee ... reasonably believes evidences (i) "a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or (ii) "mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority ..." The law goes on to say that the head of each agency is responsible for preventing prohibited personnel practices. In addition to this law, the federal constitution protects free speech. There have been questions about how this applies to government employees, which resulted in a Supreme Court Case, known as the Pickering case. In Pickering, the Supreme Court ruled: "it is a matter of public importance that certain public employees, such as teachers, should speak out on matters of public concern." The United States Code of Military Justice which highly values obedience, states that soldiers must not obey unlawful orders from superiors. As a matter of international law and principal, the atrocities of World War II led to the formation of the Nuremberg Principal, which is that all people are responsible for their acts, and obedience to the orders of military or political leaders does not excuse misconduct. There are basic rights of humankind that are beyond price. But what about this whistleblower law? If you read the supporting documents and cases, you find that the phrase stating that constitutional rights "should be protected" is simply descriptive, not mandatory. How about that -- a law that reduces the power of the Constitution -- and yet the law has been enforced in the courts and has NOT been declared unconstitutional. The law is used to deny free speech to federal employees! If you read the Constitution, you will find no footnote or amendment that says these basic rights do not apply to federal employees, and yet the right of free speech is very commonly denied to them. Certainly you have read the news stories about employees of the U.S. Forest Service, the National Parks, and other federal agencies whose free speech has been denied, or the person was transferred, fired or in some manner punished for speaking honestly on matters of public importance. In television panels, people discuss the role and future size of our armed forces. Very often one of the panel members is a retired military officer, and some advocate a sharp reduction in our national military. The money saved would be available for social purposes, to feed the poor, rebuild our crumbling roads, reduce the national deficit, or similar productive uses. Never do you see a military officer who is NOT retired making statements like those, nor do you hear an employed federal administrator offering disagreement with the current administrative policy. As a practical matter, free speech is not allowed -- federal employees can not express their honest feelings or judgements if they disagree with the party line. The penalties are obvious to them, and their constitutional right to free speech is worthless. The executive department demands "loyalty" to the President, who appoints the head of each department. The career employees who report to that political appointee soon learn to keep quiet. Free speech is forbidden, by the very people who take a public oath to support it. You and I have allowed this to happen, and we have to change that. One of the least admirable of human traits is being what I call kissy-kissy. We often defer to the wealthy, or cozy-up to the powerful, and people in droves line up just to see a "movie-star" or celebrity. Kissy-kissy people are popular, and we prefer fawning dogs as pets, confusing foot kissing with love. How about the mis-guided Colonel Oliver North who so readily violated his oath to the Constitution, diverted money from the U.S. Treasury and deceived the Congress to follow the whims of the President? This is the stuff from which storm-troopers are made, yet many Americans consider such devotion to a leader, right or wrong, to be heroic. You can select your own part of the anatomy, as in foot-kissing or posterior-kissing, whatever, it's not pretty. The Jewish "Capos" who cooperated with those in power (in Nazi concentration camps) by tormenting their own people were kissy-kissy, as was the traitor Quisling. Many regard this business of loyalty to the boss (hierarchy) as being admirable, even if it means to ignore the dictates of Principle, religion or conscience. And yet our founding fathers did not believe that blind loyalty to a king or president was commendable, and instead gave us something of greater worth, the ideal of Principle embodied in the Constitution. In my case the employees of BIA, OSC, MSPB and countless other federal agencies substituted loyalty to the boss as more important than their oath to the Constitution, or the dictates of conscience. Government rewards this -- they keep their jobs and get promotions, while those who refuse to be kissy-kissy get the axe. If people who follow Principle instead of playing "follow the leader" aren't allowed in government, then where are they safe? A former BIA employee, Julie Matt, is discussed in a following chapter. In reviewing Julie Matt's documents, it is obvious that she, like me, was threatened with disciplinary action and her efficiency rating was downgraded. Bill Ellingson warned her about a reduction in force (RIF) that could eliminate her job. Three of Benjamin's employees wrote accusatory letters describing how Matt was difficult to get along with as a fellow worker. Such letters are innuendo, but you are stuck with the tiresome business of disproving them. Innuendo is not provable, but serves to raise suspicion. As a form of gossip that can not be proven, it also can not be disproved. The accused has no opportunity to face the accuser, to cross examine, or even to hear the testimony which is claimed to be confidential or private. By this process Julie Matt and others before her lost their jobs and had no effective appeal. A few years earlier, federal administrators could and did require "whistleblowers" to submit to an involuntary mental examination, labelling anyone who dared to speak out as a "crazy." A similar pattern to that used against Julie was used in my case. Within a week following my memo to Benjamin (04/29/86) Joe Gourneau, the Assistant Area Director, called a meeting to give the Financial Management department notice of a verbal Reduction in Force (RIF) order that had (supposedly) arrived from BIA's Washington office. Note that since the "freedom of information act" provides access to official papers, the agencies have learned to handle such "dirty work" as this verbally or by telephone, leaving no written record. The RIF would have an effect on only one person in the department, me. At the time I had no knowledge that the memo I gave to Benjamin had been transmitted to Washington, but later evidence showed that it had been. There is no way to prove that the RIF was in response to my report, but based on later knowledge I believe it was in reprisal. Well, somebody read my audit report. Unlike Julie Matt, other employees did not suddenly shun me by refusing to speak. They would speak if I spoke first, but they kept at a distance and most personal relationships became cold. In a subtle way, I was frozen out as an untouchable. Ellingson, Benjamin's assistant, advised me that employees who were not favored by Benjamin never lasted more than a few months. I was marked as an enemy of the establishment. On July 11, 1986 Benjamin called me into his office to discuss my performance rating for the past six months. I was astounded to discover he had graded me as "satisfactory." Benjamin said I was downgraded for "failing to work within the system." I complained that my work was better than that, and that the grade was unfair. In response he said he would add the comment that I did not get along well with his secretary, Jackie. That amounts to reprisal for complaining about reprisal. I had worked quite a few overtime hours at the office, not counting work at home in the evenings and weekends. Benjamin's announced policy of granting short periods of time off was not followed in my case. Any personal time I needed was charged against vacation. It's a petty issue, but the pattern is the same as for Julie Matt. The treatment was aimed to demoralize the subordinate. Enough of this, and most people will give up and simply move on to another job. About forty percent of my time was required by other duties assigned by the Assistant Area Director. Benjamin said I would not get any credit (on my efficiency rating) for that work, and true to his word I did not. By any measure my performance on the other forty percent merited a superior or outstanding efficiency rating. By Benjamin's rules, the other work assigned to me counted against me, because it took time away from Benjamin's assignments. In the process of building evidence to support firing me, Benjamin brought in an accountant from the Albuquerque office of BIA to prove me wrong on the issues. The accountant, Rodney Young, spent several days in Benjamin's office with the door closed. I did not know who he was or what they were doing together, because I was not introduced and Young did not speak one word to me or look directly at me. His report, issued later, claimed to examine my "allegations" as they were called. My facts were well documented and proven on their face, but this term "allegation" was used again and again. Most of my documentation was in the form of papers stored in my desk, but Rodney Young did not ask to see my work. This did not prevent him from reaching the expected conclusions and from issuing a formal report concerning my work. Rodney Young is not a CPA, but he issued a CPA's finding of fact and opinion about my work without looking at my papers or asking me any questions. I was not aware of what he was doing at the time, but was given a copy of his report when I was fired a few days later. Here are the results of his official report, which he said was made in accordance with the formal standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants: [Henry's] "allegations against the OIG are false, opinionated and a possible violation of professional ... ethics ..." [Henry's] opinion about the accounting system was "irrelevant." If [Henry] "had a little common discipline he could learn the system ...and understand it." As to Docket #184, there were "no erroneous or excessive disbursements." "We did not find the ... IIM cash accounts to be short $7 million." Young repeated from the prior OIG report that all ... accounts for ... Billings had been reconciled." Young added "we found this ... to be true at the Billings Area Office, and a perfect example of the [high] standards employed ... by said office." "In closing we ... commend ... Billings ... for the lead they have taken over the years ... in the IIM ... system ..." If you refer back to earlier chapters, you will see that every part of Rodney Young's report is false, both on my authority and according to the Inspector General's audit. What you are looking at is a fraud done by Rodney Young, a BIA official who openly lied to suppress an honest report. You see this often within BIA; an investigation of fraud is itself done in a fraudulent way which compounds the error. Did Rodney Young get fired? Of course not. While he was commending the area office for great work on the IIM system, an embezzlement was taking place from the IIM accounts at the Fort Peck Agency. BIA has heard this evidence from me about Rodney Young. Do you think they fired him for fraud? In response to the evidence you see, BIA's chief employee (Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs), William Ragsdale, had this to say in a letter to Senator Baucus on December 17, 1987, about Rodney Young: "Those who know him and have worked with him testify to his commitment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and to the goal of accurate accountability to the Indian People. Mr. Henry's vague remarks implying that Mr. Young is not serving the Bureau with integrity appear to be slanderous in nature, and are not what one would expect from an individual with credentials such as Mr. Henry's." If you care to review what is above, you will find that my remarks about Rodney Young are not vague. The evidence of fraud is there for you to read, and I call it fraud. I can not call the fraud deliberate, because I can not see into Rodney Young's heart. You have the facts; what does it look like to you? I call Rodney Young a deliberate liar, a supporter of the cover-up, and BIA's chief career employee (William Ragsdale) part of the problem. The type, style and format of the report signed by Rodney Young is used almost exclusively by CPAs, and Young is not a CPA. He does work directly for a BIA CPA, Jim Parris. I assume the report was prepared under the supervision of Mr. Parris, because it bears all the marks of a CPA. If Parris was involved with it, and it certainly looks like he was, he is a party to the fraud and his CPA certificate should be revoked. I did not know about all of this until later, and the next thing that happened after the performance rating was on July 23. I was serving on a committee, and a meeting was held on July 23, 1986 by David Pennington, Chairman. This was called the IMPL committee. The letters aren't important as the group is best described as collecting information about various computerized systems within BIA. It was to report to Washington about how these systems were functioning and to report whether on not the systems were completely installed and in place. It so happens that the list of systems to report on included the IIM trust system described in an earlier chapter. I had been appointed as a member of the committee representing the Financial Management department. David Pennington, who headed the Land and Minerals department was serving as both Chairman and Recording Secretary that day. To the best of my knowledge Benjamin had not passed on my information to higher authority despite repeated urging for over six months, so I saw this as an appropriate forum to report the IIM problem directly to higher authority. Yes, after waiting for six months I was going over the head of my supervisor. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was required of me by my professional standards. When it came time for my report, here is what I said to Mr. Pennington. I know exactly what was said, because I wrote it down at the meeting, and Pennington read the words back to me to be absolutely certain the report was exact and correct. I have my handwritten notes from that day. My report was: "From an accounting standpoint the IIM system is out of control, not covered by proper accounting controls, and there is a strong indication of a substantial cash shortage in the Area Office." I asked Pennington to read the words back to me.He wrote them down and read them back exactly as shown above. I asked him to put this in the minutes of the meeting, and he said he would. My report was the most interesting thing that happened at that meeting, so I'm sure the others present would remember it. On August 5, 1986 I received a typed copy of Pennington's minutes of the meeting. My report had been omitted; there was no mention of it. Forging or changing official government records is a criminal offense, and Pennington did just that. When I last checked, in 1992, Pennington was still a BIA supervisor. The meeting took place near the end of the day. When I arrived at work the next morning, I had a message to report immediately to Joe Gourneau, the Assistant Area Director. I knew I was in for big trouble. Gourneau reprimanded me for making the committee report. He had information about my report and said he was disturbed by it. Gourneau also mentioned, as an unrelated matter, that at the Fort Peck Agency the BIA cashier had not deposited roughly $750,000. in receipts and that there had apparently been an embezzlement from the IIM trust accounts there. I had passed a point of no return, and events started to move rapidly towards my dismissal. On July 28 Benjamin wrote me a memo referring to my committee report about the $7.5 million, and stated that "there was not a shortage." Again we have a play on words, since Benjamin elected to call it an excess rather than a shortage. If it was an excess, then he could deny that there was a shortage. He directed me to prepare a full report, which I gave to him on August 11, 1986. That report defined the issues and defined the terms short and over. From here on in, Benjamin always stated that I said the cash was short and I was wrong because it was not short. That just disguises the issue. I believe you have enough information now to understand how the BIA hierarchy works to keep employees in line. I'll skip over the remainder of the happenings lightly, and then cover the appeals process with other federal agencies. Benjamin wrote me on September 24, stating "action still may be taken to separate you from your position," and then on September 26, there was a letter of discharge, and I was fired. Both letters were filled with the usual innuendo, and you can't protect yourself from unproven allegations like that. Benjamin called me into his office late on a Friday afternoon. He had a five page letter that I was to read and sign a receipt for. He did not look me in the eye, and never again looked directly in my eyes on the several occasions I have seen him since. Other people have asked me how I felt at the moment of being fired, so I will tell you to the best of my ability. I was stunned. The letter was a rambling personal assault filled with unsupported accusations and innuendo. I was insubordinate and my personal conduct was unsatisfactory. I was accusing him and fixing blame on him. I was arrogant for suggesting system improvements, and offering to work on "fixing" problems. I failed to work within the system. All my reports were taken as personal accusations against him. I was surprised at my own feelings. I felt no anger at Benjamin. Hurt, certainly, and sorrow. My basic emotion was shame, not for myself but for Bill Benjamin. I was terribly sorry for him. I did not dislike Bill then and I don't dislike him now. Bill is intelligent and knew he was doing a deliberate wrong. I felt sorrow at the discovery that he could sink to such depths, lie for the record, and do what amounted to bearing false witness against another for his own personal benefit. Benjamin used the trick I had heard of years earlier during police training. I was a volunteer Deputy Sheriff in Ohio, and graduated from Ohio police training. We were told that if ever we had to strike a person twice in making an arrest, the defendant's attorney would say "this brute of an officer struck the defenseless prisoner repeatedly, again and again, time after time, over and over." The device is called puffery. Benjamin used puffery. My reports about the defective OIG report were "highly irresponsible," and I was "in the habit" of doing (whatever) again and again, and repeatedly. I was constantly accusing him. When he could find nothing specific, he found fault with "apparent implications." My language was "insulting and abusive" and I "tried to make" fellow workers feel incompetent. I ask you, if a person IS incompetent are you supposed to somehow fill them with self confidence? I had continually refused to accept government policies and so forth. For a few days after being fired I was on terminal leave. Over the next two years I wrote roughly two thousand letters, many with multiple copies and containing exhibits. If I was going to honor my ethical standards, it seemed best to stay and fight rather than give up and run away from the problem. It will help you in learning about BIA (and other federal agencies that support it) to know what I found in almost eight years of full time work appealing for justice. I was unable to find a job, so before long I filed for unemployment benefits. Benjamin responded to the unemployment office that I was fired for willful misbehavior, so there were no benefits. There is no effective appeal to an employer's claim. If Benjamin says misbehavior, then misbehavior it is in the eyes of the unemployment office. During this period the Internal Revenue Service suddenly decided my tax returns needed an audit. I had taken a deduction for the loss of my household goods from the U-Haul trailer theft in Nevada. To report to work at BIA, I had to buy new underwear, socks and the like so I'd have something to wear at the office. I deducted the cost of these items that replaced what was stolen, but the IRS agent would only allow the cost of used underwear at garage sale prices, and so on. We could not reach an agreement, so now I owed taxes that I simply had no way to pay. As a former tax accountant, I know that I had a right to appeal at a higher level, and I requested the hearing, but none resulted. I was assessed with the additional tax, no appeal allowed. Perhaps the IRS exam was a coincidence. What would you think if you had been the whistleblower and it had happened to you? The record is very clear that IRS audits have been used as reprisal in other cases. There were three telephoned death threats from a disguised male voice. In addition several friendly people expressed their concern that I might be killed, and someone who should know told me my telephone had been bugged and my mail was being read by federal agents. I did my best to take none of this with alarm, but for a few days I carried a pistol in my pocket. Several times, not at my request or with my prior knowledge, I was shadowed by Indian men who also parked at night in sight of my house. I did not recognize these men, but they were protective, not threatening. I felt the protection was not needed. From marks in the winter snow I could tell that sometimes one slept at night in a sleeping bag on the snow outside my bedroom window. At one temporary job in Billings a giant of a man sat in his car outside, and if I came out on a break he walked over to stand beside me. I really do mean giant, I'm six foot two but I had to strain my neck to look up at this Indian who had the build of a professional wrestler. The accountants I worked with sometimes looked out the window in disbelief to see him waiting there. I knew who this man was and we spoke to each other, but I asked him no questions and he gave no reason for being there. I have no idea if these guards came on their own or if some tribe or person sent them. There was some comfort in having guards, but it also caused me alarm to know that others felt my life was in danger. People of the calibre I was dealing with are reputed to have people killed when it is in their best interest. If all else fails, there is a strong urge to call the police. The FBI has police power on federal lands and Indian reservations, and is charged specifically with investigating crimes against Indians. The FBI office in Billings is just a few doors down the hall from BIA. I wrote the Billings FBI office on June 22, 1987, giving them a report of the fraud and offering them access to my papers and evidence. I phoned a month later, and was told my letter was forwarded to their Butte, Montana office. I phoned the FBI in Butte, and was told that Agent Kelly Hemmert would return my call. Agent Hemmert, I'm still waiting. In April, 1988 I wrote the FBI again with more information and offered cooperation and evidence. The FBI did not respond, and to this date has shown no interest. If you research the history of the FBI in dealing with Indian matters, you will find that they respond with strength and guns when Indians complain too loudly. The strength is not used for Indians, it is used to stifle their freedom and civil rights. CHAPTER 14 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS "`Tis the majority In this, as all, prevails. Assent, and you are sane; Demur, -- you're straightway dangerous, And handled with a chain." Emily Dickinson By establishing an administrative appeal procedure, the federal employee's right to seek the protection of the federal courts is thwarted. The idea is quickly apparent; federal employees have fewer constitutional rights than other classes of employees, even though this conflicts with the Constitution which makes no such distinctions. If you contact an attorney (I contacted several, in two states) you will be told that your case will not be heard by the courts until after you exhaust "all administrative remedies," so you are stuck with several years of work on fruitless appeals, along with sizeable personal expenses for postage, telephone and copying machines, before you can go to court. During this period of time wasted with federal agencies that in no way want to help you, but instead try to defeat you at every turn, the various statutes of limitations are running out. In some cases you might have had good support for a lawsuit on grounds of fraud, libel or slander, or based on the fact that your agency fits the description in the law of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) group, still time is working against you and your facts are getting old. The kissy-kissy people in the federal appeals agencies know that, and are playing a cat and mouse game. The lawyers will also tell you that this is simply an "administrative law" matter, or an "employment law" matter, and the Constitution doesn't apply. Again there is nothing in the Constitution that says basic human rights are simply an administrative matter, or fall into a lesser category of "employment law," but don't tell the lawyers or the courts that - they'll ignore your plea. The effect of this is to downgrade the Constitution. Congress has diminished the Constitution by downgrading free speech for federal employees as a simple administrative or employment matter, not deserving of protection by the courts. Our lawyers and courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, go along with this basic denial of human rights. We will never have an honest federal government while this nonsense is tolerated by the people. You might think that our federal politicians simply made a mistake, and have overlooked that their laws have downgraded the civil rights of federal employees. It's no mistake, and they've heard about it from me, from other whistleblowers and from the public interest groups. It is not in their best (financial) interest for federal employees to have free speech, and the politicians like it that way. A high percentage of our politicians are lawyers, and they knew exactly what they were doing, defeating free speech with high sounding words that at first glance look good but protect them from honest words. The courts go along with the game, and uphold the law, The judges get their jobs by political appointment, and prosper in this environment. Earlier in this book there was a summary of the law for whistleblowers. The federal agency (somewhat like an administrative law court) that hears appeals is the Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB. The independent branch within MSPB that represents whistleblowers is the Office of Special Counsel, or OSC. I had never heard of these organizations, and BIA provided no information about possible appeals through them. Finally, while researching federal employment laws at the library, I discovered that they existed. I was filled with hope because of their stated purpose to seek justice for whistleblowers. I spent over two years dealing with OSC. They transferred my files and documents from one office to another. My first contact was with the Denver office, and they transferred me to Washington. In June, 1987 I was told that they would reach a conclusion within three weeks. Late in July they reported two more weeks were needed. In late August the case was transferred to Dallas, and in December, 1987, back to Washington and then on to San Francisco, like a hot potato. By late January, 1988 I was told my case was next in line for review. Nothing happened except it was transferred to Washington once again in March, 1988. Always there were promises that in another few weeks, or in ten days, or in two weeks they would accomplish another step. All they did was waste my time and effort, and increase my expenses for phone calls, photo copies and postage. The promises they made were more than empty, they were deceptive because they gave false hope, and turncoat because they used my evidence against me. After my fruitless experience, I learned more about OSC. Other organizations had made studies of OSC, and I got copies of their reports. The first organization, the General Accountability Project (GAP) sent me a packet of information with facts about OSC that all taxpayers should know: The May, 1987 issue of Multinational Monitor reports: In discussing the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster, it said that the real lesson of the disaster was the importance and plight of the whistleblower. "Employees do not have the freedom to dissent or to blow the whistle ..." The MSPB "has ruled in favor of the whistleblower ... only four times in eight years." "When Reagan came to power he quickly gutted the Office of Special Counsel. Within fourteen months "nearly half of the office staff and 70 percent of attorneys and investigators were fired or had resigned." An article in the August, 1986, Psychology Today magazine by Donald R. Soeken states that some whistleblowers "become so shattered ... that they need extensive and intensive therapy." In the same issue, an article by Myron Glazer and Penina Glazer states that the whistleblower motive seems to be "a strong belief in individual responsibility. A corrupt system can happen only if the individuals who make up that system are corrupt. You are either going to be part of the corruption or part of the forces working against it. There isn't a third choice." The article continues with "the federal administrative review resolves very few cases in their favor, [and] ... the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing ... virtually all of the ethical resisters we studied had long histories of successful employment [prior to becoming whistleblowers]." An article in the July 30, 1984 American Banker reports: "job evaluations suddenly will turn sour ... they will be fired for substandard performance or insubordination." An attorney who represents whistleblowers states "I know of no case in which a whistleblower did not face reprisal. The rate is 100%." Thomas Devine, Legal Director of GAP says that "Since its creation, the OSC has turned down 99 percent of whistleblower cases ..." He reports that an OSC officer "taught a course for federal managers on how to fire employees without OSC interference." That makes several sources that have nothing good to say about MSPB and OSC. There is also some worthy information in a recent study made by the Antioch Law School. The law school describes MSPB and OSC as "turncoat" organizations that investigate the person who complains rather than the complaint, and help the federal agencies create a defense against the whistleblower. In my opinion the employees of MSPB and OSC knowingly violate their oath of office to support the Constitution. They work to defeat the laws of the United States, and are enemies of truth and justice. Many of them are attorneys, who violate the ethical rules of the American Bar Association. They do this with immunity from prosecution, protected by the federal doctrine of sovereign immunity. They work to defeat justice. The only possible motive that I can see is good pay and job security in return for doing harm to their fellows. They obey the requirements of a federal government that stifles the free speech of honest employees. Within OSC you see a similar pattern to that used by BIA. They get rid of people who are willing to speak honest words, and their processes wear you down until you give up in frustration. This is what our politicians demand, and the alphabet soup agencies are loyal to the politicians. CHAPTER 15 Senate Investigation Before the ink was dry on the letter that I received from BIA's Bill Benjamin that fired me, I began a lengthy series of correspondence with Montana's two Senators and the Congressman for the district in which Billings is located. Of those three, Montana's Senator Max Baucus was most helpful. He asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to respond to a list of questions from me. There was a six months delay before BIA responded, but there was finally a written answer from BIA's chief career employee, Director of Operations William Ragsdale. Montana's Congressman Marlenee asked the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to perform an audit of the Billings Area Office. It was two years before OIG would accomplish that, but the audit did take place. Both the audit and the answer from BIA's William Ragsdale are referred to in this book, and they verify the reports I issued (and for which I had been fired) while employed by BIA. Still, being "correct" wasn't good enough. During 1988 my continuing letters (I was fired from BIA in late 1986) to various Senators led to contacts with the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. My letters, my story in the Arizona Republic, that newspaper's series "Fraud in Indian Country," and other complaints put enough pressure on the Senate to lead to an investigation. I claim part of the credit for causing this Senate investigation to happen. The Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs formed (within itself) a Special Committee on Investigation, and hired a staff to look into BIA and Indian problems. The Committee was formed in February, 1988, and issued it's final report in November, 1989, three years after I was fired by BIA. All my complaints to the politicians about BIA were put on hold during this almost two year period. First, I was told to wait for the investigation to begin, then after the investigation started I was told to wait for the investigation to finish. During this time I believed that at last the problems at BIA would receive serious attention from these powerful people, and that BIA would be held accountable for its actions. A solution seemed to be at hand. During much of our national history, the Senate has taken an active role in Indian matters. This started with the treaty process, because the Senate confirmed treaties that the President (or executive branch) negotiated with Indian tribes. That tradition of Senate involvement continues, through the Senate Select Committee. Many Indians have felt hopeful about Senator Daniel Inouye, who most often serves as Chairman of the Committee. Inouye has frequent meetings with Indians and hears their complaints. Other members of the Committee at the time were Arizona's DeConcini and McCain, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota. You may recognize some of these names as having been identified with corruption in the Savings and Loan scandal. These are men of doubtful quality with disturbing ethical standards. The Senators that Indians depend on all receive large contributions from special interests. I see that fact (and the Senators personally) as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It appeared to me that Congress has sold the Indian lands (and or minerals, cheap grazing rights, etc.) for cash in advance paid into their political campaign funds. The two year investigation of BIA was underway, and I provided the investigators with copies of most of my evidence. They told me that my papers were among the most useful documents the Committee had. This led to several phone conversations with the committee staff, and it seemed that I was developing a close and trusting relationship with them. I understood that I would be called to testify during the public hearings that would be broadcast on CSPAN TV. I was filled with hope that something good would come from this, and that at last my story would be heard. My pride grew and my head swelled with self-importance as I day-dreamed about having my say about BIA in front of a national television audience. This overblown ego would led me to do something really stupid. Here was my thought process at that time. After finding the problems in BIA, I had seen their degrading effect on the lives of Indians. The motive for all of this was greed for money and power. For the system to operate, political cooperation was essential because of the government's control over BIA and the lives of Indians. At that moment I had found a way to put these thoughts and feelings together in a logical way and to express them. I had written a poem, thought I was pretty smart, and wanted to share the poem with anyone who might understand the thoughts revealed by it. ------ CASH IN ADVANCE Indian Land is for sale, it's all very legal We deliver it wrapped, what a deal. Right after dinner, with help from Ross Swimmer Congress will write a new law with a seal. So it's Cash in Advance to see Indians dance while we pull land from under their feet. It's hard work to unravel laws during jet travel, and who knows, there could be some heat. You know you can trust us, the FBI won't bust us, it's very legal, and sure can't be beat. We need cash for election, parties and defection, and our love for PAC donors is sweet. Energy companies get praise, stockholders a raise, and that makes the whole deal complete. So it's Cash in Advance while the Indians dance, there's nothing in writing, it's so neat. c Copyright 1988 David L. Henry Ross Swimmer was the appointed head of BIA at that time. Although I didn't say "Senator" or "Representative" in the poem, it obviously points a finger at federal politicians. I wanted to share my poem, and since my relationship with the Committee staff at that time was intimate, I enclosed a copy along with some documents I was sending to them. I thought they'd have a good laugh and understand the problems better. I wasn't thinking about the source of their paychecks or where their loyalties might lie. Prior to sending in the poem, I was told that it was almost certain I would be called as a witness during the hearings. Senator Inouye was coming to Billings, and he would want to see me. A few days after the poem was mailed, I was phoned and told that an investigator was coming to see me in Billings with a message from the Senators. On October 17, 1988, Jack Kerns, a General Accounting Office investigator working with the Senate Investigative Committee, came from Washington to meet with me at the Ramada Inn in Billings. He used good and careful language, but the meaning of what he said amounted to this: Just be quiet. Don't say you are a primary witness, or that your evidence and complaints helped cause this investigation to take place. The Senators will take full credit for deciding to investigate BIA. They don't want it to look like they were just responding to complaints; the Senators want to look good. To make certain that we can dispense with you as a witness, I'm going to visit the Billings Area Office this afternoon. Then if any testimony about Billings is wanted, it can come from me instead of from you. We don't want your testimony. The meeting was brief, he did not literally tell me to shut my mouth, but the message was clear. The purpose of the hearings was to make the Senators look good, and I was too outspoken to be trusted as a witness. It appeared to me that my poem had been read, and that neither it nor I was very popular with the Senators. I would be squashed like road-kill on a busy highway. If you'd like to read the report issued by the Senate committee, you can get a copy by contacting your own Senator. Ask for Senate Report 101-216. Here are some of the highlights of that report: From Part One, Summary: "In exchange for the vast lands that now comprise most of the United States, the federal government promised the tribes permanent, self-governing reservations ... "Paternalistic federal control ... has created a federal bureaucracy ... riddled with fraud, mismanagement and waste. Worse, ... officials in every agency knew of the abuses but did little or nothing to stop them. "For instance, federal officials in Oklahoma admitted that Indian land was wide open to oil theft, yet for the past three years they uncovered none. They even ignored specific allegations against the nation's largest purchaser of Indian oil, which [our] investigators caught repeatedly stealing from Indians. "In every area it touches, BIA is plagued by mismanagement. "BIA... was not surprised by the waste and fraud. ... Yet the Bureau made little effort to avert this massive fraud and financial scandal. BIA also permitted a pattern of child-abuse by its teachers ... not a single official was ever disciplined for tolerating the abuse of countless students ... "BIA's mismanagement is manifest in almost every area the Committee examined [including] financial management of Indian Trust funds ... "... the Committee found a pattern of callously ignoring known problems, defending and promoting incompetent staff, and ostracizing the few capable employees who dared to speak out against the institutional incompetence that surrounded them. " ... Koch Oil, the largest purchaser of Indian oil in the country, was engaged in a widespread and sophisticated scheme to steal crude oil from Indians ... stealing millions in Oklahoma alone. Concerning oil, the report also mentioned the Sun Oil Co., Conoco, Kerr-McGee, and Phillips. Moving on to the subject of tribal government, the report recommended that: "Federal assets and annual appropriations must be transferred in toto to the tribes ... "Indian governments will be empowered to manage their internal affairs in the same sense as state governments. In a review of history, the report stated: "Between 1887 and 1934 the amount of land in Indian hands had shrunk from 136 million acres to 34 million acres. The report contained a dozen pages detailing sexual abuse by known pedophiles who were hired as teachers in BIA operated schools, and told how BIA kept them on after repeated reports about their activities. They quoted BIA's acting Assistant Secretary William Ragsdale (BIA's chief career employee) who said that is was inexcusable that BIA had allowed a certain pedophile to thrive in [BIA] schools for 14 years. The report also said that : "teachers who know of allegations may be frightened and intimidated into not reporting their information," that "BIA officials ... intimidated anyone who chose to report allegations," and "negligent BIA officials were never disciplined ... and many were even promoted within BIA." The committee report contains 238 pages, so I can't describe it all here. In addition to problems within BIA, it lists radical failures within the Bureau of Land Management, the Indian Health Service, the Minerals Management Service, and other federal agencies. In an appendix on page 225, it states that Senator Inouye and his colleagues decided to investigate fraud, corruption and mismanagement in American Indian affairs "no matter where or to whom it led." Right at that point I suggest that the investigation and report dips sharply and becomes phony. To whom does it lead? In my opinion it leads directly to our Senators and other politicians, indirectly to our system of selling political favors to special interests, and finally to ourselves who have allowed such things to happen. It would have been most gratifying if I could have asked the Senators a few questions at this point. How about: 1.) Senator, how much money has your campaign fund collected from the oil companies [repeat the names from above] which grew rich stealing oil from Indians? 2.) Senator, how many years ago did you first hear complaints about pedophiles teaching in BIA schools, and what did you do about the complaints at that time? 3.) Senator, you did not follow up on reports that hundreds of millions of dollars are missing from BIA's trust funds. Do you have any plan to stop these shortages from continuing, or to find out who took the money? Will you work to see that the missing funds are restored? You can manufacture your own list of questions from the data presented here. From a personal standpoint, I'd like to ask what they have done to support BIA's "few capable employees who dared to speak out," as quoted above. At this point in time, the Senators and their staff members were fully informed about my case and had copies of my documentation, and had done nothing about it. That process is called stonewalling. Rather than accepting any responsibility for the situation at BIA, or looking further in that direction, the good Senators diverted the investigation to search for any problems caused by the victims. This is about the equivalent of a lawyer who is defending a rapist asking whether or not the woman was pretty. The final chapter in the Senate report is titled "Corruption Among Tribal Government Officials." This chapter starts out with: "... the existence of Indian tribal governance predates by centuries the Constitution itself. "... "Indian citizens ... have fallen prey to the actions of certain corrupt [Indian] officials." The chapter details the misdeeds of Navajo Chairman Pete McDonald, and covers problems found among tribes in Oklahoma and a few other locations. I have no special knowledge about these problems, and assume that the report is reasonably accurate. In one footnote, it accused Chairman Real Bird (Crow Tribe) of corruption or potential corruption, and states that federal charges were filed against several Crow tribal officials. Concerning the Crow officials, the great bulk of the accusations were dropped later for lack of evidence, so it appears that most of the charges were based on unsupported rumors or hearsay. Some trials were held, and that is described elsewhere in this book. So, what did the investigation accomplish? First, it stopped all pending action on all complaints in this area. It made a permanent record of some of the problems, and gave them a place in history. The investigation proposed some reforms, but none were accomplished. Not a single BIA employee was fired or demoted, except (perhaps) one or two pedophiles. None of the complainants (whistleblowers) were rehired or rewarded. None of the BIA systems or structures were made better. The hearings provided a platform where the Senators could prance around for the voters back home, and express with eloquent words their belief in honesty (at least for others), and their support for Motherhood and the American Flag. BIA was not reformed, and the politicians did not halt the stealing from Indians. ------ CHAPTER 16 Professional & Personal Appeals For several years I was busy filing administrative appeals with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). During this period, which lasted from the time I was fired by BIA in 1986 through about April, 1990, I searched high and low for some person or institution that might provide some help. This search for help continued during my federal court appeals until the summer of 1991, although by this time my list of possible sources was growing short. First, I thought that the professional CPA organizations I belonged to might help. After all, I had uncovered a specific "gag rule" that would prevent a federal auditor from issuing a required audit report without reprisal. This severely limited the constitutional right of free speech for federal employees, and would inhibit honest financial reporting by accountants and auditors employed by the federal government. It seemed to me that the accountant's professional organizations would be very concerned about this. The "Code of Professional Conduct" spells out the obligations of all CPAs. The rules of conduct for CPA's include: "act in a way that will serve the public interest, honor the public trust" "shall not knowingly misrepresent facts or subordinate his or her judgment to others" One accounting author writes that the CPA's ethical principles "call for an unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage." [footnote -- Michael A. Pearson, CPA, editor of The Ohio CPA Journal, in an article titled "A New Code of Professional Conduct for CPAs," as published in the textbook "Readings and Cases in Auditing," Sixth Edition, Dame Publications, Inc.] I contacted the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and various ethical bodies within that group. They offered mild interest but no help. The ethical boards discipline members for ethical violations, but on the positive side they do not support those who uphold ethical standards. I found a pattern in the answers to my letters asking for help. The first letter from me would bring a pleasant response, expressing concern for my situation, but passing over the fact that I had asked for advice, support or involvement. My second letter would thank them, and mention that the code of ethics (that they require members to endorse) required me to do what I did, and for living up to that code my career had been destroyed. I would request help from their attorneys, or suggest that they join me as a "friend of the court" in my court pleadings. The answer to this was always negative. They would state that it was too early (or too late) to ask for help, or say they were too busy, or give a similar excuse. There might be a "well done" or "keep up the good work" remark. It was a dismissal I was not willing to accept. My third letter would say that I just can't take "no" as an answer, and point out their need as an organization to uphold professional ethics. I would be careful to use respectful language, and not to sound ungrateful for their earlier good wishes. Here is the place where the organizations change direction. In the case of the national organization (the American Institute of CPA's), the third response was a letter from their attorney, which in a polite way said to not bother them again, and that I should not quote from their earlier letters. (The earlier correspondence had been with the organization's Chairman, Thomas Rimerman). Letters to the Ohio Society of CPAs were cordial, and thanked me for doing the right thing, but offered no help. Their latest drive was to raise money for their PAC, and their publication listed an honor roll of those who gave the most money to the PAC. I pointed out the contrast, no support for ethical behavior, while at the same time making it an honor to pay politicians for special favors. A letter to me from the President of the Ohio Society of CPAs, Edward M. Rose, defended the policy by stating that PAC money provides access and gets the attention of the politician. You already know what I think about that. At the least, paying for special access reduces the access of those without money and is not democratic. In 1994, Edward M. Rose, now the former Ohio Society president, received the Society's "Gold Metal for Meritorious Service to the Accounting Profession," based largely on service to that Society. An article in the April, 1994 Ohio CPA Newsletter stated that he is "still very involved in the legislative process." Recently the CPA organizations have been pushing to get an exemption from the federal criminal law, known as RICO. CPAs were arguing that the RICO laws should not apply to them, purely self-interest. The Montana Society of CPAs was very considerate, and referred my request to their attorneys. They would at least consider filing a "friend of the court" brief in my Supreme Court case. The attorney's opinion was that this would cost a substantial amount of money, and that appeals like mine seldom win. The administrators were truly sorry to tell me "no," and it would have been unkind to remind them about unswerving commitment. I was a pain in the neck because I was a reminder that when it might cost something, the accounting organizations do not support the ethics they talk about. Faced with an unswerving commitment, they swerved. This is not intended to cast a shadow on the accounting organizations alone, because their response is typical of our institutions at large. In recent history, few (if any) of the churches in Germany objected to the Jewish Holocaust, and closer to home our churches in years past were delighted to deny religious freedom to Native Americans. During our dark period of slavery too many of our churches supported both slavery and the subordination of women with quotations from the Bible. Common Cause was another organization I tried, and it does help a few whistleblowers, but they were fully committed with other cases. The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond, nor did any of the dozen or more federal offices I contacted. Not responding is an effective way to do nothing without having to say so in writing; the process often called stonewalling. The Justice Department was one of my tormentors, not a champion of civil rights. At the time that I was appealing through administrative channels, their attorneys were paid to defend BIA. When Crow Chairman Richard Real Bird brought his lawsuit against BIA, Justice Department operatives found the time and money to began their sting operation against him, as reported in another chapter. During that same period, according to many newspaper articles, a substantial amount of Justice Department staff time and effort was used to keep their department head, Attorney General Ed Meese, out of jail. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) was kind and provided helpful information, but they were tied-up with other cases and had no funds for mine. Common Cause and GAP are both legitimate organizations, but it is necessary for a whistleblower to use caution, some groups are really front organizations that hide behind commendable names. Organizations that have federal funding (such as the United States Institute for Peace Studies) may in part serve a worthy purpose, but there's a catch for the unwary. I heard their Dr. David Little speak at a college gathering in Billings in March, 1994. In his opening remarks he mentioned briefly that the Institute's role was limited to issues that are not critical of the federal government, or that might interfere with foreign policy. He then made an analysis of some problems in other countries. During a question period, I asked Dr. Little how he could accept the restriction on his free speech, and as an educator addressing college people, how he viewed this limitation on academic freedom. He can discuss human rights issues, but if, for instance, our federal policy were to ignore human rights issues in China, so that we can sell Coca-Cola or Pepsi to that nation, he is inhibited from discussing it. Dr. Little fielded my answer skillfully, stating that in their private capacities the Institute staff can speak honestly. To the best of my knowledge, members of organizations such as this (in contrast to CPAs) do not oblige themselves to honor the "public trust" and they do not subscribe to a code of ethical conduct. That does not make Dr. Little a bad person, but I suggest that any audience listening to the opinions of an expert should be aware of built-in conditions that inhibit honesty. In searching for legal help, I contacted several local law firms, and some with a national reputation, one at a time. Each one told me about the doctrine of sovereign immunity which protects BIA from lawsuits. There is a price for justice, and I had no money. With a substantial cash advance some were willing to get involved, but after years of spinning my wheels in alphabet soup (BIA, OSC, MSPB and the like), I was broke. The federal law allows no damages, so there is no "contingent fee" money to attract lawyers. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana bought lunch, and said they wanted to take the case, but it would be several months before they would know if they could do it. After that time I was told they did not have the necessary funds. I know Scott Crichton well, as the current Montana Director of ACLU. He is a most decent man and sympathetic to my cause, but ACLU simply doesn't have enough money to honor many of the cases that deserve help. I was unable to get work in Montana, except low paid work during two winter tax seasons (1987 and 1988) at Billings firms. After the first winter, there were some unemployment benefits. I tried day labor and horse grooming, but there wasn't much of that and there is a stigma to whistleblowing; people devoted to some other cause are not employable. I am sorry to relate dismal things to you, but if you want to know this story then you must hear the sad parts too. This was my first real experience with poverty. In a way it was voluntary, because I could always just give up and leave. To me it seemed better to stay and fight than to give up and run away, so I stuck it out. Poverty is also relative, and I may seem like a cry- baby in comparison to the many people who are much worse off than I was. Still, I had been a professional man, and the contrast between past good earnings and poverty was hard for me to handle. Poverty is tough, and all those around me had to pay part of my price. My landlord, a really fine man named Dave Selby, carried me without rent for six months. During that time he paid my utilities, and on occasion gave me food when I did not have enough to eat, and loaned me money. Dave and his friend Lois Layton were always kind and thoughtful. There were never any reminders about the overdue rent; they were more concerned about me than about themselves. Finally there came a time when I had to head for the street, as Dave Selby simply couldn't carry my housing costs any longer, and I felt sorry to have been such a burden to him. I am proud to know Dave and yet I was causing him harm from my poverty. The evil caused by the Bill Benjamin's of the world spreads out like a plague carrying harm to many innocent parties. There were no birthday or Christmas gifts for my three adult children, and nothing for my granddaughter Angela. No cards or courtesies (that cost money) for my aged mother, or for other relatives. They all had to share my problem, yet none of them deserved it and I became a burden and a cause for their concern. This business of becoming a martyr was not my goal, and I have kicked and rebelled against it all the way. I want justice, and see nothing noble about suffering in silence. Some of these money problems hurt your pride. Eating with a group of close friends at a restaurant, someone will say "here, sit with us" and you learn that means they will pick up the check; they know I'm broke and want to help. I protest that I've already eaten, but they see I've lost weight, know I'm lying and order a large meal for me. That wears thin very soon, and you get the feeling that they'd rather not have you around. There are little things; having coffee with a woman friend, and seeing her look of concern when the small check comes. She wonders if I can pay it or if she should risk my embarrassment by slipping me some cash, and I'm painfully aware of her discomfort as well as my own. As a single man, there is the problem of dating without money. Dinner and dancing is impossible, when even a hamburger (she would buy her own) is out of the question. Doing things with a group is frightening, since almost every event requires money. Do "we" stay outside while "they" go in, and should she forego all little pleasures because of me and learn to like it? How many years can this go on? The vexing personal problems are not just about money. Whistleblowing can have a "saintly" image among those who support what you are doing and see your struggle as a heroic deed; they put you on a platform and then feel obligated to support you in every way, which also causes them to resent you. So, back to dating. You cause some minor offense or real friction, but "she" thinks that to be supportive of you as a person means that she must absorb your offense and not object. Now she is angry, but she swallows the anger and feels guilty for having it, which can poison a relationship and you feel that growing between you. You see this "saintly" platform building as a barrier between you and your friends, and try to make light of your situation so the friendships can be normal and easy. And then walking through a shopping mall with friends an Indian woman says "I know who you are" and asks you to bless her children and could she touch your hand, and then some Indian men stand up when you walk by as if you were a flag. You are marked, there is no escape, and you wonder how you got into this mess. A saint? Never. It is their need to put me on a platform, not mine. It is unreal and I don't like it. As a widower, most of my personal relationships are with single adults, who almost all come from failed marriages with a strong fear of serious relationships. Since my second marriage was loving until we were parted by death some years ago, I cherish the ideal of a committed and caring relationship with a woman. I do not fear marriage and must tell you that I am deeply in love; I have found the joy of my life and I love her with boundless enthusiasm that knows no ending. But as a whistleblower, what do I offer my beloved? There can be no romantic dinners out, no lovely weekend trips, no prospect of nest-building with a nice home and secure future. These things are the pleasant trappings and surroundings that lovers use to entice a woman, and my competition has every one of those advantages and more, while I worry about bald tires and a gas tank that reads "empty," and whether or not the pipes will freeze with the gas heat disconnected for non-payment. I offer deep poverty and commitment to a cause which has produced pain, hardship and ruin. Even if personal charm and romantic magic is enough to overcome all competition, is it truly loving and considerate of me to ask my beloved to give up everything to share the life I offer? The answer is obvious to me, and it is agony. I would uplift my love with an open hand, not grasp her in my closed fist like a possession. If I truly love, then I must value her more than self and pull away. Anything else would be selfish and unkind. I was not looking for agony. Before I hit bottom and had to leave Montana in November, 1988, I sold most possessions such as the Scotty camping trailer, and lived for a while on that and what I could get from pawn shops. I did my best to eat on $2.50 weekly, which is almost impossible. I discovered I was losing five pounds a week and in time realized I was actually starving. My trousers overlapped eight inches, and belts were too loose even in the tightest hole, and my gums were bleeding, but there was no money for a dentist, better food or vitamin pills. If you really want to take off pounds, I can give you my diet, although it's not healthy. It was dried kidney beans, rice and powdered milk, with an occasional onion and rarely some canned tomatoes. I was tempted to steal from gardens at night, but didn't do it. After the first month I found the sight or smell of powdered milk made me sick, so I ate just beans and rice, and when I could afford it, potatoes. I was too obstinate at that time to take food stamps, although later I did accept stamps for a few months. In time the diet became so uninteresting that I ate less and less, and had to force myself to eat once a day. If you want to lose weight, I absolutely guarantee it. The diet is so tiresome and absolutely fat free that after a few months not eating at all will seem better, and you dream about bacon and sausage. There was no way to go to a physician if I got sick, and some of my teeth became loose, probably from poor nutrition. I could not afford a dentist, and owed both my former dentist and several other people with no hope of paying them. With no gas for the car, I walked and rationed out my postage stamps and hoped the phone service would last another week. I cut my own hair using a mirror. My debts were well over ten thousand dollars and I could not afford the cost to go bankrupt. Finally hunger drove me to a place of the poor, and I stood in line with destitute Indian men and women for a box of Family Services charity food. When one of the Indian people waiting for food recognized me and told the others, they stood up for me. I appreciated their kindness, but was ashamed because I was a white man with other choices, and they had none. When I could borrow no more, the Unitarians passed the hat for me. I was an educated professional man with options, but they were not judgmental about my failure, and did not question my motives or judgment. Some brought food as well as money. The Church gave me over four hundred dollars, but that didn't last very long. During this period when I was scraping bottom, a young Crow man offered some information. I am embarrassed to repeat it, but it tells much about these people some call heathen savages, and you should know about it. These words from Burton Pretty On Top are etched on my brain, so I can repeat them almost exactly. "Dave, you don't understand the Crow Way. We take care of our own. My fathers [clan Elders] show you great honor, so you are my uncle. The people all know you. You can go to any house on the reservation, and the family will give you the best chair to sit on. They will cook meat and give you a feast. You will have the best bed, and you can stay as long as you want. No Crow family would refuse you. I was also told the Crow would pass the hat for me if I would allow it, but I could not do those things. I had too much pride to ask poor people to share their few things with me. And then there was hope, real hope of a good job working for a tribal government doing what I know how to do. There was an opening exactly fitted for my skills and experience. At first I did not understand why I did not get the job. Among Indian people, rather than go face to face on important matters, it is the custom to use a personal representative, so I asked a Crow friend to find out the answer for me. He inquired, and the answer he brought turned that final hope to ashes. No Indian tribe could hire me, ever. BIA would know about it immediately, and there would be punishment for any tribe that dared do it. If that sounds to you like Indians are cowards, think again. BIA controls their daily lives and they have been taught to fear it for generations. Their race and culture mark them as Indian, they have no escape from BIA, and the children and elderly would be made to suffer along with the others because of me. Ignoring the specifics of my case, there is a general mind-set against the whistleblower. I have heard the words disloyal, rat, fink, tattletale, trouble maker, rabble rouser, complainer, and worse. One of the hardest things for me to deal with has been the criticism from my mother. My mother is a lovely woman with a bright and practical outlook on life, who (during 1994) is in her 100th year of life. In total she has been my greatest supporter, but there were times along the way when her judgment seemed harsh and it hurt me deeply. Mom has been a widow almost thirty years, has a sunny and positive outlook on life, and is never a complainer. She lives in a condominium in Thousand Oaks, California, a suburb a few miles North of Los Angeles. I moved in with her temporarily for about a month in October, 1985, after leaving Kalispell and before the job came through with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In California I quickly found a very promising job with a local CPA firm, and Mom felt I was not very logical when I gave it up to accept lower paying work with BIA in Montana. Her judgment was pragmatic and based entirely on money, but since my children were grown and I had only myself to support, she could accept my choice as not very smart but still within the bounds of reason. At that time I was in a little financial distress, but still not what you would call destitute. I was in Montana almost three years before once again returning to California. The first year, or a little less, was spent working for BIA, and then the next two years were consumed by various appeals. By late October, 1988 I was destitute and faced with the choice of either living on the street, or seeking refuge with Mom. I faltered at the prospect of being on the street among unshaved old men drinking from wine bottles. So when I had gone as far as I was willing to go, I called my mother in California. She promised one way passage to California and I failed myself, I said I would come. When I arrived there, Mom was sympathetic in a personal way, but was unable to accept that I had become a financial failure. I had now been fired "for cause" by BIA, largely unemployed during the first two years of my appeals process, was three years older, and no longer had an unblemished record of successful employment. Her approach at that time was something like this. Here you are, a skilled CPA in your prime earning years unable to support yourself and living like a bum. You are a failure, you are foolish and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your clothes are worn out, there are rust holes in that old Jeep (don't park that thing out front where the neighbors will see it), you need to see a dentist about your teeth and a barber about your hair. You have no realistic expectations of winning. Put this all behind you, forget about it and get busy earning a living for yourself. You should be providing financial help for me and for your children and grandchildren instead of living in poverty. Your first obligation is to earn enough money to support yourself well and provide for your retirement. Next, to help out financially with your family members. If you get that all done and still have time and money left over, then you can afford to get involved with your social issues. Mother saw what I was doing as a time wasting hobby rather than as worthy work. Work produces money, and since I had none of that what I was doing was simply a waste of time. The next approach from my mother was that I must have become a communist because I was complaining publicly about the government. It took some months for her to decide I was not a communist, and then the label was changed to "leftist." There was something seriously wrong with my morals, ethics and attitudes. To dissent is negative, and to ask for better is rabble rousing. I should get off it and quit being a failure. In her view at that time, poverty and most misfortune were caused by lack of personal merit. They (a term applied to any group of unfortunate people) simply lack the "right stuff," and could improve "their" lot if they really tried. The results are sad but deserved. Mom was unable to understand or accept that Indians are victims of deliberate mistreatment. This is not said to put Mom down as I love her dearly and she has been good to me in every way, but simply to present a most common outlook that huge numbers of people adopt without question. It's a very common worldview, and to many simply part of the American tradition. Mom's attitudes have changed a lot over the years. She now finds it understandable that I do what I do, and that although my whistleblowing and civil rights activities may be rather foolish (as a cause doomed for failure), she no longer sees it as "leftist" or unpatriotic. My actions now are seen as morally acceptable, and she understands that I must continue what I am doing. She gave me an allowance to use to return to Montana, and covered my living expenses for about two years of unemployment until I became eligible for social security. She now endorses my choice to follow the dictates of my conscience, no matter where that leads, and she sees minorities in a more favorable light. That's a tremendous turn around, which was painful for her. Thanks, Mom, for believing in me and for your love. Another contact in California was a successful executive in the defense industry. This person fits the standard for a good and successful man, and indeed there is much that is commendable about his life, but he sees nothing wrong in making large donations to his employer's Political Action Committee. He finds my hope for Indians to control their own land to be absurd, and told me so. He says it will never happen in a million years, and his opinion is based on common sense. It is a matter of who has the money and power, and Indians have neither. I am mentally deranged to waste my life on "a bunch of drunken Indians and niggers" and he thinks that is nuts. (I was dismayed to hear those unforgivable words used, but feel that I must report honestly to you). Again, I am a CPA in my prime earning years unable to support myself and that is beyond understanding. He believes there will be another war, and being in defense is patriotic to insure that our side wins. He supports the political far right, and is suspicious that I just might be a traitor to my country. I have done nothing commendable but am simply a fool who wastes time on lost causes. That view is pragmatic, and I would not repeat these thoughts except for the fact that I have heard similar words so often from so many. People who are at the far-right in politics, and even in their religious beliefs, have said words of hate too often to be ignored. Reprisal done against me personally is not very significant compared to the deliberate harm done to thousands of Indians. Looking back at the past provides some perspective about the way we have treated (and continue to treat) our fellow Americans. I can't easily pronounce the word in the Crow language that is the proper name for the tribe, but it is often written in English as Absaraka, Absaroka, or Absorkee. I have learned to say ab-sol-liguh, in a slurred way, and that seems to get by. Absaraka is the title of a book written by Margaret Carrington, the wife of an Army officer. In 1866 and 1867 she was part of a military expedition that established a fort in the "home of the Crows" in the general vicinity of what is now Sheridan, Wyoming. She kept a detailed diary of the journey and stay at the fort. The book is easily read, and I believe it should be required reading in grade school as an American History assignment. Her account describes the journey as a social event, almost a party. On the journey some of the officers entertained them in "black face." They did not see that as degrading Afro Americans, just good fun. In the same way going to "punish" Indians who wanted to keep their land was a patriotic deed. Indians were "wicked" for resisting the theft of their homeland. The Crow were generally friendly to the whites, but the invaders still wanted their land. The Christian chaplain thought it was the "right thing to kill as many of the varmit as possible." The word punish is used over and over, and punish is what the soldiers did. Their purpose was to open a route for carrying out gold, and to move whites in to take the land. Indians (mostly the Sioux at that moment) were in the way and needed to be killed. The officers and their wives had picnics, ate canned lobster, oysters and salmon, and celebrated the "land of the free and home of the brave." Every reference to the Crow called them friendly, yet the purpose of the expedition was stated as "destroying the Indians of the Northwest." A negative feature of economic systems (including capitalism) is that they justify killing people for financial gain. Money gets ranked ahead of human beings, especially if the humans are foreign or different, and cultural values are trashed by military strength. If you start thinking the holocaust was something foreign, then read The Blackfeet by John C. Ewers. Governor Edgerton of the new territory of Montana is quoted as saying that he would "take steps for the extinguishment of Indian title in this territory, in order that our lands may be brought into market." Again, killing Indians for profit. In one attack by Colonel Baker, on a friendly band of Blackfeet, the soldiers killed 173 Indians and captured 140 women and children. The U.S. Army burned the village and the winter's food provisions. The temperature was twenty degrees below zero. From similar accounts I assume that the women and some of the children were raped before they were turned loose to freeze to death. A later recount showed fifteen male braves, ninety women, and fifty children under twelve years of age dead at the hands of our Army. White settlers in Montana vigorously approved the Army's action. Now the surviving Blackfeet were starving, and had only government rations. BIA shipped them some bacon, but the agency doctor reported it was "so filled with worms and pervaded by stench that it was unfit for human food." During 1883 and 1884 between four and five hundred Blackfeet starved to death, and yes, they did eat the bacon and the maggots. There was not much relief until "wives and daughters were offered to soldiers" as prostitutes in return for food. Please remember that when you hear jokes about "half-breed" Indians. These soldiers were our grandfathers, and the children of rape are our cousins. Many civilizations drown the misbegotten; Indians accepted and loved the children of rape. White settlers in Montana were invariably Christian, and this is part of our heritage. Your children must be taught its message so they will not continue the horror against others or become the victims of it themselves. A good book about the Sioux is titled The Last Days of the Sioux Nation, by Robert M. Utley. It describes how the federal agents worked to strip the chiefs of their influence and to break up the tribal relationship. Food supplies were low, and to avoid starving, people were required to bypass their chiefs, which worked to destroy tribal authority. This same method is used by BIA today to erode tribal self-government. The Secretary of the Interior declared dancing (including the Sundance) and other religious ceremonies illegal. Children were often taken from their parents by force. Every meaningful custom was attacked or prohibited. The Sioux were reported to feel bitter and helpless, and developed profound distrust for the white man. Can you blame them? The Sioux relinquished most of their land, which is now North and South Dakota. The federal government offered fifty cents an acre, and resold the land to whites at $1.25 per acre. It was said that this was done in the best interest of the Indians. The profit from the Sioux helped finance the American civil war, which is another American story of death and destruction. The Civil War is one of the few cases in the history of modern man where military forces were sent to punish non-combatant civilians. Sioux country is where Chief Sitting Bull was murdered as BIA police were arresting him for not preventing Sioux dances. The massacre of over 150 Indians took place two weeks later at nearby Wounded Knee. The dead at Wounded Knee included 44 women and 18 children. One soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor. Of the six hundred books listed under the heading of "Indians" at a local library, I have read well over half. If there is a stereotype, it is in the similar pattern found in these books. Humans were killed with gusto to get their property for the fastest possible return on the dollar. The land itself was not valued. If it was necessary to destroy the land forever in return for quick profits, it was done. If you read anything by an Indian author, in most cases you find the going heavy. It must be almost impossible for an Indian author to avoid strong feelings of bitterness. The bitterness and sorrow are so great that the reader has a tough time staying with the book. Like detailed accounts of the Jewish holocaust, the horror is so great that it is natural to turn away. Your senses say "enough"; that was somebody else long ago or far away, it has nothing to do with me. It does have everything to do with you and me. It is the account of our fathers yesterday, and of ourselves today. Together we can reform our systems and institutions so it won't happen again. CHAPTER 17 JULIE MATT'S STORY Julie Matt is a Northern Cheyenne woman in early middle age. She is slender, attractive, intelligent, and athletic. She is aggressive and feminine, and she has courage. I am proud to know her and to tell you her story. I first met Julie Matt in company with Chuck Cook, an investigative reporter from the Arizona Republic, a major Phoenix, Arizona newspaper. Chuck had come to Billings to interview me on November 11, 1987, as part of his investigative series titled "Fraud in Indian Country." Since that time Julie and I shared the speaker's platform on two occasions, and we spent several hours talking together. Julie received brutal treatment from BIA. She put up a good fight but lost, and her soul was forever bruised by the experience. I did not know Julie's story until after I left BIA. She worked there before I did, and was fired for what was officially called insubordination. Let's look at Julie's experience. Julie worked as a Budget Analyst (and assistant) for approximately four years under Bill Benjamin, the head of the Financial Management Department. She resigned under threat of being fired and brought an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunities) complaint claiming abuse and harassment. There are several similarities between her case and mine. She was charged with insubordination after speaking out about illegal trust fund disbursements made by Benjamin. This concerned the same Fort Peck Docket #184 trust fund that later (with no prior knowledge about Julie) I also found to be a problem. (Docket #184 is described in an earlier chapter). Julie Matt spent over ten thousand dollars to hire attorneys to press her case. She ran out of funds and had to give up without a just solution. Julie noticed that an illegal payment had been made; a U.S. Treasury check was issued against an account without enough money in it to cover the check. If you or I did that, it would be called a bad check and the bank would bounce it. In theory you could go to jail. To prevent federal employees from writing Treasury checks that might bounce, there are laws to forbid it. Who else but Bill Benjamin, BIA's Financial Manager, had ordered the check issued, overriding the rules and controls. Part of Julie's job was to prevent problems from happening, so she spoke out, and told Benjamin that the payment was illegal, which it was. Benjamin shouted and screamed at her, and said she was making "accusations" against him. She was threatened with disciplinary action if she continued to speak out about problems within the office. Later she was reprimanded for telling Benjamin that the payment was illegal. Reprisal was swift and strong, and it was organized. Bill Ellingson, Benjamin's next in command, called her into his office. She was told that she did not have a leg to stand on because she had told a supervisor that he had made an error. Derogatory innuendo is used by supervisors in all of these cases, since it creates doubts (in the nature of gossip) that are impossible to answer or disprove. Julie felt fear. She knew other women employees in the office who felt they were discriminated against by Benjamin, and she knew they were also afraid to speak out. Julie filed a complaint, and life was not to be the same for her ever again. She found that other BIA employees shunned her, and would not speak to her -- this went on for a year. She found there was favoritism (not in her favor) in computing hours worked and time off. Benjamin tried to get her out or break her spirit, and she was harassed because she had filed a complaint. Three of Benjamin's employees wrote letters to him, complaining in a general way that Julie was hard to get along with. I can not say that Benjamin ordered the letters written, or if perhaps his loyal employees simply wished to please him with this intimate assistance. For whatever reasons, they assisted in his cause to belittle Julie as a human being. On January 23, 1985 Benjamin issued a letter to her. It reads "This is your notice that I propose to separate you from employment from the Federal Service ... for the following reasons'" "Insubordination: Resisting competent authority, and making false, malicious, unfounded, and irresponsible statements against supervisors." The letter continues on about "resisting competent authority," "disrespectful conduct" and more. To quote from page 2 of Benjamin's letter: "You have developed a pattern of harassing other employees and supervisors. In addition, you have exhibited a pattern of disrespectful and insubordinate actions towards supervisors and management officials. These actions can no longer be tolerated." BIA as an entity, and other federal agencies conspired against Julie Matt. Benjamin's supervisors did not strike down his actions, but instead approved of them. Who knows the degree to which he acted on his own, and the degree to which he faithfully carried out the wishes and policies of his BIA superiors in Billings and in Washington. They had the effect of being a solid front with locked horns, against which Julie was helpless, and this amounted to a kind of gang-rape. There was no effective appeals process open to Julie. Julie Matt was not the first person to have this experience. I must use great care in describing things learned from BIA informants, because they took a personal risk in coming to see me. They are vulnerable and can be reached with reprisal, so I can not be very specific or their identity will be penetrated. However, my BIA informants later described similar cases for me that took place prior to Julie's, and showed me copies of similar letters written by Bill Benjamin. This was not the first time such things had been done, nor was it to be the last, and the way Julie was handled by BIA is very, very similar to my own case. Indians who live on reservations all can tell their own stories of reprisal from BIA for complaint. The effect of this is that only very minor complaints are allowed, and serious complaints that would embarrass BIA are forbidden. You have had just a brief summary of Julie Matt's experience with reprisal for reporting corruption in the Billings Area office. The complete story would fill a book of its own. How do I know that all of this is true? She gave me boxes of sworn statements, and copies of her appeal. I saw her attorney's bills; she paid them and lost all she and her husband owned, and they went deeply into debt. She is still vulnerable since her husband is employed by BIA. They can get at her through him, and it seems likely they might try. She stood up to corruption with courage and strength. She did her best and consumed her life savings in her battle for justice with BIA. The appeals process was not effective and she lost. Julie went as far as she could go. I respect her as a woman, as an Indian, and as a fine human being. As a Northern Cheyenne, surely she has earned her place as one of the Children of Heroes. Thank you, Julie Matt. In March, 1988 Julie and I, and a third whistleblower spoke at the Sunday morning service at the Unitarian Fellowship (Church) in Billings. The crowd was rather small; people don't like to hear unpleasant stories. There were two or three Crow Indians who had come to hear us. This, as well as the story about me in the Arizona Republic, is what led to my later contact from the Crow Tribe. The Arizona Republic story about me was the page one Sunday feature story in Phoenix on November 22, 1987. A few words were also said about Julie Matt. The story continued on page six, and on that page was a story about problems the Crow Tribal Government was having with BIA. It struck me that while a white CPA made page one, an Indian woman (Julie) got only brief mention and the several thousand member Crow Tribe was relegated to page six. To me it seemed unfair that the problems of one white man should rate more public attention than the problems of thousands of Indians. I resolved to "share my medicine" with the Crow, and it wasn't long before I would get that chance. CHAPTER 18 With the Crow People Oration by Chief Arapooish: The Crow Country is a good country. The Great Spirit has put it in exactly the right place; while you are in it you fare well; whenever you go out of it, whichever way you may travel you fare worse. If you go to the south, you have to wander far over great barren plains; the water is warm and bad and you meet with fever and ague. To the north it is cold; the winters are long and bitter and there is no grass; you can not keep horses but must travel with dogs. What is a country without horses? On the Columbia they are poor and dirty, paddle about in canoes and eat fish. Their teeth are worn out; they are always taking fish bones out of their mouths; fish is poor food. To the east they dwell in villages; they live well, but they drink the muddy water of the Missouri - that is bad. A Crow's dog would not drink such water. About the forks of the Missouri is a fine country; good water, good grass, plenty of buffalo. In summer it is almost as good as the Crow Country, but in winter it is cold; the grass is gone and there is no salt weed for the horses. The Crow Country is in exactly the right place. It has snowy mountains and sunny plains, all kinds of climates and good things for every season. When the summer heat scorches the prairies, you can draw up under the mountains, where the air is sweet and cool, the grass fresh, and the bright streams come tumbling out of the snow banks. There you can hunt the elk, the deer and the antelope when their skins are fit for dressing; there you will find plenty of white bears and mountain sheep. In the autumn when your horses are fat and strong from the mountains and pastures, you can go down into the plains and hunt the buffalo, or even trap beaver on the streams. And when winter comes on, you can take shelter in the woody bottoms along the rivers; there you will find buffalo meat for yourselves and cottonwood bark for your horses, or you may winter in the Wind River Valley, where there is salt in abundance. The Crow Country is in exactly the right place. Everything good is to be found there. There is no country like the Crow Country. Chief Arapooish was also known as Rotten Belly or Sore Belly, and was an early Crow Chief. The oration was printed in 1837 by author Washington Irving, who in turn credits Robert Campbell of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, who transcribed the Chief's oration in person. In early April, 1988 I received a phone call from Richard Real Bird, who I knew was the elected Chairman of the Crow Tribe. He asked if I would come to the reservation the following Monday evening to speak to a few people and have "something to eat." He did not suggest the subject I should speak about, and I took for granted that I was expected to talk about the problems I had discovered at BIA and BIA's suppression and cover-up of those problems. Like many people, I was very nervous about public speaking, so I phoned his office later to confirm the date, but mostly to find out how long I was supposed to talk and how many people would be in the audience. I was hoping the talk would be short and the audience small. I phoned the Tribal office, only to find out that the tribe's phones had been disconnected. No help. I prepared exhaustive notes and was very nervous about the coming speech. When Monday came, I drove the old Jeep the 60 miles from Billings to Crow Agency, alone. Crow Agency is the central place of the Crow homeland. If you had been with me, I would have taken you along. As I tell you about this experience please imagine that in spirit you are beside me. I was nervous, again hoping the talk would be short and the audience small. I found Mr. Real Bird's office in the Tribal Administration Building. There were no lights in the building, and it was obvious that the electricity was disconnected along with the phones. There was a Coleman gas lantern overhead, and a large porcelain pot of coffee (in Crow they call it "black water") was steaming on a Coleman camp stove. Chairman Real Bird's office is a long room with his desk at one end. A long table fills most of the room, and butts up against his desk, forming a "T." I have been there several times since that first day, and there are almost always several tribal Elders sitting at the table while the Chairman conducts business at his desk. He has little privacy; the entire tribe looks over his shoulder. This reveals something about the form of government common to many Indian tribes. Even though many traditionals absolutely do not agree with the form of government forced on tribes, still many of the governments try hard to preserve some of the traditions that worked well for Indians in the past. The power of the Chairman comes up from the people. Power is not something for the government to impose on the people down below. In Indian tradition, if a Chief gathered a war party, individuals could choose to go to war or go fishing. If they went to war and found the battle not to their liking, they could still quit and go fishing. Dissent is not only allowed, it is honored. Much of this tradition survives today. I was later welcomed into their council meetings, and I tell you it is true. Does this lead to a lot of squabbles? Sure does, but squabbles are not so bad. According to our tradition, that first fisherman would go to prison, and the second one would be hung. The Crow are not slaves to their Chiefs, and many do their best to ignore the official tribal government. Certainly this produces a government that is weak by white standards, but it is also not very oppressive. Perhaps we should learn something from this. Their form of democracy predates ours, and it has survived for countless ages. It truly is government of, by and for the people. What do they call this highly evolved form of democracy ? Nothing fancy, just "the tribe," rule by consensus. This time there were perhaps a dozen Elders in the room. I recognized several of them, and knew two or three fairly well. The conversation in Crow continued, but I was served a mug of black water, and each of the Elders came individually to greet me and shake my hand, as did Chairman Real Bird. They switched to English when something was said that might interest me, even though it is considered rude for a Crow to speak English in the presence of other Crow people. From the discussions I discovered that a meeting was to be held with over four hundred Indians gathered, and that I was to be the key note speaker and Guest of Honor of the Crow Nation. You will not be able to follow this story without knowing about the crisis the Crow Nation found itself in, and the reason there were no phones and the electricity was turned off. Let's take a look at their situation. The very survival of these people is in question. They may not last another generation. Little more than a hundred years ago, the Crow people owned a land mass exceeding 38 million acres with great herds of buffalo. The historical accounts are uniform in reporting that they were a prosperous, proud and happy people who lived in a lovely section of Montana and Northern Wyoming. The present reservation in Montana has been reduced to about 2.2 million acres, and is occupied by 7,000 Crows. The remaining two thousand people are scattered, with some concentration in Billings and outside the reservation. Much of the land within the reservation was taken from the tribe and placed in individual ownership, where it was bought cheaply by non-Indian buyers. The tribe retained mineral rights on about 1.1 million acres of land outside the present reservation boundaries. BIA has traditionally discouraged Indians from farming or grazing their own lands, preferring to lease the land to whites at below market rates. The history books are full of this; the same is true of many other Indian reservations. The Crow reservation is covered by legislation that allows individuals to lease their land direct, bypassing BIA. That sounds good, but still BIA insists on dividing the land among heirs whenever there is a death, leaving pieces of land that are too small to be operated by individuals. This makes it easy for non-Indians to "divide and conquer," by combining these small plots into chunks they can lease. By whatever method, the land is controlled (95%) by non-Indians. If you'd like to learn more about this, please refer to the suggested reading list in the appendix. The scheme the white ranchers use to control leases revolves around the "five year renewable lease," and is used to keep the Crow in bondage to below market rental rates. If you've heard about coal miners of past years kept in bondage by debt to "the company store" in the hill country of Appalachia, then you are well on your way to figuring this one out. Lease rates are low, so Indians, hat in hand, often need to borrow from the whites who control their land, and remain in debt to them. The five year leases are canceled each year, with the debt used to require the Crow land owner to grant another five year lease at continued low rates, to avoid having the loan called by the white rancher. The rancher even can "sell" the lease to another rancher, keeping a perpetual chain around the neck of the Crow land owner. By this device, the economic joy of ownership belongs to the white operator rather than to the nominal land owner. The whiteman in effect "owns" the land as well as the Indian family. There is no free competition to set lease rates, by an informal "gentleman's agreement," white ranchers divide the land among themselves and never, never bid against each other. In theory tribal courts could break this cycle, but if they dare intervene, BIA takes steps to weaken the tribal courts, and the system continues. Most tribal members live in deep poverty. I could say despair, an appropriate word, except that the Crow people have managed to survive much suffering through strength of will, and by hanging on to their ethical, social and religious values. They have great courage in spite of generations of grinding poverty. Indians are by far the poorest (in terms of money) identifiable group of people in the United States. BIA has singled out the Crow tribe for special treatment, and I don't mean loving kindness. The unique situation that appears to be the magnet for BIA is the fact that some of the world's largest and finest quality coal reserves have been discovered on the tribal lands. That means money - big money. Their coal is valued from not less than four million dollars per person to as much as ten times that amount, making the Crow potentially the wealthiest of all Americans. Being an accountant, it's hard to let those figures alone. Let's see, for a family of five, that could be almost a quarter billion dollars. That's fantastic. Even on the low side, twenty million dollars for that family is not bad. You can leave the coal in the ground, and still the surface land has great value for ranching, farming and grazing. With all this wealth, why do they live in poverty? BIA is concentrating "union busting" tactics on the Crow tribe to weaken its sovereignty. There is no doubt of that, the facts are well documented and BIA's activities have been repeated over many years. One of the methods used is to freeze the trust funds which belong to the tribal government. That is why there were no operating telephones and no electricity at the Crow administration building during my visit, and why many of the impoverished and elderly have no heat in their homes during freezing weather. The tribal court was denied funding by BIA, and was for all purposes defunct. BIA has the Crow People in a vise, and is crushing the life out of them. Next, BIA will release some taxpayer money to the tribe, such as heating assistance funds for the very poor. The tribe has little choice but to consume some of this "program" money for overhead based on demands from creditors, and for such essentials as to bury the dead. BIA then cries "fraud" and "mismanagement," which is like the pot calling the kettle black. BIA claims the Crow are dishonest and incompetent to manage their own funds. Then BIA will offer cash directly to individuals if they will agree to accept the cash bypassing their tribal government. The people are so poor and in such need that many would fight each other for money, which further divides and weakens tribal unity. "Union busting" is too kind. These are worthy human beings who are in danger of disappearing from the face of the earth. This is a form of genocide. It continues today. Through this process BIA works to destroy Crow tribal government and the unity of the these gentle people. The process is clear, but the motive for BIA's actions is never stated. Most of the Crow People believe it is to get at their $300 billion in natural resources. What do you think? I want to hear from you. There is also a move afoot to exempt non-Indians living on reservations from tribal laws, which would reduce Indian Tribes to the status of social clubs. First the non-Indians get economic control of the land by purchase or lease, then they object to being subject to tribal laws, screaming about taxation without representation, and the rights of whites to not be governed by Indians. After much thought and my experience working for BIA, I accept the Crow premise that BIA works to destroy them for a purpose. The purpose (in this case) is to make the coal available cheaply to wealthy individuals and energy companies. No other theory works so well, and BIA has singled out the Crow, unlike any other tribe, for special treatment. I witnessed that from inside BIA. The typical U.S. Senator collects $500,000 annually from special interests, called PAC (Political Action Committee) money, and the typical congressional representative collects $250,000. They have passed special laws to make this legal. I call it "money on the side," graft received for selling favors to wealthy special interests. Selling favors for money is political prostitution. (see The Best Congress Money Can Buy) This amounts to a bloodless coup, the takeover of our government for cash. We have lost a measure of democracy. It may not be direct vote selling, but if one special interest pays for special consideration that diminishes the level of democracy for each of us. Who is left to hear the problems of those with little money? The great energy companies and their officers have much influence on federal politicians, who control BIA. The only losers are powerless Indians who have no money to contribute to federal political campaigns. Think about it. In my opinion BIA's destruction of the Crow Tribe is an act of genocide. The Tribe is the political, social, ethical, and religious center of the people. Without the tribe, they would lose their unique identity and culture, and they could be picked off one by one. As disorganized land owners, Crow coal could be had cheaply. If tribal government controls the natural resource contracts, and BIA works to weaken and control that government, the politicians and their buddies are the winners. The history books describe scores, perhaps hundreds of cases in which this process was used to get land from Indians. The process is extremely profitable to those waiting on the sidelines. If they are not confronted they will win, destroying the Crow Tribe in the process. You have heard the basic situation that exists between BIA and the Crow. Now let's get back to this first formal meeting with the Crow. We all left Chairman Real Bird's office together, and headed for the tribal meeting. The meeting was held in an old, run down gymnasium which also serves as the main building for the Little Big Horn College, a small two-year tribal college. I had been there before. Several months earlier there had been a celebration of the founding of the Bond School, which was the first school for Indian children established by the Unitarian Church one hundred years ago. I served on the joint Crow-Unitarian planning committee. We had a feast in the gym, and I was delighted to take part in a Crow Friendship Dance which includes much hand shaking and a kind "welcome to Crow Country" from all the Indians present. Ben Pease was our master of ceremonies and host, and that was one of the first times I had met him. You'll find more about my friend Ben Pease elsewhere in this book. There were about four hundred Indians gathered in the gym to hear speeches and to eat together. Most of the women were in the bleachers, and the men in chairs facing them on the other side of the room. The gathering of men in one group and women in another is similar to what I've seen at rural church socials in Ohio. There was a public address system, and the usual steaming pots of "black water," or coffee. Two or three Indian men, some known to me, spoke briefly in the Crow language. Occasional words were in English, such as my name, whistleblower, "key note speaker," and so forth. Now it was my turn to speak. Crow men are very good speakers. They seldom use notes, and speak with assurance in an organized and interesting manner. Perhaps this is because the old Chiefs were known as fine speakers and these people really do honor their Chiefs. I had pages of notes, stage fright, and much ground to cover. I described my personal background, and then spoke about what I had found at BIA. I gave facts and figures, to support my findings of fraud, like a good auditor or CPA should do. The talk could not have been very exciting because I was dealing mostly with figures. After my talk there was applause, and I returned to my seat. Several of the women sounded the "trill", which, no pun intended, I found thrilling. Still, I thought my talk had been somewhat boring. An uncle of the Chairman, Pius Real Bird, told me the people had listened carefully, they were respectful, and they believed what I said. After a few words from other speakers, it was time to eat. In Crow tradition, the men are served first, followed by the women, but don't think for a moment that Crow women are subordinate people; they are not. The men line up, with the traditional Chiefs and Elders in front, and the women do the same. I found they were all waiting for me to go first; all eyes were watching. I was not about to be the first in line, so I persuaded the men to start. I fell into line with the Elders which seemed the polite thing to do. I know that the Crow like meat. These traditional owners of great herds of buffalo can't afford much meat in modern times. But for a public meeting or feast, they find a way to have meat. Good meat -- very generous servings of lean beef or buffalo. The other delight is called fry-bread, which is similar to a large flat donut cooked in lard or vegetable oil in a frying pan. It comes in all varieties, bland like pizza crust or sweet like a breakfast roll. While eating, I sat with various Elders. It was at this point, either at the meeting or shortly after, that Dr. Barney Old Coyote offered a comment about my style of public speaking. Barney is a retired university professor who was serving as business manager for the tribal government. I had met him before on BIA business, and had great respect for Barney. Barney repeated that the audience liked what I said, were attentive and believed my words. But, he said: "Crow people like oratory. Please give us oratory." I took that as a friendly suggestion that my public speaking style needed some improvement. After the meal was completed, I saw that the Chairman, the traditional Chiefs and the Elders were all moving down to the far end of the room. Pius Real Bird, a leading Elder of that family, came to get me and took me by the arm to join the group. I was in a procession, an honors dance, and a special ceremony that danced in a circle ever smaller. From that time forward, whenever the Crow People dance, I am invited to join in. I had not become one of them, but a person who stands in good relationship to them. The Crow Nation and I are one family. There was no ritual or formal adoption; our acceptance of each other was spontaneous and clear. No words were spoken. For things that really matter, words aren't necessary. Once (in Crow Hawatta), and in The Beginning, there was only Sky and Water, and Water whirled in a vortex, making a whistling sound. Up from this vortex arose an Indian People, and they were the Whistling Water Clan of the Crow Tribe. The Elders told me that this is what my dance represented, and as a person who was created with them I was a member of that Clan, and the dance had celebrated that. No, I was not adopted, I simply became one of their own. This first meeting I attended was largely political. Tribal elections were to be held in June, and Real Bird was running for reelection. Three other officers were running for office, and the group I associated with was known as the "Real Bird Camp." Pressure from BIA was working, and some members of the tribe were ripping at each other in public. The tribe would be no match for BIA without tribal unity. Indian tribes are known for stormy and controversial political activities, and as I told you before, dissent is honorable and allowed. Before I decided to associate myself with tribal politics, I looked into Real Bird's background and goals. I felt strongly that tribal stability was essential for dealing with the Federal Government, and likely would have supported any incumbent, but I wanted to be sure I was not helping a man of low quality. After several inquiries about Richard Real Bird, I liked what I found. First, he was a former rodeo rider, and I always like people who love horses. I know that's not logical, but it's good chemistry. If you're a horseman or horsewoman, you know that in your bones. His policy concerning the Federal Government and BIA was one of open confrontation. Others running for office urged a low profile and favored appeasement. I was aware of the success of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and in the field of civil rights I felt that confrontation was the only way to win. Using appeasement with a monster just does not work. To Indians, confrontation means something different than the white definition of the word. It does not mean waving the fist, throwing rocks, or burning buildings. It certainly does not mean taking up arms. The Indian experience with physical confrontation is completely negative. The last time that was tried, in the late 1800's, the United States Army came and shot people. Indians are loyal citizens, and they also have good reason to fear violent confrontation. During the civil rights turmoil of the 1960's, along with the "black power" movement there was a short-lived "red power" movement and AIM, the American Indian Movement, which sadly failed to accomplish much. AIM still exists, but is broken into isolated state and local chapters, and no longer advocates violence of any type, just confrontation. In their present form, I agree with them and support AIM, and in an informal or honorary way I am an AIM member. Many Indian people are absolutely afraid to associate with or be seen publicly with anyone who belongs to AIM (or with me, for that matter), in fear of retaliation. Can you blame them? Big Brother is watching. Indians prefer their way of life, and find it better than what they see in the dominant white world. They do not claim superiority, but they do claim equality. Equality means they have the right to be what they are. They claim only that their way of life is better for them, and do not demand that the remainder of society should change to be like Indians. Red power, and the formerly militant American Indian Movement seem to me to be a dead issue. Richard Real Bird's version of "confrontation" is peaceful and dignifies us all. He claims the primal sovereignty of the Crow Nation, which existed long before Columbus "discovered' America, to govern itself within reasonable and constitutional limits set by the United States. As the federal courts have often said, Indian Tribes are dependent sovereign nations. Indians have dual citizenship, as U.S. citizens as well as tribal citizens. He claims the land and benefits agreed to in treaties with the federal government. Confrontation simply means asking (and demanding) to peacefully exercise those rights. When the rights are refused, it means going to the federal courts. No shooting, no burning, no fist waving. It is not for me to pass judgment on the Crow People, because they don't need my approval. They do need all the support they can get, and I have chosen to be identified with them and to stand with them. There is a problem in asking for justice from the Federal Government. At present it seems to respond only to money, and the Indians don't have any. But federal politicians do notice public pressure when there is enough of it. The Arizona Republic story (which got the Senate to start an investigation of BIA) taught me a lesson. The free press in this country is a wonderful and powerful force. As to the Federal Administration, I knew by this time that BIA management was corrupt. That should be no surprise, since the history books say it was always so in the past, and not much has changed. The Federal administrative appeals process available to whistleblowers (Merit System Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel) was also corrupt, both from my experience and according to good independent sources. Based on my experience dealing with senators and congressmen, it began to look like they were all on the take. (refer to "The Best Congress Money Can Buy). If they accept money from special interests, and then vote on issues concerning those interests, certainly the burden of proof (to show they are NOT selling votes) should be on them. Could it be that the entire Federal Government, perhaps including even the court system, was corrupt? Were they all totally infected with greed and avarice, the white man's illness? Although reason points in that direction, there has to be some glimmer of hope left for me, for Indians and for the future of our country. I choose to not give up hope, and to believe that there is a spark of innate goodness in the human spirit of every person -- even federal politicians. Certainly if their acts are exposed to the public eye, and there is an obvious choice to be made between good and evil, there is hope that they will make the right choice. We have already taken a look at BIA, but there is more behind the scenes that you must know, because in that dim shielded place BIA has a terrible effect on, in this case, the Crow People. It is BIA's control of "tribal politics" that makes Indians rip at each other, and divided they are easily conquered. We will jump ahead a bit in time, and look at the demise of the Real Bird Administration, and see how the next tribal administration (headed by Clara Nomee) came into power. Behind the scenes, as always, is BIA, not openly, but very effective when acting behind the scenes. The Real Bird Administration was confrontational, something BIA simply won't allow. Nomee, on the other hand, was in my opinion willing to go along to get along, and by "kissing-up" to BIA she came out the winner in this inside tribal struggle for power. For Real Bird's second term of office, the person he had selected as Tribal Secretary backed out at the last minute, so by default Nomee, an opponent, was elected as Secretary. This was a problem because she was against every action Real Bird took during his second two years in office. Real Bird supporters considered Nomee to be owned and controlled by BIA; the whitemans' servant. It was at this time that the white ranchers were very disturbed by the tribal court system potentially taking control of legal matters on the reservation, including their land lease contracts, and by amazing coincidence just then BIA canceled all funds to the Crow Tribal Court System. It was also while Real Bird was in power that BIA shut off all funds to operate the tribal government, which makes governing a bit difficult, and an underground "sting" by the FBI and Justice Department operatives was started. By the time of the next tribal election in 1990, many of Real Bird's people were facing jail, their government was almost not functioning, and the tribe was in deep financial trouble. The financial management of the Crow Tribe was taken over by a BIA supervisor sent out by BIA's Area Director, Richard Whitesell, and during that period (of years) BIA provided no accounting of what it did with the Crows' own money. If you completely give up looking for any cause and effect in all this, it is at least apparent that BIA did not like the Real Bird administration, to put it mildly. For the next Tribal election, Clara Nomee was a candidate for the position of Chairman, and won by a considerable margin. When voting time came, the word got out that if Real Bird won, the tribe was in for deep trouble, and the economic situation (as controlled entirely by BIA) would revert to where it was in the 1920's, which meant even worse poverty. Further, the word was that Clara Nomee was the BIA approved candidate. This "word" of course is not traceable, and who knows if it was actually spoken by BIA or just apparent in the situation that BIA created. The Nomee Administration would get it's budgets approved, would get some added money from Congress, and would be able to pay it's bills. She might well sell the coal for a penny on the dollar, but that was better than nothing, which is what Real Bird would get from BIA. The Tribe voted for Nomee, and as described elsewhere, Real Bird went to prison. BIA was the winner. But that's getting ahead of the story, so we'll return to the time of the second Real Bird successful election. Now, back to Barney Old Coyote's request for oratory. I really wanted to see Richard Real Bird reelected, and decided to join the "Real Bird Camp" to help. If oratory was wanted from me, then before God I'd produce oratory. I made several more public appearances at Crow political rallies, and always delivered the oration that follows. Once or twice Barney Old Coyote and I alternated, with me speaking in English and Barney repeating the words in Crow. Barney's introduction was "Dave Henry, Whistleblower, wears the Eagle whistle and has earned the right to wear it." Before reading my oration, you need to know that Chief Plenty Coups was the last of the early Chiefs, who died in 1932. He spoke of the entire tribe as his children. To Crow Nation from Whistleblower. I would speak to the children of Plenty Coups, for you and I are brothers and sisters who walk alone on a single path. I came from a place in the East with many Indian names. Do not look for the Wyandot there; for they are all dead or driven out. You must greet the morning sun as one people, or else join the Wyandot whose drum is silent. For they like you were a mighty people with endless lands. Then outsiders came to take what they wanted in trade for promises they would not keep. They divided tribal land, so powerful men could take it from the poor. Now their eyes shine on your black gold; do not trust them with your coal. The Wyandot trusted, and now are gone. Look where you will, you see no Wyandot land. Their money whispers in federal government ears. You know why BIA destroys the Crow Tribe. It obeys politicians who favor powerful men. Without the Tribe your coal will go to men whose promises are never kept. Since the day of Plenty Coups your spirit wanders; you give your trust to no Chief. Your enemies laugh at your division. You fight over BIA scraps, while BIA keeps that which is yours. Now hear my words, for I dance with your Elders and I smoke the pipe with those who would lead you. If evil is not confronted, it grows strong in dark clouds, but exposed to light it melts in the hot sun. So raise your banner and MARCH, as united brothers and sisters. The road is long, and the end not clear but it leads to justice and no more fear. Beat the drum strongly, so all the world will hear your story. Tribal elections were to take place in May, and there were five or six political rallies scheduled. I attended each of them, and spoke to about two thousand people. As things gathered momentum, I was asked to be on a two hour radio talk show in Billings, and appeared on the local television news program. The talk show is transcribed for you in the Appendix. In Billings, my good Unitarian friend Rosemary Fust asked what she could do to help the Crow People. Rosemary has a voice like an angel, so I asked her to bring her guitar to the next rally. There was no hesitation, she just came. Rosemary sang several civil rights songs, but always the favorite was "Amazing Grace." She was very popular with the Crow, and sang for three large groups. Thank you, Rosemary - you are also very popular with Whistleblower. CHAPTER 19 Stereotypes and Bigotry There is much accumulated anger in America's Indians, which is understandable, and often it is vented on whoever is nearby, usually another Indian. This comes out in tribal politics, where accusations are nasty and usually based on nothing more than suspicion and envy. This is a serious problem for a society based on sharing, where there is little left to share and many live on crumbs from the whiteman's table. If a tribal leader is seen with a new car or pickup truck, then obviously that person gave away some tribal property to "the whiteman" in an under the counter deal. The saying is that the person accepted "beads" from the whiteman, as in the story of Manhattan Island that was sold for a few dollars worth of trinkets. In tribal politics, if you support the majority party you are a tool of BIA, and cooperate in selling out the Indian land and heritage for pennies on the dollar. If you support the minority, you are a fool who is keeping others away from the few benefits BIA allows for cooperation. If you remain aloof from the battle you lack guts and are a fence-straddler. Those who are "born again" Christians look down on their "heathen" relatives who remain true to their religious heritage, and call them the "Devil's Children." Traditional Indians in turn see Christian Indians as people who sell their integrity for free food and the whiteman's approval. Indians are not allowed to fully govern themselves and lack the political power to control their own destiny. When you add grinding poverty, relentless greed from outside to exploit the land, and bigots who won't allow Indians to be Indian, you begin to understand the problems that make Indians into victims struggling for life. It is necessary to report to you that at least in Montana and in Southern California, bigotry is still alive in the dominant Caucasian society. I frequently hear Afro-American spoken of with the N-word which I won't repeat. The term for Indians takes two words; they are often called drunken Indians. Women as a group receive negative comments. If I listened more carefully, I'm sure other identifiable groups are also treated as "things" and negative and derogatory words are reserved for them. January 19, 1989 was my 58th birthday, and I was invited to a party. When I heard both the N-word and "drunken Indian" used in almost the same sentence, I said I was leaving, got up and left the party as a form of protest. The protest was not appreciated but it was noticed. If you and I do not confront words of hate, then they continue unabated and gain strength (in dark clouds) simply because we let them go unchallenged. To confront can make you unpopular, and you also become a target for hate, but you must confront if you hope to change the attitudes that feed hatred. Speaking up for Afro-Americans, or for Indians, or for women, suddenly I am a communist, an Afro-American lover, an Indian lover, and you name it. In truth I am not a communist, but yes, I do love Afro Americans, Indians, women, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and who ever else happens to be in the immediate vicinity. There is no shame in being included in some group or class, and it's great to have pride in that group. The problem comes when you claim that your group has more of a right to exist or should be dominant over some other group or class. White pride, Black pride, and Red pride are great. White power, Black power and Red power, at the expense of others, are dead wrong. All groups have their particular features of nobility, and all have an equal right to exist. There are, or more correctly were, several hundred distinct groups of native Americans who share the name Indian. The name itself was a mistake that was intended for citizens of India, but it stuck and is used to group diverse people into a single category. It is a handy title even though there is nothing accurate about it. Most of these groups have disappeared from the face of the earth forever, but a few have survived against all odds and remain with us yet. The word Indian is a stereotype to describe some theoretical people that do not exist. Indians respond to the title, but prefer to be called by a specific tribal name such as Crow or Sioux, because their tribal groupings have distinct differences. Stereotypes are used to simplify that which is complex and they fill a need. The typical Indian that the name most often describes is the plains Indian, during the period of the buffalo and at the time of the Indian wars. There was much to be admired in the plains Indian. An image is created of strength and daring, nobleness of character, great honesty and respect for God and nature. I am not above using that image where it applies and where it does not belittle the Indian people themselves. There is truth in that image, and much about Indians is noble. The Crow language has no word for "please." My language instructor, Euna Rose He Does It, explains that the reason for this is very simple. Let me tell you how she explained the absence of "please" in Crow. While we had the buffalo, all our needs were met. If a person was lacking some necessity, he or she would simply ask a neighbor, and the thing was freely given. "Please" is a begging word, needed in a society where things are valued more than people. Indians themselves are most aware of their "noble" image, and are not above using it to advantage. They have few advantages in dealing with the dominant power structure, and I do not object to their attempt to manipulate whites when appropriate. Indians see the humor and irony of putting on their feathers and bells for the benefit of the cameras, and at times you can be sure they resent the curiosity of tourists who want to see a "real-live Indian." The stereotype has most often been used in a negative way. The first step in "putting down" any group is to treat them as things rather than as individual humans. You can create your own list of words used for various minorities, but for Indians the words often used are savage, heathen, dirty, drunken, lazy and the like. There is always an element of truth in a stereotype. There are drunken Indians as well as drunken Caucasians. The problem is that a negative example is expanded to include all in the group, and the negative label justifies doing harm to a less than human, faceless "them." Hitler used this technique on the Jews, and in the United States we used it (and still use it) against blacks, Indians and other minorities. Often I hear Indians as a group spoken of as "drunken Indians." Let me introduce you to some "real live" Indian people I know. Janine Pease Windy Boy: I had met Janine Pease Windy Boy, the President of Little Big Horn College, on several occasions. (There was an article about her and the College in the August, 1988 Life magazine.) I made an attempt earlier to raise funds for the College from private sources, with no luck. If this is the first time you have heard of Janine, I doubt it will be the last, because Janine is striking as a person, and her status as a celebrity is rapidly growing on both the national and international scene. I am fortunate to count Janine as a friend, and over a period of time her family has come to be within that group I am relatively intimate with and consider part of my larger circle, and certainly I am a personal friend of her father and mother and several other family members. Janine speaks of herself as an educator, she is that and more. It is a grave error to classify this striking woman as a "living doll" and you'll be in big trouble with Janine if you call her an "Indian Princess," even with good intentions. Both terms classify a woman as simply a beautiful object, and Janine has a much larger goal in life than promoting her personal beauty. She is an educator who takes a powerful stand when it comes to Indian civil rights, and the rights of all minorities. In 1994 she received her Ph.D. degree, and had been presented earlier with three honorary doctorates in recognition of her accomplishments. The world at large is destined to hear more from and about Janine Pease Windy Boy, and well it should, because she speaks honest words and displays a strong sense of love and respect for all humankind. Personal beauty is a trifle, a passing thing. Rather than beautiful, Janine is magnificent! Marlon Passes: Marlon Passes is a Crow man who worked in the same department with me at BIA in Billings. Marlon is in the last years of his youth, not yet an Elder so I'd guess his age is around thirty five. Marlon is not tall, but he is powerful like a wrestler with strong arms and legs, and a thick neck and trunk. Marlon lives on the reservation, and each day commutes in a car-pool for the 150 mile round trip to work. He has a wife and children, and works on farming chores and irrigation after his long day of work and commuting. Marlon likes horses, and at local rodeos serves as a pick-up man to rescue riders from the backs of bucking horses. Seven days a week, regardless of Montana winters and summer heat, Marlon gets up before dawn. He goes outside, raises his arms and faces East, looks up to the heavens and prays. Marlon was raised in Catholic schools yet is filled with Crow tradition so I don't know what name or language he uses when he speaks to God. I do know that Marlon is a religious man. Once or twice Marlon and I sat and drank a beer together after work. I don't drink very much or very often, and I've never seen Marlon overdo it. His real name, in Crow, translates in English to "Nice Young Man," which I believe is a good fit. Marlon and I have the promise of a nice day together in the future. He has offered to guide me through some of the lovely land in Crow Country that is closed to the public, and will have me to his home for a good meal. Marlon, if I am able to return to Montana (written during one of my escapes to California) you can be sure I'll accept that invitation. If people have a need to call this devout man a good for nothing drunken Indian, then they might as well call me the same, because I tell you that Marlon is my brother. Burton Pretty on Top: I first met Burton Pretty On Top when he lived in Billings, and for twenty years he drove a local delivery truck. When customers say "hey Chief, hurry up with those boxes" Burton turns the insult into a joke, and keeps his job working in the white world. His English last name is a tribute to the fine headdress of an ancestor. Like many Crow men and women, Burton is a good speaker. When there is some threat to the environment with hearings and public meetings, you can be sure Burton will be there to say a few words in favor of conservation and preservation. Burton is a good looking "hunk' as the teenagers say, and the single women are restless in his presence, but Burton keeps his distance. One day Burton heard an unusual bark from a dog, and got out of his truck to investigate. The large dog was tied with a chain, and a toddler had come too close. In his excitement the dog ran in circles, and the chain had wrapped around the child's neck. The dog was frightened, and jerked at the chain trying to get free, snarling at anyone who tried to approach. Other people at the scene were unable to approach the dog and looked on in panic as the child turned blue. Burton says animals understand Crow better than English, so he spoke to the dog in the Crow language, and the dog became calm. He was able to unfasten the chain from the dog so that the child could breathe again. Is there some magic here; is it true that an Indian can use ancient words to speak to an animal? The world is full of wonders, and Burton is known for goodness and honesty. In my own experience from carrying the Eagle whistle, even in crowded California there is always a hawk or an eagle that appears in the sky overhead. A respected Indian Priest put his hands on my whistle. He said it would blow away evil, and I believe it has that power. So, who am I to disbelieve Burton. If you have a need to call him a good for nothing drunken Indian, then you must call me the same because Burton will tell you I am his Uncle. Danny Rowe: Danny Rowe was a friend of mine in Billings, who later moved to another state for post-graduate college work. Dan is "once a Marine always a Marine." Dan is also Assiniboine, but winces when he is called Indian, because he has a need to escape the degrading memories of childhood. I know Dan's wife Kathy who is a delight, and their daughter Sheila. Dan and his family contributed much to the Billings community, and I am proud to call them friends. At present Dan is working towards a doctoral degree "back East." Dan is a mixture of white blood and Assiniboine, and was "raised Indian" on the Fort Peck reservation near Poplar, Montana. His natural parents were sunk in poverty and despair, so he was raised by a grandmother. He has a childhood memory of gathering fruits and berries, and a broad wisdom about wild things and the outdoors. As a six year old, he was the sole provider of food for younger children for he had learned to scavenge in the white man's garbage. Dan's memories of being Indian include the smell of garbage pails behind restaurants where the white tourists had enough money to waste food, leaving scraps on their plates that he could sort through at night. He carried the garbage home to cook an Indian stew. Dan joined me one afternoon as my guest at the Prior Sundance. When I introduced Dan to a Crow Elder, I mentioned Dan's Indian heritage to provide a point of contact, but Dan would rather escape into the white world and abandon things Indian. There is pride in having been a Marine, but not much joy in the memory of garbage meals. You be the one to tell Danny Rowe that Indians lack merit through birth, and garbage is good enough. Dan is my friend, and I tell you that Indian children don't deserve garbage stew. CHAPTER 20 The Sting Now I am going to jump ahead in time, to tell you about important things that took place, and then later return to events in time sequence. What about the Real Bird tribal administration? As I review and update this chapter in September of 1992, my friend Richard Real Bird is in the federal penitentiary at Yankton, South Dakota, a convicted felon. There is some similarity in this situation to the plight of Leonard Peltier, another outspoken Indian leader (from another time and place) who is also in prison. You must understand that Real Bird's lawsuit against BIA for improper trust accounting, based partly on my testimony, was an insult that BIA would simply not allow. It would embarrass BIA, Interior, and the federal government as a whole. While this story continues an undercover "sting" operation was being conducted on the Crow Reservation by FBI agents and U.S. Justice Department operatives. Obviously as these facts came out, the Crow Administration became both frightened and angry. Here is how they reported the situation in a press release dated July 25, 1989, the day after indictments were served: "Crow Agency, Montana: The United States District Court issued Criminal Indictments to members of the Crow Tribe dated July 24, 1989. United States Marshals served indictments to present and past Crow Tribal Administration Officials summoning them to appear in United States District Court August 1, 1989. Crow Tribal committee members of both tribal factions [political parties] were also indicted, namely certain individuals on the Crow Tribal Housing Authority, the BIA controlled Crow Land Purchase Committee and the Crow Credit Committee. According to Chairman Richard Real Bird `North Side or South Side, it don't make any difference, the Feds are after the whole Crow Tribe of Indians.' The Chairman was also served with a summons early today at his country residence by sixteen armed federal agents. Real Bird further stated the indictments are another attempt by the BIA to destroy the God-given rights of the Crow Nation. The main thrust of the indictments against the Real Bird Administration is into allegations of vote buying to defeat the Clara Nomee faction at these quarterly Crow Tribal Council meetings. From October 1986 to the July 8, 1989 [meeting] Crow Tribal employees often attended these quarterly council meetings flat broke and without a paycheck. According to Crow Tribal Officials the Billings Area Office [of BIA] has continually denied the Crow Tribe's request for financial drawdowns to pay its bills and Government employees since the first of June, 1989. Each of these allegations will be addressed in Federal District Court, which will be presented as a Sovereign Nation acting under its own laws..." In the trials the District Court did NOT treat the Crow Tribe as a sovereign nation, and refused to hear testimony against BIA, based on the judge's ruling that BIA was not on trial. It was not a trial by Real Bird's peers, since that would call for an Indian judge and jury in Indian country. The dominant society forbids that sort of thing. I offered to appear as a witness against BIA in these trials, but based on the judge's ruling such testimony could not be considered, so I was not be called by the defense attorney. In other words, Real Bird was not allowed to fully present a defense against the charges. The Court side-stepped the issue, a very powerful weapon the Court used to aid the crooks at BIA. This all started (or became apparent) on October 22, 1987 when a combination of BIA, FBI and Justice Department armed agents entered the Crow Government offices and seized their books and records, carrying them away in trucks. It appears that all the records were copied before they were returned to the tribe, and then the copies were studied (by federal attorneys, CPAs and FBI agents) with the goal of finding something illegal. The Federal Government's purpose, as I see it, was to seize the initiative, and discredit the tribal officials who had dared bring a lawsuit against BIA. I call it vicious reprisal, an insult to the American ideals of freedom and equal justice. My friend Richard was in trouble as an "uppity" Indian who was unwilling to keep his mouth shut about Federal crimes and misdeeds. If you now accept my belief that freedom of speech is not available for federal employees, just try to imagine yourself as an Indian with even fewer rights, while a score of FBI agents try to find something, anything, to hold over your head and to bring you down. Shortly after Richard filed his lawsuit against BIA, and following the seizure of tribal records, a score or more of FBI Agents and investigators headed for the Crow Reservation, to dig up whatever dirt they could find to bring down the Real Bird Administration. It's impossible to get exacting information from the FBI on this, because they claim they are unable to find the information requested by me in "freedom of information" requests. The polite term for this is stonewalling, so I'll simply do some estimating. If the FBI would like to provide more facts, I'd be delighted to hear from them, but they hide their deeds carefully. It appears to me they spent not less that forty man-years on this investigation, at a cost of not less than two million dollars for salaries, travel and the cost of paying informants. The cost of the sting could easily be twice my estimate. You need to know that the Crow People frequently give gifts to each other. Popular gifts are fine Hudson Bay blankets (sealed in plastic covers), and hundred dollar bills. These items generally are not consumed. The plastic wrappers are not removed from the blankets and the hundred dollar bills are not spent, but instead they are carefully hoarded for the next occasion when it is appropriate to pass them along as a gift to another Crow. In this way relatively poor people can give generous gifts whenever the need arises. Occasions are frequent, and a giveaway is often done in public to honor someone who has done an act of kindness. By ancient custom, gifts are given for such things as sponsoring a Sundance, conducting a naming ceremony or offering prayers of healing for those who are sick, and relating to the modern world, for providing a job or some economic benefit. Gifts for such things are not mandatory, but you are expected to share good fortune with your benefactors. If a Crow tribal official awards a contract to a supplier who is also Crow, it would not be unusual for the official to be given one of those fine blankets or a well worn hundred dollar bill. To the Crow this is good manners, but by whiteman's rules it is a bribe, which is a felony punishable by a year or more in the federal penitentiary. Tribal officials who are convicted of a felony can never again hold a Federal office. By following this process, it's easy for an FBI agent to come up with a felony conviction, or the threat of one, to tame an "uppity" Indian who complains too loudly about BIA. The Government has taken away the primal right of Indians to govern themselves on important matters, and has substituted federal laws to govern Indians, so Indians are held accountable for following the whiteman's rules, even on such matters as giving gifts to each other. While the "sting" was quietly taking place as an undercover operation, Chairman Real Bird needed to buy some land (for the tribe) near the tribal offices, and got permission and price approval in advance from the local BIA Superintendent, Bud Moran, to do so. He was assured by Moran that the tribe would be able to draw the necessary money out of its BIA trust funds for the approved purpose. Several Crow friends were witnesses to this, and assure me that this is an absolute fact. I was not present, but believe their statements are true. Since getting action out of BIA is a slow process, the tribe applied for a loan from a bank in Hardin, Montana, and filed the required tribal balance sheet with the loan application. As an optimist, or perhaps simply because he lacked financial experience, Real Bird showed the money coming from BIA as an accomplished fact rather than as a promise for the near future. In the non-Indian world, many young people who are buying a first house get some financial help from Mom and Dad. There is a promise of a loan or a gift of cash to help with the down-payment. Generally the buyer enters this on the financial statement filed with the mortgage lender as cash. I don't know of any non-Indians who have found the FBI coming after them for this very common and fairly innocent "fraud." From the FBI's point of view, this is grounds for the crime of conspiring to defraud a bank by filing a false financial statement. It is true that the financial statement was wrong, but I see no evil motive here. At Real Bird's trial, his attorney raised this point and summoned Bud Moran as a witness. Now just before the trial took place, BIA transferred Bud Moran to an office in another state, and although he remained on BIA's payroll, he could not be found by BIA or by the Marshal. Real Bird's attorney asked for a delay until the witness could be located, but after a short delay Moran could still not be found and the judge ruled that the trial must proceed. Even though no personal motive was shown, and Real Bird's action was not evil, BIA got it's fraud conviction and Real Bird headed for the federal penitentiary. As a convicted felon he would be marked for life, which is what BIA was after. There is no evidence that BIA told Bud Moran to hide, but it looks very unusual to me that a BIA employee currently on the payroll could not be located after several tries. Do you think Richard Real Bird received a fair trial? Time and space won't allow me to describe the other trials here. There truly were some bad actions on the part of some tribal officials, but I believe they were no worse than our politicians in Washington, and indeed a lot better. A major difference is that the federal politicians make laws exempting themselves from what most of us call bribery, and control the budget of the FBI and Justice Department. They don't get "stung" unless they fail to share the goodies with their buddies, and they collect more than just Hudson Bay blankets. On November 21, 1992, a Saturday, I had the honor of picking up Richard from the half-way house (Alternatives, Inc.), a prison pre-release center, in Billings. The two of us rode together in my Jeep to the Crow Reservation, for a "sweat" at the family sweat- lodge, and then a feast with family members and Clan Elders. Richard is marked for life as a convicted felon, and had just been released from the federal penitentiary on parole after more than two years of confinement. By some good fortune I was serving on the Board of Directors of the nonprofit corporation that operates the half-way house. Not that I would or could get him preferential treatment, but at least I could protect him from further attack by those who wanted him destroyed. This trip marked his return to Indian Country on parole. As the old Jeep chugged up the second range of hills east of Billings, we stopped to get out of the car to simply stand in the wind and look in silence at the beauty of the hills. This is part of the "ceded land," buffalo country that was beloved by the Crow Nation for ten thousand years. This land, thousands of square miles of it, all you could see to the horizon from our perch high on the ridge, was taken from the Crow ("ceded") at the turn of the century to be exploited by the cattle barons, and now is largely ruined by over- grazing with it's productivity reduced as little as a tenth of what it was before. Richard excused himself, and walked to the far side of the hill to pray, and express thanks for returning to this beloved Indian Country. Later, after we arrived at his mother's house, he would mount a horse and ride alone to sit on a hill overlooking the Little Big Horn (Custer) battlefield. He apologized for not offering me a horse to ride along with him, he wanted to be alone to pray. It was a glorious day under a clear Montana sky. You could smell freedom in the air, and with First Maker all things are possible. It was a good day! CHAPTER 21 Maker of All Things "Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion or take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own." Red Jacket, 1805 The dominant American society prefers to ignore the religious discrimination forced upon Indians, both past and present. We spoke of freedom of religion, but denied Indians the right to practice their ancient and honorable religion. Our historical accounts of the "Indian Wars" glorify genocide, and justify the slaughter of heathen men, women and children who were defending home and heritage. Defining Indians as "heathen" was a way to justify mass murder, and remains a way to belittle the character and human worth of non- Christians. The world's great religions (add the Native American religion to your list) look at God in a variety of ways, and call "He, She or It " by many names. If you accept that the rest of the world, beyond yourself, has some worthy ideas, then you can allow for a "place- ness" to God, and diverse ways to express reverence. I feel that praying around a camp fire, and thinking that the smoke carries prayers aloft, is appropriate in Indian Country. That's the idea presented by the "peace pipe". Just what is "heathen" in seeing the American Eagle as God's messenger, in the way that some Catholics direct their prayers to a Saint for intercession? Many Crows combine all this. They can pray to Jesus Christ in a Catholic or Baptist Church, and at the Sundance implore Eagle Spirit to carry their prayers to God. There is nothing nasty about.that, and they are not worshipping animals or the sun by appreciating the glory of all creation. You can see the carryover of the European mind-set at the time of Columbus. The idea was that if the "natives" would convert to Christianity by peaceful means, fine. If not, force should be used to convert them. If neither method worked, then it was appropriate to slaughter them, except where they might have financial worth as slaves. I am not going to try to define American Indian religious beliefs, since I am not Indian and my knowledge is second-hand. You must allow for the great variations to be found among several hundred Indian tribes. There is absolutely nothing bad about being "pagan" or "heathen." Pagan describes a person who is not a Christian, Jew or Moslem, and heathen is often used to mean the same. Both words are misused to imply objectionable behavior. People who do happen to be pagan or heathen are most often not atheistic (although even that is their right), but instead have some other conventional (or perhaps non-conventional) belief system. It is bigotry and egocentric to place judgment on this, that their system is of less value and worth than yours. America's Indians are religious people who have a respectable "belief system". Even if they did not, our constitution supports their right to believe (or not) as a matter of personal freedom. Here is what I learned from talks with several traditional Indian religious leaders. They take a liberal approach to religion, and see Christianity (and other religions) as narrow (but acceptable) ways to approach the concept of God. Each European religion defines God as "this" or "that," and by so doing they place narrow limitations on God. All religions attempt to understand and relate to the Great Mystery, so all have worth, but what if God is greater than human understanding? Having beliefs that are set in concrete and defined narrowly just might belittle the Great Mystery. With this in mind, you can see how an individual might be both Baptist and traditional, for instance, or traditional only. Perhaps God has many faces, answers to many names, and hears all prayers offered from the heart. I suggest that the traditional Native American view of God is sophisticated, relatively benign and tolerant. It was the Christians who sponsored the Holy Inquisition, witch-hunts and Crusades, not the "heathens". Red Jacket (see quotation above) said it well. Indians can view heaven as the Other-Side Camp, and find comfort in the thought of loving reunions with those who have already moved their camp to that final place. Heaven is what you make it, and America's Indians have a right to their beliefs, whether or not they relate to the Bible. Maker of All Things is alive and well, and very active in Indian Country. CHAPTER 22 Crow Campfire Saturday, May 14, 1988 was election day for the Crow Tribe. I was invited to come to the all-night victory celebration that evening at Crow Agency. This was Real Bird's second term of office as Chairman, and the election took place before the FBI "sting" activity was known about. I went alone, and it was almost midnight when I arrived. I did not know what to expect, except that I would be welcomed into a very private celebration. There were bonfires in the park at Crow Agency, and well over two thousand people were gathered in the "Real Bird Camp." As often the case, I was the only white person present in this Indian camp. Let me describe it to you. There were three or four wood fires, with the usual large enamel-ware pots of coffee. There were some chairs and benches, and as usual the men gathered in their own groups, and the women in theirs. Many children were present, including infants and young babies. Some people were resting in their trucks and cars, but most stood around the fires talking and joking. It was a clear crisp night on the great plains of Montana, and the warmth of the fire felt good. The men wore jeans and boots, while the women, even the teens, had blankets over their shoulders and often over their heads. It was a traditional gathering of Indian people. It was intimate, loving and joyous. I was told that votes were being counted at the administration building, and when the results were known they would be announced. And then the drum came alive, and the singing started. In one of the picnic shelters there was the usual large drum on the ground, similar in size to the bass drum used by high school marching bands, but turned on it's side and resting on the ground. Around it sat four or five men, with one woman as a drummer also, then in circles around them another row of men, then a row of women. Behind them stood the younger women, including high school aged young people. Chairs had been found for the very old women, and the teens stood close to them. The Crow truly honor and cherish their elderly. I counted as best I could by the light of the fires, and found there were one hundred forty singers. They were not dancing, but swayed and moved in time to the drum. No living being could ignore the beat of that Indian drum. It was the sound of life itself, the heartbeat of the Tribe. Most of the songs began with the high cry of a single man, usually one of the Elders. A white man would call it falsetto, but not to them. I tell you they are Indian, there is no doubt about that. It was a cry as old as the earth, and it was of the earth. The men joined, then the women. Often the drum would stop, and there was a final verse sung by the beautiful voices of the women alone. Around this drum the buffalo lives, the Crow People are proud in their lands and their magnificent warriors rule the plains and mountains. They sing the glory of the hunt and the history of an ancient people who have survived. They sang the "49" songs, many similar to our "country-western" songs, where somebody done somebody wrong. There were all in the Crow language, with an occasional verse in English, often producing much laughter. "I know you been married twenty nine times, but I'm gonna get you yet, hey yeah." They sing reverence for the land, and for all things that are in it. They sing of love for each other, there is much teasing and playfulness, and they truly enjoy each other. They remind themselves of who they are, where they came from, and why they live. They were one people standing side by side on that clear night. We call it Montana, they call it home, the land of the Crow Nation since the beginning of time when people first gathered around camp fires. If there is any doubt in your mind, for you were not there with me and could not witness this, let me tell you that the Indians are not dead. The historians are wrong. I tell you these words as strongly as I can. I would shout it, so you and the whole world will know it is true. In spite of all that has been done to them, the Crow People Live! Make no mistake. This is not play acting or a game. From the bottom of their feet, to the top of their heads and throughout their souls they are Indian. They are alive and with us yet; they have survived the mindless horror and killings. We should all celebrate the survival of these people for they are our American Cousins who share the earth with us. Chairman Real Bird invited me to stay for breakfast, but I later decided to leave around dawn. Now, just what does a middle-aged accountant from Ohio do standing in a field all night on an Indian reservation in Montana ? I drank strong coffee from the big pots, spoke with the men and Elders, drank more "black water," and stood around the fires and behind the drum to soak up the whole event. At around 4:30 AM a truck came with horn blaring from the tribal administration building with the election results. The bunch I was supporting -- the Real Bird camp -- had won three of the four elected positions. My hope for tribal stability had come out the winner, so my work in taking the "political stump" and speaking in favor of Real Bird was not in vain. The margins were narrow, but by golly "we" won. Election turnout was over 90% of the qualified voters, and the obvious enthusiasm was tremendous. I could claim some small amount of credit for this victory. I have been concerned about the survival of the Crow People. I saw Real Bird as the only candidate running who had the guts to stand up to the corruption and pressure coming from BIA. I sided with him at once, and decided to speak to the people in support of him. I was the only outsider involved in the elections. I think I did some good by taking the stand I took. With help, I believe the Crow just might manage to continue life as a recognizable culture. If only we can get BIA off their backs. They have been punished enough, and they did not deserve any of it. They are good people, and they deserve to live in freedom. The Crow have their language; most tribes have lost theirs and many do not have the strength left to fight against the death of race and culture. The centuries of grinding poverty and despair have left a mark on all tribes, and many are lost or beyond hope. After the destruction of the buffalo, the next cruel blow came from the dark days of the Christian missionaries who told them they were heathen "children of the Devil" and must change their ways. They could not dance, pray to God in their own way or speak their own language, and they must disavow the values of their parents. The Sundance was forbidden. The Crow needed food and protection from thieving whites, not Bibles. They had no shortage of religion, and it was their right to keep their own religious beliefs. The often abused Christian view of God has produced great destruction. Indians were not lacking spirituality and a relationship with First Creator. I suggest that the Indian view of religion had (and has) great social value. The whitemen were the savages, not the Indians who were defending their families and way of life. Now that religions are becoming less oppressive, religious people come out here to take sweat baths, fast and go into the mountains for vision quests, to seek a new relationship to God. Crow wisdom said to not destroy their Mother, the earth, and now white people are beginning to consider the damage caused by modern living, at last. The Crow were found by the early explorers to be very happy, and to lack no material wants. Their land was covered with buffalo. There is a certain wisdom in not destroying the land and soiling your own bed; Indians knew this long ago. The Crow good life was destroyed by the white man's greed for land, and lack of respect for it's original owners. Scalping apparently came from the Europeans who paid for human scalps as well as for animal pelts. In the Dakotas the whites paid one dollar for adult male Indian skulls, and fifty cents for women's and children's skulls. It was common to have knife handles made from Indian arm bones, and acceptable to kill an Indian for a new knife handle. After the truck arrived with the election results, the drum was silent. The announcement was made in the Crow Language, so I had to ask for the numbers but the win was obvious. A hush fell over the crowd, then one of the Elders began to sing and others joined in a praise song to the newly elected Chairman. At this point in time, none of us knew that BIA was working to undermine Real Bird's elected administration. FBI agents and Justice Department agents were already at work on the reservation, looking to find something to discredit this man who dared bring a lawsuit against BIA. Our federal government was working to overthrow Indian democracy and self- government, and would devote millions of dollars and many man-years to do this. Richard's mother, with the traditional shawl over her head, came to kiss him. I spoke to her, shook hands with the Chairman and other winners then left as the sun began a new day for the Crow people. I appreciated being invited to the breakfast to follow, and would have enjoyed it but there was a certain intimacy here that I could appreciate but not fully share. I felt they deserved their privacy. Tribal politics is a mixed bag. I've described the traditional ideal, where Indian democracy is a matter of authority to govern arising from the people, which is a lovely and effective tradition. Yet in modern times, tribal government produces a situation where people tear at each other. My first response to Indian friends was that this is as bad as the non-Indian government patronage system and their response usually is that it's much worse. Let's look at the contrast between the Indian ideal and the present situation in which they find themselves. The root of the problem is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around. To generalize, Indian people haven't done well with the capitalistic system because of their ethic to share with each other. In our system a rich man is rich in part because he refuses to share his wealth with friends and neighbors, and by this method accumulates capital. If he shared with the poor, and there are plenty of needy people in any system, he'd soon go out of business. Indians do share, and it's impossible to accumulate much while neighbors still have needs. The jobs open to Indians living on reservations mostly consist of work for either BIA or tribal government, because there is little work elsewhere. Throughout this book you will see that BIA employees often are required to do harm to their fellows, have no right of free speech, etc., so working there is not a complete blessing although it puts food on the table and provides something to share with relatives and neighbors. The next source of jobs is with tribal government, mostly in the administration of contracts with the federal government, again related to BIA which controls the purse strings. Still, there is more "at home" control here, and tribal government does the hiring and firing of tribal employees. Tribal political groups need votes to survive, along with campaign money, and they demand political loyalty and campaign contributions from tribal employees. From this you can see that tribal political loyalties are a matter of financial survival. As a practical matter, you can drop that word "financial," and think of it simply as survival. If you're not "loyal" to the group in control of tribal government, you simply don't eat very often, and end up living in a tar-paper shack with no running water. Indians after all are human, and where the pressure is great enough, they like most people falter and sometimes fail to live up to their own standards. Perhaps you personally can handle living on beans and government surplus commodities, and can find an old wheel barrow to use for hauling wood for your winter's heat, but then what about your family? Remember that in a tribe you always have a large family with shared responsibilities, and even if you have no spouse or kids, there are parents and cousins that expect some help from you. You can have your integrity and beans if you abandon your relatives, or try for a job with BIA or tribal government, there is simply no other choice. From this comes a loss of personal integrity, and the tribe becomes divided between those who swallow their pride to take the jobs, and those who suffer real poverty and yet envy those who sell themselves. Of course they battle over the few jobs, and tribal values of kindness and sharing get damaged in the process. Perhaps you can get around this system, get an education and teach in the local school system. Who's in control there? It's the white ranchers. They likely are a minority, but they own the souls of the Indians whose land they lease, and by this method remain in control of the schools. It's a tough battle, and one that tears the tribe apart. The whites love it, and say with a smirk that "those corrupt Indians are simply unable to govern themselves." Behind it all you see the result of poverty, coming from the white greed to take the Indian land. I would like to be able to tell you that my friend Richard Real Bird is a hero who has never compromised his tribal ethic for personal gain, and to contrast him with the next Chairperson, Clara Nomee, who in my opinion sold out to the white ranchers and Federal politicians. How clear and simple that would be. The truth is that I don't know the truth, and can't relate it to you. I have good personal friends in both "camps" or tribal political parties, and those on Clara's side tell me I'm living in a fool's paradise if I see Richard as "clean clear through." Both sides are accused by the other of pocketing millions of dollars, and tribal politics, like the Federal image it is required to conform to, is seen by most as a dirty business. I don't have the absolute knowledge needed to tell you that Richard is without fault, but still it is an absolute that he is the only living Crow tribal leader who had the courage to confront BIA. That was a heroic deed, and enough for me to conclude that Richard deserves my admiration. He was then, and remains now, a decent, fine and heroic man who has paid the price for taking a stand for the Crow People. Who pocketed money, if indeed anyone did, is a matter of speculation that will most likely never be resolved. Innuendo is a nasty business, so I suggest you give it no power, and assume Richard's complete innocence, as I do. We can be sure that the FBI will continue to monitor Richard closely, and that Clara Nomee, who appears to have the approval of BIA, will escape notice as long as she exhibits loyalty to the powers that be. CHAPTER 23 SMALL NATION "The sky is the daily bread of the eyes." Ralph Waldo Emerson A quarterly Crow Tribal Council meeting was scheduled on Saturday, July 9, 1988. This is a tribal government where all members vote on issues, with consensus as the goal, something like the early American town meetings or the Cantons of Switzerland. The meeting was held in the Little Big Horn College gymnasium, and it was as hot as a mid-summer Montana day can get. My good friend Sally Noe, from Billings, attended the meeting with me. As a child, Sally attended Crow Agency grade school while her mother, Bernice Lamey, taught there, and her father, John Lamey, served as a forest ranger for the Indian Service. My friendships with John and Bernice, and their daughter Sally provided a personal connection to some of the Crow People who remembered the Lamey's years at Crow Agency. Bernice gets my thanks for allowing, for the first time ever, the use of traditional Crow dress in the Crow Agency grade school Christmas pageant. This was during the 1940's, and in previous years the white teachers and white school board required a typical Christian ritual (Mary and the Christ Child, etc.) to be celebrated by the traditionally non-Christian Crow children. Bernice, instead, designed a theme around Santa Claus, which is less oppressive to non-Christians than a manger scene celebrating the birth of Christ. A child playing Mrs. Santa opened gifts, with a toy drum leading to a Crow Indian dance, another toy introduced a child who could tap dance, etc. The central role, Mrs. Claus, was played by a talented child who happened to be half Indian and half black. To the other teachers and the school board, this was unforgivable, and Bernice Lamey was marked as a trouble-maker. Bernice had been taught in normal school (college education courses) that it was desirable for a teacher to visit parents in their homes. She did that, and her action was found to be unforgivable. The other teachers told her that you just don't go into the homes of "those" people. Bernice had crossed the line, and her contract was not renewed. Bernice is now old and blind, and after almost fifty years she still can't understand what she did that was wrong! Blessings upon you, Bernice, for doing the best you could and for your attempt at human kindness. While at the Council meeting, I learned that a Sundance was to be held soon in the Crow village of Prior, and that the "sponsor" or chief lay-priest was to be Eddie Round Face, a man I had just recently met. I knew little about the Sundance and wondered if it would be possible for me to witness it. I knew the Sundance was serious religious ritual, rather than an entertainment. If tourists and outsiders crowd in to watch, they are not turned away because the Crow are hospitable people. Still, worship is serious business, and Indians at prayer don't like to be stared at. With that in mind, I whispered a few questions to Elders seated nearby, but did not learn much. After the meeting, we all moved outdoors under shade trees near the BIA buildings. We sat on folding chairs to cool off, waiting for the picnic dinner to be served. I don't know how Eddie Round Face knew I had inquired about the dance, but suddenly he came to where I was seated, bent down so his face was on a level with mine, looked in my eyes and earnestly said "will you fast?" I did not understand what he was talking about, so I just shook my head "no," and he turned and walked away. It was only later that I discovered that my response to the Sundance Priest was very rude. The words he spoke to me were the traditional invitation to enter the holy circle of the Sunlodge as a dancer, and among the Crow People it is a special privilege to be so invited. Like a command performance the invitation is seldom refused. Almost immediately an Elder approached, and announced "I am making you a ???," with the last word in the Crow language, unknown to me. A friend seated nearby said the word meant "apron," the exquisitely beaded sarong-like skirt worn only by Sundance participants. It took a day or two for the meaning of the words will you fast to soak in. Eddie didn't have a telephone so I couldn't phone later to explain myself, and at any rate a day or two had passed before I understood that I had been invited to dance in the most sacred of all Crow religious celebrations. In ignorance I had responded to the invitation in a way that could only be taken as crude. I felt that I should learn more about the Sundance before participating, and it seemed best to attend one first as an observer. That's the nice answer, but it is not fully true. I was living on my last few dollars of borrowed money, and I was ashamed to admit my poverty. By Crow tradition, gifts are expected from the dancers to cover the heavy expenses of the Sundance, and I had no money for gifts or even enough to feed myself. Eddie was a poor man, and had put everything he owned into covering the costs of this dance. I simply could not ask him to pay my way. Lacking money, I also lacked food and my diet at that time was not enough to sustain my weight. I feared that I would not have the physical strength to go without food and water for three days. I gradually learned that the Crow were so very accepting of me that I did not need permission to attend any tribal function. In every way they treated me as one of their own, on a par with their tribal Elders. With some tribes the Sundance has fallen from grace. It has become a show for tourists rather than a private religious experience. This is not true with the Crow. To make a comparison to the outside world, the Sundance has some resemblance to an Easter sunrise prayer service. It resembles a special Christian litany reserved for times of peril, personal dedication, redemption and thanksgiving. The Sundance is not secret, but it is intensely religious and it is private. The very few non-Indian friends I have taken with me to the Crow Sundance were carefully selected. They understood that my purpose was to lend emotional support to the dancers and share in their spiritual experience, and they came to share with me rather than be entertained. The Sundance at Prior, Montana was set to begin on Friday, July 15th. Those who are invited by the Priest to enter the holy circle of the Sunlodge swear to fast without food or water, until released about three days later by the Priest. No one, other than the dancers, is allowed to enter the circle, and none can leave it except for bodily necessities. There is an exception. Children and others who want to be blessed may purify themselves in the smoke of smoldering sage, and then enter the circle for a blessing from the Sundance Priest. I planned to attend the Sundance late Friday night after a Church meeting. My friend Sally had left to return to her University duties in Ohio, so I invited another friend from the Unitarian Church, Virginia Burris, to come with me. We took sleeping bags in case it was desirable to stay over for the following morning's sunrise ceremony. The gasoline for the Jeep took the last of my money. It was well after midnight when we reached the tribal ceremonial grounds near Prior. In the bright moon light we could see the Sunlodge, a round structure made of poles and brush, with its top open to the stars and a wide doorway facing the East. There were thirty or forty camps set up in the area, with tents, brush shelters, camping trailers and small fires. A tree was cut earlier, partly trimmed of branches and placed upright in the center of the Sunlodge. It is the place for the Eagle nest, and it marks the connection between the forces of the heavens and those of earth. It is an avenue for the Eagle Spirit. to connect with the earth. We parked the Jeep in sight of the Sunlodge, but not close enough to be a distraction for the dancers. The dancers were all resting or sleeping on the ground, and the camp was quiet. Words cannot describe the magnificent Montana night. Quietly, we spread our sleeping bags and rested on our backs looking up at the sky. This is open range country, and five or six Indian ponies moved through the camp, grazing. On the slopes of Prior mountain, we could hear the howl of a single coyote. Virginia and I were within speaking distance, and we talked for a few minutes about the beauty of the sky. I am not sure if either of us drifted off to sleep, because the night sky had such breathtaking beauty that it seemed a waste to close your eyes and miss it. At about 4:30 AM, before the first glow of the new day, I became aware of movement, and saw that the dancers were all standing in reverent silence facing the East. With care, to not pass in front of the Sunlodge opening, we got up and stood silently beside the outer edge of the lodge. The dancers were silent, as were we. It was a time for quiet. And then the drum began its beat, the dancers chanted and the sun appeared. After the singing, there were prayers. This was all in the Crow language, so I can not tell you the words, only how it felt. I do know that they pray for the survival of the People; that the Crow Nation might live one more year. During the day they pray for the coming of the Eagle Spirit, to bring courage and strength. In the evening they sometimes pray for rain, and always they pray for grace and justice. When words are said in English, rather than tell God what to do, they express thanks for what is. And then a taboo was broken. The Sundance Priest broke it when he stepped outside the holy circle and left the Sunlodge. Eddie Round Face had come to shake my hand, and after him others came. I was told that whenever I was present in Crow Country, all of the people knew I was there. I was told that the next morning they would pray for the tribal leaders, and they would pray for me. I thanked the dancers for dancing, and knowing no better words said "God bless you." I thanked Eddie, and put my arms around him. Some four years later I explained to Eddie the feelings I experienced at that earlier time, and repeated my excuse of poverty. He made it clear that no gifts had been expected from me, and that I truly was welcomed as a dancer at the 1988 Prior Sundance he sponsored. The experience touched my heart. Words fall short, but I tried to express the feeling of Prior Sundance for you in the poem that follows. You should know that three mountain ranges surround the reservation, and the tribe has a small herd of buffalo. Try to imagine that you are there with me. SMALL NATION Three mountains guard small Nation's place, open country where ponies run free. High on the bluff beyond the stream a buffalo gives birth to her calf. At night Gentle People lie awake on the ground to taste the warm summer night. They are tired from dance but sleep won't come, they would miss the beauty of sky. The heavens are filled with sharp points of light while a coyote sings his song. The stars show all that has ever been, and the wonder of all to come. The Sunlodge faces the dawn, holy circle open to sky. The people build an Eagle nest, hearts beat in time with the drum. The people fast, by day they dance to call the Spirit down. The Eagle has courage and strength, they say and her whistle blows evil away. Before first light the people stand, silently side by side to face morning sun and pray in heavenly glow. The stars at night speak all the words that anyone needs to know. They watch with excitement for sun to come, for sun and earth have no end like First Creator, life and birth. Small Nation is surrounded by white man's greed, which kills as surely as smallpox did. There is little meat, the ponies are thin and outsiders wait to take their land. But as the sun begins to show they drum it across the sky. Crow People are happy with traditional life, the values and language they hold so dear. They pray "Crow Nation live one more year, and rain, come down with Thunder Bird." They speak to Christ fearing original sin but the Elders say "God is kind, your babies are innocent like buffalo calf, and the sun will continue to shine." Eddie Round Face is the Sundance Priest, he smiled when he shook my hand. He knows Eagle Spirit will come this year, last night rain fell on the land. The people are proud to remember their Chiefs, and dance whenever allowed. They honor their Elders, share what they have and refuse to abandon their past. During that weekend I returned to the Sundance several times, bringing one new friend each time; most of them happened to be female. Crow Indians enjoy "kidding" and fun. Several times I noticed various Crow men would hold up a hand with two or three fingers raised, and give me a big smile. I asked one man what this was all about, and was told "that makes three pretty women I've seen you with this week." They were keeping count of my female companions, and having fun doing it. After finding out what the game was, the next time someone smiled while waving three fingers, I'd smile back and raise four or five fingers. Both of us would break out laughing, without a word being exchanged while my companion of the moment innocently wondered what was going on. As a technical note, the Sponsor role is not identical with that of Sundance Priest, who is another individual chosen from the relatives of the Sponsor. I used "poetic license" to not segregate these similar Sundance roles and functions. One evening the dancers prayed for rain. Rain poured down most of that night. Rain in Montana from clear July skies is rare, but the dancers were not surprised, nor was I. For their version of belief in that which is holy, they have often been called heathen savages. These Gentle People have reverence for the land and for all things in it. I tell you that their beliefs honor God as well as nature. As long as the Crow People live there will be an Eagle Spirit and the earth will be loved as a sacred place. Their great love for each other is inclusive; outsiders are welcomed rather than being excluded. They share what little they have with each other, and remember their proud heritage. TRIBALISM: Now I am staying in Thousand Oaks, California, a suburb beyond the outskirts of Los Angeles. Every day there are killings in LA, mostly gang related. A day or two before I wrote these words a local boy was killed because he wore a red sweat shirt, and was mistaken for a "Blood" gang member who had strayed into the wrong territory. He was murdered because the shirt was the wrong color. What are these gangs that search for identity? They are an immature attempt at forming tribes, for we all need some place, some group that fills our longing for self- worth. We ignore the lesson of the American Indian. Their groups had ten thousand years or more in isolation to develop a system for living. There are some signs left of ancient powerful central governments, and some signs of ancient temples; a church controlled society. But that passed, and what survived was the tribe. We must learn from these hundreds of civilizations that arrived at similar solutions. It appears to me that in countless areas of religion, democracy, the sharing of wealth, law enforcement, child rearing, loving kindness, mutual support and social structure, Indians people had developed superior, rather than inferior, ways of living. Don't get carried away - there were still plenty of social problems, such as tribal wars, and those problems remain unsolved. Let us learn from these advanced societies instead of destroying them because they are different from us. The tribe is not some recent social experiment, like the two party system, democracy or communism, but a tested system that has survived the centuries. The lesson of the tribe is that the tribe works. It has evolved and in one form or another was developed and adopted by literally hundreds of Indian societies. What does the tribe do? It is government, social, religion and family combined. Perhaps you are beginning to see why Indians don't want to abandon their tribes. The loss of the tribe means death to the culture, death to the American Indian. All of us are damaged by that. CHAPTER 24 To Federal Court "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW" Engraving, U.S. Supreme Court building To give you some idea of the time consumed on administrative appeals, before reaching the federal court system, my first contact with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was in January, 1987, a month after being fired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). I had contacted the Denver office of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an agency related in function to OSC. They told me at the time that I was not eligible to deal with them, and then referred me to OSC, where these appeals began. Sorry about all these initials to identify federal agencies, sort of an alphabet soup. Just think of the last letter, with the -C- in OSC standing for Counsel (or advocate), and the -B- in MSPB for Board (hearing board, or judge), and the initials will make some sense. OSC's final letter, claiming they "could not prove my termination was for other than legitimate management reasons" was dated September 6, 1989. That makes two years and eight months elapsed time, spent on fruitless appeals with OSC, described in the chapter about reprisal and protest. Using OSC was the official route to get a hearing with MSPB, and that route was thwarted, since I had not yet reached MSPB. No other appeals were available while dealing with OSC, since my possible "administrative remedies" were not yet exhausted. They said I could not deal directly with MSPB, as OSC would do that for me if they decided to handle my case. Their official role is to represent whistleblowers (like an attorney) before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which has Administrative Law Judges to hear federal employment cases. My second contact with the Merit Systems Protection Board (described below), after the earlier dismissal by OSC, came in November, 1989, and then MSPB dismissed my case without a hearing in April of 1990. The total elapsed time wasted in fruitless appeals with these two related agencies (OSC and MSPB) amounted to three years and three months of frantic effort. One of the several thousand letters I wrote in my search for justice was a plea to President Bush, who months later referred my letter to MSPB. I don't think he was serving as an advocate for my problem, but it was a routine clerical matter for one of his mailroom staffers to refer my letter to the agency involved. Still, it was a possible advantage and at this point I would grab at anything, like a person sinking in quick- sand. By using this approach I finally reached MSPB through their back door, after the earlier required route through the Office of Special Counsel had failed. I had learned that MSPB rarely sides with the whistleblower, any yet there was a ray of hope for a hearing on the merits of my case. The facts were now so well proven with third-party evidence (BIA itself, the Office of Inspector General, etc.) that the chances of success seemed absolute if I could just get a hearing on the merits of the case. Just a few years earlier, the Government would ship federal whistleblowers to mental hospitals for involuntary confinement and evaluation," which left them tainted as crazies. Yes, you read that correctly. You may have heard that a similar tactic was used by the Russians. The approach by both governments was identical, although supposedly the Russians subjected their prisoners to brain operations, mind- altering drugs and perhaps physical punishment. To the best of my knowledge, the United States did not use brain operations or physical punishment on it's whistleblower prisoners, and the involuntary confinements are now illegal. I was back to the usual routine of making copies of documents and exhibits, reviewing other MSPB cases to discover how to deal with their rules, and then preparing the written appeal for a hearing. This was all done through the mails, until I had an appointment to see BIA's lawyer in Billings, Roger W. Thomas. Thomas is paid by Interior to defend BIA. I was struck with the irony that BIA, found corrupt by all who know it, has a tax supported defender. My side of the case was in support of free speech and human rights, and yet it was impossible for anyone in a position like mine to get legal help. Thomas, who argued with me in person at his office in the Billings Federal Building, showed no shame in defending BIA, appeared to enjoy twisting the knife in Indian causes, and acted like it was an amusing game to attack someone who could not afford a lawyer. I find it really sick that a man sworn to uphold the Constitution spends his time and effort to tear it down. He told me I'd lose, and he smiled with pleasure when he said it. In this cat and mouse game, I was the mouse, and mice don't have much power to defend themselves or the Constitution from BIA's hired guns. Judge Joseph H. Hartman from MSPB's Denver office refused a hearing. His written opinion said that as a provisional employee (less that one year), my rights were "limited to martial status or partisan political discrimination," and to those causes only. He was quite correct, my right of free speech was dead meat because MSPB administrative judges ignore the Bill of Rights. It follows that federal employees have no rights under the constitution - it's simply an "administrative matter," you know, and what does the Constitution have to do with administrative matters - nothing. If your first thought is that a long-term employee might fare better, remember Julie Matt who lost her similar case, after years of BIA employment. In the hands of the BIA's lawyers and the Justice Department, the Constitution is a joke. If you learn nothing else from this book, learn how the Constitution is thwarted by federal employees, judges and administrators. Neither BIA's attorney, Roger Thomas, nor Judge Hartman showed any compulsion to honor the "law of the land." That's how MSPB handles constitutional issues, it looks away. Congress knows this and so do the federal courts, and they have not objected to this open and direct defiance of the Constitution. I would hope that a MSPB judge would sometime dare to support the Constitution, but to the best of my knowledge that has never happened. Still there was hope, because after the MSPB rejection I had the legal status needed to appeal to the federal courts. Congress is aware of this possibility for whistleblowers, so they have constructed a special hurdle at this point. Rather than appeal to the local Federal District Court (there is one in Billings and in most large cities), a whistleblower case must be appealed to a special court in Washington, DC, created just for this purpose. The judges are political appointees, whose main demonstrated skill, in my opinion, is having sold-out to the political process in the past. That out of town special court business is enough to stop most appeals. By this time you're broke, unable to retain an attorney, and you must start over from the beginning with a distant court located, in my case, several thousand miles away, and from past experience you're suspicious about the honesty of the judges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for The Federal Circuit, a fancy name, has another set of rules, forms and procedures. After researching into this and reviewing their past cases, once again I was ready to file an appeal. It's discouraging to see that of the many whistleblower cases filed with them, most all fail. I was unable to find a single whistleblower case that had won; perhaps one did and I missed it. It was necessary to state my case, attach the findings from all earlier appeals, attach evidence and exhibits, organize and index all of this, reproduce copies, go to a notary, mail several pounds of legal papers, and then wait. This was Case No. 90-3404, so it's a matter of public record for any interested party who would like to read the original. It will help you understand my case by hearing some of the arguments that I presented in writing to this federal appeals court: "Never in thirty years as an accountant (before BIA) had I been pressured to issue a dishonest financial report. My reputation was excellent; there were no complaints or problems in my background. I performed my BIA duties in accordance with the rules of my profession, as you might expect. "After three years of my life spent on administrative appeals, I find no relief from reprisal, so now I come to you in the name of justice. My actions were no more than honest, and supported the law and the Constitution, and I need you to allow that. "MSPB excused itself with "thresholds;" a process of avoidance through minutiae, ignoring the profound "merit" of human rights. If you fail me also, the message to federal employees is that the Constitution is cheap compared to political patronage, and they must leave integrity and ethics at the office door. "I ask the Court to fill the function mandated by our system of government; to serve as the balance which protects the rights of individuals under our Constitution. "I am reporting scandal, not creating one and if I have a right to free speech, then I ask the Court to allow honest words ... " "MSPB takes a narrow and strained position, which, should it prevail, defeats the Act and the Constitution. The only question MSPB considered was my length of employment, not my status as a whistleblower (a factor under the law) nor my civil rights - the Constitution itself. By this process, both the law and the Constitution are side-stepped by MSPB." This time I was facing another attorney, John Warshawsky of the Department of Justice, who repeated (on paper) the arguments of the earlier attorney, Roger Thomas. This special court, designed to intercept all whistleblower appeals, didn't waste much time on my case, if indeed they read it. A notice from the court stated that my case was to be heard at 10:00 AM on November 7, 1990, along with seven other cases. Under the time allotted to hear my case it listed "none," also listing "none" for several other whistleblower appeals. On November 13, the court issued it's judgment; simply one word: AFFIRMED, meaning they approved the MSPB decision which refused to hear my case. This special whistleblower court does not have to give reasons and it gave none, so the issues were not answered. As far as I know, they were not seriously considered. The judges were Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Daniel M. Friedman, and a third judge listed simply as Markey. After reading what I could find out about them, I wouldn't hire any of them to judge a dog fight. Their order was issued "per curium," which means that each of them agreed with the decision. I felt rotten about this, and day to day problems included keeping my utility connections turned on. I thought about giving it up as a lost cause. But there was a chance, still one more appeal available, to the U.S. Supreme Court. If anyone supports the Constitution, certainly it must be the Supreme Court. The odds are slim. I found that the Supreme Court hears only one case out of two hundred, a long shot at best. Still, I owed it to myself and to the Indian people I care about, so I decided it was worth the trouble. The "trouble" included preparing the brief, which included a synopsis of earlier cases related to my issues, copies of the law, Senate and House Reports, my exhibits, a bibliography, copies of the earlier decisions by the Court of Appeals and MSPB, a comprehensive index of all of this, and so forth. To do all that the Supreme Court required, with no legal help, takes months of time and, for someone living in poverty, a relative huge expense for copies and postage. At least there is no filing fee, it was simply required to show that I was a pauper, which was easy to do. To recognize that you have become a pauper is no fun, and when you read about the Supreme Court you also discover that they don't look very long or hard at cases filed by petitioners who can't afford an attorney. I was a pauper, and had been broke now for several years. I elected to follow my ideals, so the unavoidable price had to be paid. A copy of my Supreme Court brief also went to my opponent, the Justice Department, and I was encouraged when a reply came back from them signed by the Solicitor General, the attorney who represents the United States. It said: "The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court." That sounded great, that the Government wasn't opposing my case, and did not disagree with any of the facts or arguments I presented. It sounds like I'm guaranteed to win. Rather than describe this appeal to you, I'll print parts of Supreme Court case 90-7189 for you to read in the Appendix. The references and exhibits referred to in the case are not enclosed here because of the space that would take, but I have not deleted the citations and exhibit numbers so you can see that my arguments were supported with evidence. I want you to see exactly what the Supreme Court Justices read, omitting the routine parts of the brief. You will find repetition of facts you already know, but this will give you a look at the case exactly as the Supreme Court saw it. They were going to read it and vote on it, so be thinking about how you would vote if you were one of the Justices. If you're a military veteran, as I am, or if any of your family members have ever taken the oath to support the Constitution, what you read there should make you cringe. Further on I will ask you to do something in a very direct way to support the Constitution, so if you are feeling anger save it for later, and then direct that anger in a positive manner as suggested later in this book. Custom and usage establish the tone and content for briefs, and limit strong language and emotional displays, and within those limits I made my appeal as best I could, in terms relating to the Constitution and past Court decisions. If you look for whistleblower cases in digests of Supreme Court cases, you won't find any. Whistleblower cases just aren't heard. If you delve into the operations of this Court, you find that for each "pauper" case their law clerks prepare a one-page summary. The clerks are law school graduates, most often selected from top students of the ivy league schools. The case summaries are presented to the justices in private session, and they vote whether or not to hear each case. At first blush, that sounds fair, but remember that the justices get their jobs based on political considerations, and their clerks are an elitist bunch who frequently come from a privileged and wealthy class. The poor and the unwashed are not taken seriously. The justices have taken the oath to support the Constitution, and yet they refuse to hear one hundred and ninety-nine of every two hundred appeals that come their way because they're too busy. I don't find that a so-help-me-God effort to support the Constitution. The Supreme Court was designed for a small country with a fraction of the population that we have today, and it has not been expanded to meet changed conditions. Perhaps they could remain in session longer than their present nine months annually, or maybe work longer hours, but still that wouldn't make a dent in the huge percentage of cases that go unheard. Other courts have found solutions to the problem. They hire referees and assistants to iron out agreements between the parties, and a much higher percentage of the cases reach a conclusion acceptable to all parties. For those where the parties simply can't agree, at least part of the problems are resolved before the case continues on to court. Our U.S. Supreme Court hasn't done this, and I suggest that it should, if the Justices take their oaths seriously. It's an inexpensive and just solution to a real and terrible problem. For all cases, we know that the Justices discuss the one-page summary, vote and then issue a Court Order. My Supreme Court order dated April 1, 1991 said: "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied" followed by the signature of the clerk, from a rubber stamp. The earlier waiver (decision not to oppose my case) by the Solicitor General now looked entirely different. It showed their inside knowledge that appeals like mine are most always denied by the court, and it wasn't necessary to go to the bother of opposing my case. They knew in advance that the Court wouldn't grant a hearing. Still, in reading the fine print, there was one more appeal available, a request for the Court to reconsider. Taking that choice, I prepared the request for reconsideration, which is also in the appendix for you to read. The Court didn't waste much time with that. They voted again and issued an order, dated May 13, 1991: "The petition for rehearing is denied." The Court uses it's judicial discretion to decide which cases to hear, and mine didn't make it. The RIGHT to go to court does not apply to federal whistleblowers. Now the door was firmly slammed shut, with the warning from the Court that further appeals would lead to a fine for bothering them, a risk I could not take. After more than six years of appeals, there was nowhere to go within the legal processes of the United States; I had gone as far as I could go, and my best efforts had failed. If this case stands as is, there is an effective "gag- rule" that continues to silence all Federal employees and prevent them from honoring their ethical and religious standards. The hierarchy and military mindset which gives prime value to loyalty to the boss, right or wrong, outranks all standards of honesty and morality. Am I ready to give in and give up? No way, that's what this book is about. If our legal system offers no hope in the search for freedom and justice in this case, for me or for my Indian brothers and sisters then I must carry my appeal to you, the People. Otherwise, the "American Way" is a delusion, a myth to cover injustice. Americans have a fine sense of justice and fair play, and I hope that you are deeply disturbed to see that our Constitution is dishonored. The concept of "equal justice," where it comes to Indian matters or to whistleblower appeals, does not apply. If you wonder sometimes why many children do not respect their parents, but see them as being "phony" hypocrites, here is a prime example of that which causes our children to have contempt for society. CHAPTER 25 Summary We have become intimate. You could look through my eyes and see behind them for I have not hidden myself from you. There is a risk in this exposure, you might find me a fool searching for rainbows, or a bleeding heart with no plan to halt the flow of blood. I am not a philosopher but I too search for the meaning of life. Some of the Crow say it is found in tomorrow's sunrise. Stop and consider that, it is not simple but most profound. I tell you they are right, but we must all stand together to watch the sunrise, and we must hold hands - not placidly like sheep, but actively to make a difference. We see that people just like us can be monsters, but people can also soar with the angels and find truth, beauty and justice. It can be found in ourselves as a spark within, and it is the force that defeats monsters. The world is in a state of change, and we can direct part of that. I suggest we try to match our deeds with our lofty American principles. We must accomplish something, rather than just moan and groan about the way things are, and together we have the power to do it. We took a look inside BIA, where you saw evidence of major fraud and conspiracy to conceal it. You shared my shame and agony at what we found there, and perhaps you cried with me at man's destruction. I know that I cried, and it is easier when we hold hands and cry together. You know about the Eagle whistle I carry, and you are forming opinions in those areas that are part of the mission I will ask you to join. You were at my side when I went to confront BIA's Area Director with the Whistleblower Award. It was a small thing, but still a victory for all of us. The problem is, that right now, the same individuals and philosophy are still in charge at BIA, and it is politics as usual in Washington, DC. You have been with me in Indian Country. You heard my oration to the Children of Plenty Coups, and you were welcome in places most people never see. We sat in Indian Councils, we shared the pipe with Crow leaders, and your spirit joined mine to dance with the Elders. You witnessed my shame in going to a place of the poor for charity food, and you met the monster where my strength of character failed and my knees buckled under the load of destruction and ruin, and I ran for California. I hope you again cried with me. I gave in for a time and ran away, but after recovering strength I came back to Montana to continue this fight for justice. And you came with me, the lone white man at an all night Indian celebration where we heard the Crow drum, the lovely voices of the women and the ancient high cry. We were at Pryor Sundance where casual tourists don't go, and the Sundance Priest came out of the lodge to shake hands with us, and I put my arms around Eddie Round Face. For me there was high adventure, more than many people find in a lifetime, and I hope you were intrigued by what I could tell you about that. My relationship with Indian people is not all described in this book, since much is personal and beyond description, or the report would violate the privacy of friends. I am treated with special kindness and I will not violate the trust of friends to entertain you or to sell a book. Try to put yourself in my shoes. By this time I had spent eight years struggling for justice for myself and for Indians against overwhelming odds. I was dead broke, with a ruined career and running on empty, trying to survive poverty. That means a cold house with the gas heat disconnected, and constant threats from creditors and IRS about overdue bills and taxes I simply could not pay. Poverty is relative, and many are much worse off than me, but still I believe I did not deserve ruin. After following every avenue open to me I was no closer to justice, and friends and family urged me to give up and try to recover some life for myself. This book goes beyond our political system to appeal directly to you. If you care about decency and justice, please hear my plea. Together we have taken an inside look at BIA, and what we found should disgust you. You've seen how BIA and other Federal agencies suppress justice and destroy people in return for political patronage and an implied license to steal from Indians. BIA Individuals: Richard Whitesell's abuse of Indians does not demonstrate respect for humanity, his oath of office to the Constitution, or BIA's mission statement. He should be accountable for the acts of his subordinates. Whitesell was promoted and transferred to BIA headquarters in Washington, DC, then returned to his post as Area Director, which makes me cringe. In September, 1994, he retired and will receive generous federal benefits for the rest of his life. It's not cream that rises to the top within BIA! His Assistant Area Director Joe Gourneau put a stamp of approval on the suppression of honesty. He approved retaliation against Julie Matt and myself, intimidated both of us, and refused legitimate appeals. He continues on the Federal payroll. And what about Rodney Young, who worked a fraud to whitewash the facts, and Jim Parris, the CPA who supervised his work. They thrive with continued BIA employment. BIA supports those who are kissy-kissy and sell their souls, which is the mirror image of many of our federal politicians. Where was the moral fiber of David Pennington? He changed the minutes of his committee meeting to defeat honest words, and that fraud harmed innocent Indian people and taxpayers alike. He is well paid by BIA as a department head. Bill Benjamin had the central role. He did repeated and deliberate harm to fellow employees and to helpless Indian trust beneficiaries. He is still Financial Manager - but has been promoted and rewarded. Instead of being at the Billings Area Office, he is now in charge of all of BIA's Financial Management, at the "Central Office West," in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He receives a substantial federal check each payday. Bill Ellingson (Benjamin's assistant) is active in his church, and knows the difference between right and wrong. He tightened the noose to make Julie Matt squirm and in my case cooperated with reprisal. He is Budget Manager for the Billings Area Office. It still is business as usual at BIA, Indians are not free to manage their own affairs, and federal officials have massive power but are immune from their misdeeds. Revenge is petty and selfish, and simple damage control is not enough. We have to reform the basic climate and structure of government, you will soon be exposed to the plan for that, and you will be asked to take part in it. You then will become part of this story, as we strive together for freedom and justice. That's where we are headed. CHAPTER 26 The Need for Change "I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." THE AGE OF REASON Thomas Paine [1737-1809] The finest thing we can do is to uplift mankind. Americans should not be skin-heads or brutes, we are responsible for our acts, and we are our brother's keeper. Our religious and ethical principles say it, and both Moses and Christ did it. It is a worthy thing to do justice, and we can follow in the footsteps of heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. That means more than just refusing to do wrong, we must confront evil and take a stand against it. You have seen that something is terribly wrong, and I am telling you that together we can do something about it. You and I have the opportunity to do immortal works that will live long after we are forgotten as individuals. The goal of this book is to improve the underlying conditions and institutions that allowed deplorable and unjust situations to come about and not be corrected. If you join with me in this struggle, you must be prepared for opposition from people you thought were friends. Many Americans are unwilling to question the widely accepted myths about American history and about Indian people. Society resists change, and although rebels are necessary if the world is to improve, they are never popular. If your neighbors have doubts about supporting the Constitution, or don't want to bother with ethics, then urge them to drive down to your local cemetery and count the headstones with a military Cross or Star of David. Those who gave their lives thought it was worth the bother. I suggest we look at history and ourselves honestly, so we can understand the problems of human nature and deal with them. It is said that the history books are written by the winners rather than the victims, but there can be no place here for the usual "feel-good" game of self-deception. Nuremberg Trials: Following the Second World War, the world was shocked when the horrors of the Nazi political party in Hitler's Germany became known. Million's of Jews, Gypsies and other minorities had been murdered. Court trials were held at Nuremberg, Germany to consider the atrocities. Certain principles were developed from this, and the world was to hear an eternal truth which could save it from repeating these horrors. We learned some things that came at the cost of millions of lives, the horror of the holocaust, the Hitler experience and World War II. Please read what follows with care. If you are not familiar with it, then learn it. If your children don't know about it, have them memorize the words you find most important here. In the Nuremberg trials, the U. S. prosecutor, Robert Jackson, said this during his opening statement: "This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundation of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors." I saved a clipping from a 1979 newspaper account in my files, and keep it with my most precious papers. It's an article from the Christian Science Monitor, by Dr. Richard Falk, a professor of international law at Princeton. I underlined his statement, and this is what your children and mine must know: "In essence, the idea at Nuremberg was that every person, no matter what his or her position in society, has a moral responsibility and potential legal obligation to expose and resist the crimes of the state or other organization of power." The article reports that the outcome at Nuremberg was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations in 1946. Dr. Falk ends the article by suggesting we turn the Nuremberg Obligation into a badge of good citizenship. The madness of destroying a People and their culture, even by non-violent means, must stop right now. These lessons must be applied here and now to ourselves and to our Indian citizens. Good People and Dirty Work: It is a shock when you discover that otherwise decent people sometimes will deliberately harm others, and in my thinking and research one of the best things I found on this was a writing by Everett C. Hughes, titled "Good People and Dirty Work, published in 1962 by the Society for the Study of Social Problems. His review noted that people have a lapse of memory concerning such matters, and that their minds push away thoughts that are unpleasant or that threaten the group's image of itself. Further, we divide our world into convenient groups of "us" and "them," and what happens to "them" is always less important than self-interest. The situation gets out of hand when we leave the fate of "them" up to some other group or person who is immune from the checks and balances of morality and social order. If you substitute "BIA" or "Federal Government" for "group or person," this describes the situation we are facing. Need for Reform: Certainly these are guilt ridden situations, but it accomplishes nothing to soak ourselves in guilt. The point is to look frankly at the horrors humans are capable of, and then rather than bury our heads in the sand, do something to prevent such crimes in the future. We must reform our institutions and require responsibility from those entrusted with government. If you followed the news reports in the fall of 1993 about increasing the grazing fees paid by ranchers that use Federal land in the Western states, you have seen how Western Senators use their political strength. They combined forces to defeat every attempt to increase the grazing fees, in spite of all evidence that the rates are much less than the market (of supply and demand) warrants. The low grazing fees amount to a federal subsidy paid to ranchers, at the expense of all taxpayers. The ranchers are a small minority, but they are organized and (indirectly, of course) pay the Senators for their special privilege. This is a kickback, with taxpayer money going back into the campaign funds of the Senators. We need to defeat political dishonesty. How nice it would be if we could just point to the "Skin-heads" or the KKK, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and place the blame on them for all damages to humanity. The real problem is that the majority of "nice folks" allow these things to happen. To borrow words from Walt Kelly ("Pogo"), "We have met the enemy, and he is us!" I know this isn't what you want to hear, and you may have a monumental headache by now, but we allowed these problems to develop, and it is up to us to correct them. Let's convert useless feelings of guilt and sadness into a group responsibility for reform and improvement in our systems and institutions. I hope you will agree that right and wrong are not just a matter of opinion, or the option of whoever has the power to smother resistance. There is often a clear choice between good and evil and when that is true we must support the good and defeat the evil. We need changes, it is up to us to decide what they are and then to apply pressure until the job is finished. Congress will dodge the problems with investigations, delays, empty promises to address the problem, and soft laws designed to be sidestepped. Patronage is something they choose not to disturb, so we can expect powerful resistance. People get killed for doing what I will propose to you. If you don't have the guts for this or don't like where we're heading, I suggest you get out now. If you continue, you will have the chance to endorse or reject each proposal presented, and by that means your decision will be made known and counted. Criminal Behavior: One thing leads to another. My immediate concern after being fired from BIA was my own situation. In time, my increasing contacts with Indians led me to understand that their needs were greater than mine, and I included them within my search for justice. Looking at the problems within BIA and government led next to the subject of accountability, and the cause for that failure is the doctrine of sovereign immunity. I have exposed criminal behavior within government done against ourselves, and the loss of freedom by those marked as Indian. This is vile discrimination based on race and national origin, and it can not be tolerated in a land we call free. Three Issues: There are three issues to be solved. Personal justice for myself and for Julie Matt, Indian recovery, and federal government reform. We will touch on each of these, offer a way to get things changed, and then ask for your help. The story is not over, and we are nearing the place where you can indicate your judgments, and leave your mark forever on the history of this nation and the world. CHAPTER 27 Personal Justice I will describe a simple way to get justice for Julie Matt and myself. Getting this accomplished will restore us to our BIA jobs, in line with what the Civil Service Reform Act promised, and as an example it will improve the chances for honesty and free speech for all federal employees. This is not anarchy, there is no problem if federal employees are allowed to express their opinions, even if they must obey the existing administration and laws. Get used to the idea, men and women who can not speak are not free! I will also ask you to join me in forming a "Friends of Whistleblower" public interest group, as a method to accomplish what must be done, to prod and push as long and as hard as necessary to get reform accomplished. Reform is not easy, so we must keep on fighting. I can't speak for Julie Matt, but if I can gain access (as a restored BIA employee) to meaningful work where I can reform BIA from the inside, then I will do that. If not I will resign and work from the outside, which is more likely the case. At the least, I'll have my back pay and benefits, and my personal integrity will be officially restored. Much of this book was written after I had to leave Montana for refuge with my mother in California, although later I would return to Montana. By now you know why I had to leave home and become sort of a political exile in my own country, because I was unable to face the prospect of living on the street or at a rescue mission. I was broke and had to vacate my basement apartment, and my Mother offered me one-way transportation to California if I would just "bail out." My strength failed and I accepted her offer. When your world crumbles it is wonderful to have friends who care. There was a farewell party, so before we continue with things that are more important, let me share the party with you. If you had been in Billings with me, you would have been invited. Farewell Party: It was at Virginia's house, the Virginia who shared Prior Sundance with me. It was in the evening, with homemade Pizza, each guest bringing a different ingredient, and some with salads and desserts. Rosemary, my civil rights singer who has the voice of an angel, came complete with guitar, looking great in a black dress. She sang for us, then asked if I wanted her to sing Amazing Grace, and you know my answer. Vince Meyer, a brilliant physician who blew the whistle on medical malpractice, congratulated me on doing it "my way," and gave me a recording of that song. About fifteen people, all from the Billings Unitarian Fellowship, took turns to speak loving words. Kathy Akre, a Montana N.O.W. officer was off on her own adventure to Saudi Arabia not long after the party. My best friend Sally Noe surprised and delighted me by coming all the way from her University duties in Bowling Green, Ohio. I won't list all the names, or repeat what they said, but it touched me. There was a homemade card, with words or drawings from each friend, and there were cards from those who could not come. As my strength and resolve fell apart more than anything else I needed love, and they provided just that. I thank each of them now. Ben and Marje Pease were there. Ben is a retired educator, an Elder of Crow Nation and one of those rare individuals who lives with one foot in each of two worlds, and is comfortable and accomplished in both. Later on that couple would become close friends of mine, but at this time they were simply fellow Unitarian Church members and part of the general group of people who were seeing me off. Ben had made me an Indian necklace complete with bear teeth, and told us the Crow meaning of the symbols and colors. To this necklace Rosemary added a symbol of her own, a piece of glitter to indicate her tears at my leaving. Ben spoke of courage and honor, and told the others about my special relationship with the Crow People. He said the children would learn my words, and my story would be part of the oral history of the Crow People, passed down the generations. Ben gave me an Indian blessing which assigned to me the sharp eye and speed of the antelope, and said that although I was moving camp, my spirit would remain with the Crow People always. Now 63, my eyesight has improved so much that I can read fine print without glasses, and those "sharp eyes" have truly become mine. To those who receive such a blessing, it is not necessary to weep when they leave, and no special notice is made when they return. Their spirit does not leave simply because the site of their camp has moved; they are bound to Crow Country and the tribe, and they are expected to return, if not in this life then in the next. In my case, I did return lfrom California a few months later to join my spirit which had been left behind in Crow Country. Then, one of those cherished moments a person is fortunate to find once in a lifetime. The Crow have no symbol of merit greater than the Eagle Feather, and Ben presented that to me. The meaning of this was not stated; it could be taken as an ornament or good-luck piece. With my wounded soul, stung with the defeat of a battle that seemed lost, I accept it as the badge of a Crow Warrior, one who has met the enemy bravely. To my wounded ego, it was an award for valor. Escape to California: After the farewell party I was escaping to California, unable to face the prospect of living "on the street," completely broke and unemployable, with no way to make a living. Here you see where I failed to meet my own standards. In California I found work as a Christmas temporary clerk in the shoe department at the Thousand Oaks J.C. Penney store, and later as an accounting temporary with a business that was being liquidated. After that there was nothing, because employers simply don't hire whistleblowers and I was unwilling to conceal my past. I began work on this book while I continued the appeals process through BIA and related federal agencies, and could not earn enough to support myself. In my late fifties, I was in the position of a dependent child, reduced to accepting room and board from my elderly mother. It was finally agreed that in this dependent state I could live cheaper in Montana where housing was less costly, and so I became a "remittance" man who was to receive a small allowance from home until I could earn a living, or at least collect my Social Security at age 62. Still, with this family allowance I was able to make the return trip to Montana, and there found an old and cheap single-wide trailer I could rent. I had a mattress on the floor, plastic over the loose fitting windows, retrieved a dinette set other people had thrown out, and felt fortunate to have that much. I was not willing to give up my struggle for justice despite the shame I felt as a "professional" man unable to support myself, living in poverty and accepting a family allowance. I licked my wounds, and gathered strength to continue the fight. The Missions: The first "mission" or thing to be accomplished, is to redress the personal problems of Julie Matt and myself. It is the least important of the list of things that need to be done, and it would look "noble" for me to forget about myself, but I'm not that noble, and I can't continue in ruin the rest of my life with energy left over to work on causes greater than my own survival. Third party evidence includes the letter from BIA's chief employee, and reports from other auditors, etc. that you have learned about in this book. They all agree that my audit reports were correct. I believe the evidence is clear that what I did was required by law (to report fraud, waste and abuse) and by the fundamental principles that most of us find precious. After all this, I still remain "fired for insubordination," my career as a CPA has been destroyed, and for almost a decade I have been subjected to great stress and a life of poverty. Being correct was not enough to win my case as a whistleblower. When I took the oath of office to become a BIA employee, I dedicated myself to serving the needs of those Indian People who would later call me Whistleblower. It is up to you to decide whether or not I have been faithful to them, and whether or not I have honored my oath of office and earned my government salary. The November 28, 1994 edition of U.S. News & World Report described the BIA as "The Worst Federal Agency", and again I will take credit for being a major force that helped to expose BIA. I truly believe my effort was a worthwhile public service, and yet I have been made to pay a heavy price for speaking out. I need your help to correct this injustice. I told you much more about my own case than about Julie Matt, but in a condensed form her case was presented to you, and in many ways it is similar to mine. The final chapter shows how to make your choices known, and I will ask for your help. You are the court of last resort, and you with the other readers of this book collectively have the power to decide my fate and that of Julie Matt. CHAPTER 28 Indian Recovery - General The purpose of this chapter is to support the idea of Indian recovery and survival. Their needs and wants are distinctly different from those of other minorities, who in many cases want to blend in. By and large, Indians want to retain their distinct identities, and to have exclusive control of their own homelands and tribal governments. They have a right to enforce their treaties with the United States, and to be spared from genocide. When and how to "integrate", if at all, is a matter for these "First Americans" to decide as they see fit. The "American Ethic" favors free enterprise and competition in economic systems. This is based on freedom rather than force, and fits with the idea of democracy. I see nothing evil in allowing cultures and ethnic groups the freedom to compete with each other, as long as they avoid force to settle disputes. We must allow this freedom for our Indian tribes, instead of forcing them (ethnocentric) to be carbon copies of ourselves. I have pointed out a few of the highly evolved social, religious and political ideals of our Indian brothers and sisters that I found striking. You may judge for yourself whether or not these people are of worth. I submit that they are, but that's not the point. The point is that they are part of us, and they have their own right to live in dignity, despite the negative view of bigots. Human rights are basic and all people must support the rights of others if they wish to keep their own. As a matter of self-interest, we need to be exposed to new ways, borrowing from their (American Indian) high level of cultural and social development as our own American society breaks down, and in many areas American society has already cracked. Beyond that, in a religious and moral sense, we simply do not have the right to destroy a people along with their culture and religion. I tell you they are good people, not heathen savages or drunken Indians. There is value in allowing diverse cultures and religions to compete freely with each other. Through this process people grow, we adopt the best from each other, and social values improve. Throughout the world, nationalism is on the rise, or more correctly it is recovering from past assaults. It has become the fashion to treat nationalism or tribalism as bad words, meaning that they cause war and turmoil. To some extent it is true, and yet nations along with their ethnic traits such as language, religion, culture and art are the building blocks of all civilization. The great powers too often thwarted individual nations, splitting and combining them in a way that ignored useful boundaries and systems of government. These artificial boundaries suited colonialism. Humans are stubborn creatures, their cultures are precious, and they don't wish to surrender their human identity to whatever group has the largest army. We see the results of this elsewhere in the world, and note it often leads to warfare, but we forget that a similar process of grabbing land and suppressing religion and culture happened here. Hindsight is better than no sight at all. Let's take a brief look at some of the many good things about tribalism, the thing that our transplanted European society did not understand or appreciate and tried so hard to destroy. Women were highly regarded in a matriarchal society, had a voice in government, and the crime of rape was rare or totally absent. Even though the tribes of the western plains were warrior societies, within the tribe violence and murder were extremely rare, and dealt with in a conciliatory manner. Life was cherished, and government by consensus (at the community or band level) made room for individual differences, minority choices and freedom from oppression. This was not anarchy, because things still got done at the tribal level which provided representative government. Council gatherings or lesser chiefs appointed the top tribal leaders. Prisons were not necessary, in a sharing society there was no need to steal, and the difference between the poor and the wealthy was small. Children were cherished, and the entire tribe provided a nurturing place to raise them. Marriage and divorce were provided for, and in many tribes homosexuals and lesbians had an honorable place. The elderly were cherished and treated with respect. All tribes were not the same, some practiced slavery and torture and had less desirable social structures. There were some built-in problems that are not yet solved. The tribes were "place oriented," which is great for developing love of the land and environmental responsibility, but doesn't fit with an industrial society where labor must go where the work is. In some tribes there were inherited class or cast systems, which limit the possibilities for individuals to develop based on merit. In general, positive values were typical of America's Indian tribes. It wasn't never-never land with all things to perfection, but I urge that we allow these advanced societies to continue to develop rather than destroying them. They will need to find workable compromises between the tribal ethic of sharing, and modern individualism and self-interest, but let's allow that to happen, and learn from them. In our own societies there is constant conflict between the hierarchy, with power from the top, and democracy which arises from the people. There is no place for individual rights in a hierarchy, while individuals, at least in theory, are protected by democracy. Still, we have not found complete solutions to these conflicts or a way to operate our armies and police (or team sports) in a democratic fashion. Kissy-kissy people are forever sniffing around like dogs to determine who has the money and power, and then they do whatever is necessary, right or wrong, to please those at the top, which is not democratic. They sit on the fence, afraid to make choices on their own until some person they see as a social superior indicates the direction in which they should go. Examples of this are Colonel Oliver North and the Nazi SS troopers, who differ only in degree. There is nothing noble about cringing beneath the table of the rich, looking for scraps. Kissing-up is not a commendable human trait. The Indians had a solution to this basic problem. They had Chiefs, but there was no dishonor if an individual decided to go his own way. Each person had a right to some reasonable share of the necessities of life, and the rich were not allowed to hoard everything at the expense of the impoverished. Indians made government by consensus a workable art. It is a worthy thing for free people to have room to follow their own drum. Tribal warfare? Yes, they had that, but so did we, and it continues as an unsolved problem throughout the world today. It's a human problem, not an Indian problem. My role is not to dissect Indians to see "what makes them tick," or to leer at "them" like a curiosity, since friends do not deserve to be treated like frogs in biology class. Words shared in private around a Crow family dinner table or at the religious Sweat Lodge deserve respect and privacy. As a non-Indian, when I dare tell you what Indians think or need or want, you can be sure that I am using extreme care to simply repeat what I hear again and again from highly regarded American Indians, and that I am not substituting my ideas for theirs. I need you, and I was shameless in trying to entice you with stories, but this book has a deadly serious purpose far beyond entertainment. I want you to take a definite and strong role in this story. To entice you further I will invite you to Montana and take your hand, where we can dance together to the Indian drum. We'll eat too much fry bread, stay up too late and sleep on the ground looking up at the glory of Big Sky, and you will not be the same again. If you come, don't be alarmed that Indians might hate you and go for your throat or your wallet, molest your kids or vandalize your car. Don't expect to see absolute joy in every Indian face at your presence. Some have great difficulty in overcoming revulsion at the white-world that oppresses them. Still, they will see you as allies and supporters. If you still fear, then stand near me. The Gentle People know me, and you will have safe passage in Small Nation. Come and stand beside us, we need your strength and your love. One day, while Richard was Chairman, I attended Crow Fair with several white friends. I dressed like a tourist, in shorts and sandals, wearing sunglasses and a floppy hat, with a camera hanging around my neck, and with friends I'd simply come to see an Indian Parade. As I sat on the ground with some of the children, Richard came down the road on his paint-stallion, in full regalia. He wore the headdress of a Chief, and was glorious in white buckskins with beadwork. When his horse drew near, he stopped it in the middle of the road and turned the horse to face me. With his right hand stretched out, turned up at the elbow and with open palm, he gave me the formal Salute of Crow Nation. I was not expecting that, and didn't realize he would see me sitting there on the ground. I was slow to react and stupidly just kept my seat and gave him the casual wave of a tourist. Richard, my friend, today I return my salute to you and to Crow Nation. I was recently present in an Indian home where a great grandfather had a toddler on his knee, and was gently folding down one finger at a time, saying, in the Crow language: one, two, three, four, five, ("hawate, duupe, daawiia, shoope, chiaxxo,") and then ("kalakoon"), the other hand, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, ("akaawe, sahpua, duupahpe, hawatahpe, pilake,") followed by a tickle and the child's giggle. By this process the Crow language is learned and culture passes from generation to generation. There is nothing evil about Crow children learning the Crow language. The tenacity of human beings to hold on to culture is beautiful, and a marvel to witness. Indian languages in general are failing, but in this distinguished Crow family, survival of the language, religion and culture are assured. The occasion was a child's birthday party in a Crow household, and the only words spoken in English were for my benefit, plus the "Happy Birthday" song, which was sung in English. I was the only non-Indian present but the children were not afraid of me, for I had just come from the Sweat Lodge and had prayed and drummed with their great grandfather. The birthday-girl, about eight, handed me a piece of cake, and when I said "happy birthday" she responded with a smile, and in perfect English, with a shy "thank you." She will grow up in a world of two cultures and two languages. All of us are enriched by diverse cultures that change and grow. This birthday-girl will select from each what she finds most satisfying and uplifting. By this process she will grow, and she in turn will present the best to her children. It is good and proper for this to continue. The Crow People, and all surviving tribes, have a right to live in peace and to govern themselves as promised. Have you been to Rosebud, South Dakota? That's just one of the places to go if you want to see what genocide is, for many of the Sioux are dying. They die of despair waiting in vain for the return of their human dignity, land and treaty promises. Death comes in bottles of cheap wine and beer. Many drink themselves to death, a slow suicide for despairing people with dim eyes, soaked in wine, many of the surviving children retarded with fetal alcohol disease. The adults die young. A man from Rosebud phoned me in Montana. He had read about me in the papers, said he knew my words, and he wanted me to tell him I was a prophet. He was grasping at straws, looking for a source of help for the Sioux. I was sad when he also said, "You know you'll be killed, aren't you afraid?," and yes, I was afraid. I had to answer no, my friend, I'm not a prophet, and I don't have power to stop the death. Too many want you dead and are amused to see your agony. The white man wanted your holy land, the Black Hills, because gold was there for the taking. The whites felt no land was beyond exploiting. Ranchers wanted your grasslands and saw you with less right to live than the cattle. Cattle could be killed for cash, while you only produced cheap skulls and arm bones. They blame your death on you, and they joke about drunken Indians in the gutter. There is a whole chain of events that causes your death. You were forced into the badlands so you would starve quickly and quietly. There was gold in the hills, and part of it was used to buy Indian land for the Hearst family in California, where the Chumash Indians in turn were displaced. True leap-frogging, using Indian resources stolen from one tribe to destroy another, the white man's capitalism at it's lowest. The Hearst family had a grand time. They built themselves a castle overlooking the Pacific, imported great works of art, entertained movie stars, bought newspapers to give voice to their ethic, and bought politicians. They have since given Hearst Castle to California, but their children own the land and the newspapers, they are rich and called successful while the few remaining Chumash are called "diggers." Of the Chumash, only a handful remain of their 150,000, and they die on a 99-acre reservation in California, near former President Reagan's ranch. It is too late for the gentle Chumash. I have seen this, and I tell you it is true. They were mass-murdered with poison, shot down in "drives" like rabbits, burned alive, and the more fortunate ones hung on a rope by land hungry pioneers. There are still some Indians who have a chance at life, and we must direct our energy where there is hope. Our fellow humans are precious. We can not allow genocide to continue without opposition, and the new genocide is Indian poverty combined with no control over personal and tribal destiny. We read about China's involvement in Tibet. There was a recent period when most of the Buddhist temples were destroyed, and religious expression was prohibited or put down. The Dali Lama, central religious leader, had to flee Tibet and has not yet returned. Many Chinese were relocated into Tibet, to outnumber the locals. This is an obvious form of genocide, but is our record with our American Indians any better? Most Indians in the Eastern states were forcibly uprooted and driven to Oklahoma, squeezed into territory already owned by resident tribes there. Countless thousands died on the "trail of tears," a death march in the "land of the free." Some reservations were established, but federal promises were all broken and more tribes were forced onto land promised to previous Indian refugees. White settlers claimed "free" land in Indian Country. Indian lands were allocated and there was a federal land-rush in 1889, displacing the tribes with 50,000 white homesteaders who came to claim Indian land. Christian missionaries came, and Indians were denied religious freedom, required to cut their braids, and starved to death if they did not give up "heathen ways" of sharing and brotherhood. The Sundance was halted by military force, never mind the Constitution that guarantees religious freedom. It was twisted to mean be Christian like me, or die. Today Oklahoma is 95% white, and the proud tribal civilizations have largely become history. Genocide is near complete. Genocide not only can happen here, it has happened in the United States countless times. Take a look at the history of your own state, and if you're not afraid to look at it honestly, you'll find genocide there. None of our present 50 states is free of it. In thirty years or so, the whites ruined the rich land of Oklahoma by overgrazing their cattle, and with the plow. Do you remember your history about the dust storms of the 1920's and 1930's, and the mass out- migration of the "Oakies?" Too often this is what we have done with the Indian lands. And just where in hell is our American sense of gratitude and appreciation for this beautiful land we call the United States? A rancher will say, this land has been farmed by our family for a hundred years. Prior to that? A blank, nothing said about the former owners. It appears that the land was sitting there, unloved and unoccupied, "finders-keepers." That is marvelous self-deception. We need not always rub our noses in it by saying that the former owners were killed or driven out, but how about a little appreciation, or at least recognition. Talk to a park ranger, draw him out, and ask him or her just where the land come from. Usually the answer is that it was just found idle, but ask again, about Indian owners. Then the answer is usually that no tribe owned it or occupied it, although a few hunters wondered across it now and again. More self-deception, every inch of the United States was claimed by some tribal group or shared by several in common. If the American ethic does not provide very well for gratitude, can we at least look at the past in a more wholesome and honest way? Now what is so wrong about the following? You enter Glacier National Park on your great vacation trip "out West." At the entrance there is a memorial stone or statue, with an inscription something like this: The People of the United States express their appreciation to the People of the Blackfeet Nation for having relinquished this beautiful land for use by all citizens as a National Park." The Wyandot? The Jesuit priests recorded that there were 20,000 in 1639. After the survivors were forced to move to Oklahoma, a count in 1940 listed just three Wyandot of full blood. (A Guide to the Indian Tribes of Oklahoma) You see it (genocide) does happen here, and the process of cultural death, a crime against humanity, will continue unless you and I take action now. Let's talk about Indian Recovery and how to get it done. It's foolish to think Indians will survive (with their identity intact) without control of their own government and land, which the treaties promised. It's time to keep the American Promise. You and I can start the process to insure that a thousand years from now at least some of our American Cousins will continue to live. They all have a right to life, but they are dying (as a unique people with an intact culture) and only a few will make it. To concentrate our energies means starting toward Indian recovery someplace with somebody, and doing it sometime specific, like right now. I propose we start with the Crow, and call this mission "Save Crow Nation." Where applied to other tribes as appropriate, it allows for a substantial Indian recovery. You and I are all that there is, so it's up to us, nobody else. My proposal is just a few pages ahead. I ask for your help, because I can't go any further without you. Together we are an irresistible force that can uplift humanity, and before God there is no greater role in life than that. CHAPTER 29 Recovery - Crow Nation The previous chapter gave some general reasons supporting Indian recovery. That needs to be narrowed down, to start with somebody specific, and we will concentrate on Crow Nation as a starting point. I propose that we empower them to control their own lives and make their own decisions. Indians are unique and special under our Constitution with good reason. Generations have died waiting for treaty promises to be fulfilled, the meek did not inherit the earth but were denied life. We can begin to honor America's promise to them, and the place to start is with tribal sovereignty, to allow Indians to control their own homeland and way of life. They are already nation-states, and we can simply recognize that. Any thought of becoming a traditional state like the other fifty can wait for later. All people deserve their basic human rights, but the pattern for all is not the same. Our first Americans have their own special deal, the bargain has already been struck, it is recorded by our treaties, and our national honor guaranteed it. As a starting point, I propose the Crow right to self-government, and help for them to regain ownership and control of their treaty land. I will describe special laws for that purpose. It will get BIA off their backs, and insure an environment in which the Crow can survive. This will be a model that other tribes can use if they wish. It does not solve the problem of homeless Indians, or those who are too far gone, but this plan offers hope for as many as half of our American Indians who choose to adopt what we offer the Crow Nation. With other similar tribes, we are providing for the survival of about one million Native Americans. You will determine their fate. The only cost to taxpayers will be to fund the buy-back of white owned lands within the reservation boundaries, defined in this case by the final Crow treaty of 1868. This includes all land within what can be termed the lesser reservation (the 2.2 million acres that is 95% controlled by whites) plus the "ceded" land that is not occupied by cities and suburbs, now owned almost 100% by white ranchers. When you restore the ceded lands, the total area consists of about 8. million acres, which the treaty of 1868 defined as the final home of the Crow Indians. Treaties are permanent agreements between nations, and are fully binding on future generations. Treaties are permanent until the parties revise them. Neither the Crow Nation, nor the United States Government, has ever officially disavowed these treaties, although the United States had often ignored them when it comes to the obligations promised. An alternative is for the United States to abrogate the Indian treaties, but that is impractical. The real estate titles for most land in the United States is based on the treaties being honored. To dishonor them would return this land to it's pre-treaty owners, the Indian tribes. In just the region where I live, all the land and buildings in North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and similar states would revert to Indian ownership. To not honor the treaties, amounts to "giving it back to the Indians," an impossible situation. I suggest instead that we operate as a "nation of laws," and enforce the treaties -- for both sides. Following the treaty of 1868, there were "agreements," rather than treaties, that sold (ceded) additional lands, reducing the effective Crow land to the present 2.2. million acres. I will propose a way to repurchase the ceded lands where it's still possible to do so and where they have not been consumed by cities or suburban development, or used for highways, railroads, national parks and the like. As a general overview, Indian Country in 1887 amounted to 136 million acres, and was gradually reduced to 34 million acres by 1934. If you make that into a fraction, 34 over 136 equals one fourth. Indian lands have been reduced to about one quarter of what was agreed to in the treaties. I have a goal of recovering those treaty lands wherever practical, which as a rule of thumb would roughly quadruple the size of today's Indian Country. Applying that rule of thumb to the Crow, you would expect their land to grow from the present 2.2 million acres to about 8 million acres. That just so happens to agree with the final Crow treaty in 1868, so their particular situation agrees with my rule of thumb. The sales agreements with the Crow were not for the benefit of great hordes of landless European settlers, but instead benefitted a few "land barons," whose wealthy heirs and corporate beneficiaries control the land to this day. Obviously some of those people will be gunning for me, but that's not very important in the great scheme of things. Most of that land is used by large cattle ranches and wheat farms. Returning the part that is rural, in an orderly way, would not cause great financial hardship or the relocation of large numbers of non-Indian families. For other tribes provisions would have to be tailored to fit each situation and land use pattern. Life is not so simple that everything can be measured by a single rule of thumb. I have developed a formula to produce a workable solution to the land problem, and it obeys the intent of the treaties. We can target treaties as being unfair to start with, and that the areas in which Indians lived had already been changed and shuffled around by the mass pressure of whites headed West. The fact remains that the treaties are the LAW OF THE LAND, they are well documented, and they represent the highest level of agreement between the parties. I can find no way to ignore them, and it is clear that Indians don't want them ignored. The treaties were intended to be permanent, and they define the "final home" and permanent refuge for the various tribes. They recognized Indian Nations as distinct political entities, with the power of self government, although subordinate to the United States. The boundaries were well defined and based on the facts at the time. Most of the treaties were ratified by the federal legislature, and those not ratified are still enforced as if they had been. They are fully enforced concerning benefits to the United States, to individual settlers, and to the land barons and cattle interests favored by Congress. Beginning in the 1870's, treaty making between two equal parties was dropped in favor of "agreements" for the ceding of land by Indians, in return for very small amounts of money or other benefits. The agreements also were based on the facts at the time, that lawless whites had ignored the Federal treaties and moved in by force to take more land. If you wonder WHY they did this, it simply was because they could. The Indians were starving and defenseless, and the federal government did little to protect them, but instead took advantage of their weakened condition to exploit the victims again and again. In the western states, cattle barons drove their herds onto and across Indian land, and Indians were powerless to resist. The bountiful plains, considered by many as the most productive land on earth, a veritable Serengeti of North America, was destroyed in about ten years by overgrazing cattle. Sixty million buffalo and massive amounts of other wildlife were replaced by a few million cattle, and next came the idea of irrigation and dividing the partly spoiled land, as in Europe, among farmers and ranchers. Irrigation takes capital, and a new method was needed to transfer the wealth of land ownership from Indians to whites. Thus came the "agreements" for Indians to cede (sell) their treaty land to the Government, and for much of the proceeds to be held "in trust." The trust money was used to construct irrigation dams and ditches to feed water onto the land previously taken by white ranchers, and the remaining money held in trust by BIA was available for looting by BIA supervisors. Perhaps you can see why BIA has for decades resisted good accounting and insisted that Indians need trust services. The thefts continue today, it's a profitable business, and those with the most marbles control the game. My plan honors the treaties, and is aimed at recovering the "ceded" land. Where cities and suburbs have been built on the ceded land, the only practical solution is to allow them to continue to exist. Agricultural land will be returned to Indian ownership, and it will be paid for. There is no reason for Indians to pay to recover land held by the Federal Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and the like. I suggest that the Federal Parks carved out of Indian Country be allowed to continue, with the exception (related to the Sioux Nation) of the Black Hills. It is said that man's home is his castle; but the Indian homeland was swindled away, and it's time to restore some of their land where that is still practical. It's not possible for a tribal group to exist without a place to live, and for some groups the rural land has lost it's original character through the growth of cities and suburban sprawl, and returning that is not possible. For the Crow, recovery of most of the treaty land is possible. White owners got the land through force and intimidation with the cooperation of our Government. We can not punish their children who profit from this, so the land must be bought back at current market prices. With the destruction of the buffalo and the best land going to whites, Indian capital was stripped away, which was racial and political exploitation at gun point. Indians can not survive without Indian Country anymore than the Amish could survive without their farms and horses, and to ignore this guarantees a final and absolute Indian genocide. Obviously Indians will continue to grow in number, but their unique culture, government and ethic will gradually die out. Do Indians really want to govern themselves? I can say a few things about the Crow Nation, because I have smoked the pipe with them and I have listened. I don't decide these things for them. The Crow People are competent to decide for themselves, and they have done so. Of first importance, the Crow want to be recognized as a sovereign, self-governing people. Chairman Real Bird had much to say about this at his inauguration on July 1, 1988, and later he would pay a price for being "uppity" about Indian civil rights; an undeserved term in federal prison. I was invited to attend the inauguration and that evening Richard and I took time to sit alone together, to talk under a clear Montana sky and dream dreams for Crow Nation. Let me quote from his address at the inauguration. Real Bird's address: "We observe today a celebration of the inherent right to self government, which involves the right to elect officials and to inaugurate them. ... For I have sworn before you and almighty God, First Maker, to protect the women and children of the Crow Nation, to protect our rights and resources, and to uphold our Constitution. The world is very different now from the time when Chief Sits in the Middle of the Land accepted and declared before the U.S. Government Treaty Commission sovereignty for the Crows. But the intent is still the same, that the Crows shall regulate and control all that was within the boundaries of the Nation that he established. "This land that was described ... as being in exactly the right place today is still in exactly the right place ... "The Crow Nation cannot permit the foreign ethic of greed and avarice to replace the native Crow ethic of sharing and benevolence ... . "Nearly a century ago, my Great Grandfather, Chief Medicine Crow made the statement that "This land is mixed with the blood of my forefathers." ... For he understood sovereignty as God the First Maker gave it to all Crows before him, that with sovereignty came the right to determine your own destiny, to speak your own language, to determine your own culture, and to regulate and control your own land. "The survival of the Crow Nation depends on the protection and preservation of our land and natural resources, while maintaining our language, morals and cultural values, and by strengthening and improving our Crow Tribal Government. ... " Chairman Real Bird concluded with "let us depend upon ourselves, and the next generation for I now reaffirm the sovereignty of the Crow Nation." White ranchers don't like "uppity" talk from an Indian, which is why Richard went to prison. It should be obvious to you that the first priority of the Crow Nation is self-government. At present BIA holds their money, can veto their legislation and economic choices, and exploits and robs them. The State of Montana has had some success at taxing their coal and by this device much of the coal money goes to whites. Remember that the Crow land was NOT GIVEN to them by the United States. Their present land is a small portion of their original homeland that was NOT TAKEN by military force and intimidation. The full faith of the United States promised them the right to retain their remaining homeland forever, in return for yielding the greater portion of their land to the Federal Government, which they did. I have read the treaties; the Crow right to a homeland and self government was recognized by the United States as primal. It is important to understand that the Crow authority to self government is not a gift from the United States. The United States recognized what was there, a Nation-State consisting of self-governing people and their land. That's reflected in the Constitution and treaties. Tomorrow's history is based on what we do today. Sometimes I choke at the Pledge of Allegiance phrase with freedom and justice for all, because it is stated like an accomplished fact, while in truth there is neither freedom nor justice for many Americans. Let's honor our ideals, rather than fool ourselves with a myth based on lies. A simplistic (and wrong) answer to the "Indian Problem" is to dissolve the tribes, get rid of the reservations, and "allocate" the land to individuals, which will leave a "surplus" for sale by the Federal Government to favored friends. I tell you this is genocide applied, done to get the land to be exploited for quick profit. It is the most effective method ever used to destroy Native Americans. We must assume that Congress will try it again, and we must prevent it at all costs. There is no "Indian Problem," the problem is the white man's illness, greed for land and money. Indians need freedom from the Federal laws that castrate tribal government and restrain their police power and court system. They are a worthy people and before God I plead with you to let them live. They need your help, and I will ask you for specific help in the last chapter, to let Indians control their own destiny. The Crow Nation has established its own trust fund, and does not needs any "trust" services from BIA. The Crow can administer their own money and govern their own people. Perhaps we can learn from them, for their ancient and successful concept of government is truly of, by and for the people, a goal we lose sight of for ourselves. The Crow word for Chief, "isbacheeittuua," translates literally as "his man good," or rephrased in English, "good man." That designation is one earned by commendable acts and responsible behavior. Whites misused that term to mean that the Chief was a dictator who had the right to sign away tribal land, rather than just a person whose leadership qualities and status were admired by tribal members. Richard Real Bird may be a convicted felon, but his trial was unfair and his conviction unjust. Richard has earned the title of Chief, for he is a good man. The horses were sold. Richard had a beloved paint stallion for parades as well as to service his mares, and it was sold. There were more horses; horses from brothers, horses from cousins and horses from Whistling Water Clan Uncles. Lawyers cost money, win or lose, and the horses ran out before the legal bills did. Horses were the wealth of the Real Bird family, but Richard lost the horses he earned the hard way as a rodeo rider, and went to prison. BIA is a tough enemy, and it has unlimited purse strings when Indians or Whistleblowers speak out. The lesson is clear. You can complain a bit, but if you get loud BIA will bring you down as a lesson to your brothers and sisters to shut up and give in. Stealing from Indians is a way of life at BIA, BIA supervisors get their share, and the lawyers got the money from the Real Bird horses. There are funds and federal services due the Crow Nation according to treaty agreements and custom. As I see it, BIA's only function should be to issue a monthly check to the Crow Nation (as if it were a third world underdeveloped nation) for this purpose. The Crow can manage themselves without any "help" beyond that. But don't Indians sometimes elect crooked leaders who take advantage of their own people? Of course they do, and so does Chicago. Like non-Indians, they have a right to make their own mistakes. The odds for them to manage their own affairs are better than leaving them to the tender mercies of BIA and Federal politicians. Government works best close to home, and it is their right. They might want to redefine their method of government, which at present must follow a white concept rather than honor the Crow Way. After some time goes by and the Crow Nation becomes self supporting, it might want to refuse further assistance from the United States. That's up to the Crow, for they have the right to continue to receive federal funds for the indefinite future. It's a contract, not charity. You may wonder why Indians need trust services and protection for their land; is it because they are stupid or not competent to manage their own affairs? The Crow are as intelligent as any group of people I have ever met. The Indian ethic resides in each of them, and it includes sharing and kindness. If a Crow has a house and his neighbor needs shelter, he will invite the neighbor to move in. Food is shared even in hard times, down to the last scrap. The elderly are not forgotten. It is the natural way of the Crow to include outsiders within their greater family, and to assume that others speak honest words and are worthy of trust. But what happens if the outsider is grasping, and takes advantage of the giving nature of the Indian? It's not a theoretical question, because it has happened countless times. The white salesman says "if you are my friend just sign here, you can trust me," and leaves with the Indian's property. Is the Indian a fool, and doesn't he learn from this violation of his trust? He is no fool, and is dismayed by the action, but yes, he would do it again. Gentle People need protection from the selfish, but if they have the full right to self government, they will no longer be victims. You are thinking that the Crow will immediately rip up their land to get at the coal, and then live like kings. I tell you many of them would prefer to leave it in the ground forever, and feel they have no right to disturb the earth. In 1992, the tribe was presented with what appears to be a politically sponsored "deal" to sell their coal through Arch Minerals Corporation, and they voted it down. I believe they will develop their assets with great care and respect for the environment, and it is possible they will do nothing at all. The coal is a mixed blessing, for it makes them a target of those who want quick money and have no concern for the land. The Crow can choose for themselves, it is their right. The specifics for the Crow Nation will be described further on. We will return their political and legal sovereignty, and provide a way to restore the essential part of their land. The issue of returning land is what will bring the most opposition, because in the eyes of our displaced European culture land equals money, which is cherished more than the rights of human beings, especially minorities. This gets us right back where we started Europeans were eager to kill Indians to get their land. My hope is that humankind has improved some since 1492, and that we now see Indians as part of "us" to be cherished, rather than a "them" to be victimized. The land I am referring to includes what remains of their minimum 2.2 million acres (what is generally thought of now as the reservation), and the parts of the ceded land that are still rural. This needs some clarification. There were two treaties that defined the limits of the Crow Reservation, with the last one in 1868 that reduced the area to a little over 8 million acres. During the time of pressure from the "cattle barons" more land was sold to whites, but the original boundaries of the reservation were not reduced, and in fact those later agreements restated that the earlier treaties remain in force. This makes it clear that the ceded lands are within the reservation's legal boundaries, but without owning the land, it's a moot point. The ceded land must be returned except for the parts that have been built-up with the homes and cities of non-Indian settlers. Much of it is in huge tracts of grazing land and wheat fields, what we would call corporate farms, and could be returned to Indian ownership with a very minimum of personal hardship. Displacing non-Indian households is something else, and must be done gradually and gently to avoid personal hardships. To Those who are Indian: This book is designed for non-Indian readers, but right now I want to speak to those who are Indian. You have been made into victims, and the present conditions under which you live are not your fault. Still you can't fully depend on your oppressors to right all wrongs, and there is something you must do to get out of the trap in which you find yourself. Please read once again the Oration to the Children of Plenty Coups. Key words there are that you must confront, you must unite, and you must "beat the drum strongly" so all will hear your story. History teaches that to win civil rights, the oppressed people must get off their knees and demand their rights loudly and repeatedly. Violence does not work, but gives the oppressor an excuse to return more violence. Stand together, confront the evil, beat the drum strongly and march together all the way to Washington, and if necessary do it again, then again, and then again. Move out of those square whiteman's houses, and back into "real" homes, the teepees, hogans and long houses. Recover your languages and traditions, be inspired by your own rich history, and look to your elders and "traditionals" for leadership. Leaders will appear from your own ranks as you need them, and non-Indians who care about justice will join the struggle, but confrontation and struggle can't be avoided. Let the whole world know your story. It is not necessary for more generations of Indians to die waiting for the whiteman's treaties to be honored. The late Horace Mann, often called the father of American public education, told his graduating students, "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity." Now I tell this generation of American Indians that too many have gone to their graves waiting for America's promises to be kept. Wait no longer, and be ashamed to die until Indians are free. Now I address those Elders whose years are drawing to a close, who might die too soon, before this is over. When you speak your last words, they should be something like this: The earth is not sacred while we are not free. Don't put my bones in the ground until the struggle is won. Let your children build burial platforms along the roads where the whiteman drives through. When you die, you will be wrapped in blankets, and draped with the flag or staff of your Indian Nation. Let your body give testimony that there is no place for Indians to rest until Indian Country is again free. Each day let your children gather around with the drum, to pray for freedom and justice. The whiteman likes symbols, let him count the bodies. The whole world will see this, and it will build pressure towards freedom for Indians. America's Indians have a right to freedom, and you and I can restore their human dignity. No person is harmed by this, and our great pride as Americans will be vindicated. The final chapter tells how to do this, and I pray for your help. CHAPTER 30 Federal Reform Throughout the book we found that our Federal Government is often dishonest, politicians are "on the take," the ideals of the Constitution are trashed, and there is little incentive to change a system based on patronage in the guise of democracy. Selling political favors is not democratic, and those who pocket money to sell us out are not worthy of the honors that accompany leadership. It is not commendable to slavishly lick the boots of a corrupt hierarchy, and yet too many Americans have been doing just that. Federal larceny of the poor must stop. I don't like revenge, and don't urge that the BIA culprits I have named should go to jail. Still, when people in power lack honesty, accountability and fear of punishment is the only way to stop malicious behavior. We are going to change the basic climate of government, and hold federal employees responsible for their actions, like all other citizens. End Sovereign Immunity: This third and final mission is to bring permanent reform to our government. The American Dream needs tending else this beautiful experiment in democracy will fall to some dictator. This legislation will be named the Hobbes-Henry Act, and it will get rid of the ancient and failed Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign immunity protects the government from liability, and access to the courts is denied. This must be changed - rights must be enforceable. Revelations continue daily in the news about dishonesty in government. One day it's a defense contractor and Pentagon employee, and the next day it's the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A friend showed me his documents revealing political graft in the Agency for International Development (AID), which exports corruption to developing nations as a prerequisite for financial aid. A difference in the AID case is that the complainant was an employee of a private contractor, rather than a federal employee, so his chances in our court system are much better -- he is not stuck with the limited rights of a federal employee, including sovereign immunity. Whistleblowers are thwarted, honesty is suppressed, and free speech is not available to federal employees. I'm sick of this, and I'll bet you are, too. Our federal lands are being rapidly destroyed in the name of short term profit, with the consent and approval of our federal politicians. This asset is the last of its kind, too precious to trust to the outstretched hands of politicians. National Trust: There should be a National Trust, a non-profit organization controlled by a board elected for life and beyond the reach of politicians. All of the land in our National Parks, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and similar land holdings should be transferred to that trust, and it should include the beloved Black Hills of the Great Sioux Nation. This portion of the Trust should be managed exclusively by and for the benefit of the Sioux. Existing cities and populated areas would be omitted from the trust lands. An advantage of the National Trust concept is that it gets rid of the corrupt Department of the Interior at no cost to the taxpayers. I will leave the National Trust concept for another book, or another author. The giant step towards correcting government corruption is the end of sovereign immunity. Government must be responsible for it's actions. The word sovereign has a regal sound to it, and well it might. It stands for ultimate, final and complete authority, the kind of thing we associate with God. Sovereignty became the private property of kings. They claimed their authority came from God and the church went along with the act. With the church proclaiming the right of kings to be divine, the king could do no wrong, and since the king's money (actually money taken from the citizens) paid for the courts, the king simply refused to let "his" court bring a case against the king or the king's agents. The Church claimed to own Divine power from God, crowned the kings in a religious ceremony, and passed the sovereignty along to the State. In turn, the State protected the Church and supported it with money taken by taxing the people. Both the Church and the State lived in splendor at the expense of the people they jointly suppressed. Philosophers valued individuals, and people were seen to have rights in addition to those allowed by kings. Both the Church and the State lost their exclusive powers which relied on ignorance of the masses. People learned that both had been taking advantage of them, and discovered they had worth and value on their own. In time new freedoms led to England's Magna Carta, and our Constitution. The State drew power from the people's consent, not from Divine right. Our Declaration of Independence declared freedom from King George, but King George is with us yet; English law brought with it the idea that the State could do no wrong. Like the Norway rat that infested ships and climbed ashore to prosper everywhere in the world, outmoded feudal concepts about law also made the trip from Europe to the United States. Our Supreme Court consisted of "English Gentlemen" lawyers trained in English law, and they declared years ago that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied here. It does NOT come from the Constitution, but lawyers found it difficult to conceive of a system where government would be held accountable for it's acts. The philosophy of the hierarchy and loyalty to leaders at the top (rather than responsibility to the citizens and their principles) crossed the ocean along with the English lawyers and the rats. Here and there, some "immunity" is appropriate. What about the judge who has to sentence a prisoner, or an executioner, or a President in command during a war? It's obvious that for government to function some immunities are appropriate. The problem is that the "doctrine" grants a wholesale immunity to every person employed in any capacity by the Executive Branch of Government. They are not accountable for wrongdoing if it relates to their job. This so called "doctrine" does not consist of a written law but simply an ancient rule that protected foreign kings and their agents from the objections of the serfs and peasants. As we approach the year 2000, this is still the rule in the United States, even though we have outgrown the idea of the Divine right of kings. We are not yet free from tyranny. We have produced a no-fault government that is not responsible to the people. This must be changed, and the needed law is described in the final chapter. As a nation we have developed beautiful principles and points of view which we think of as the American Way. The source of these principles are easy to trace, they come from religion and philosophy and are written into our Constitution and laws. It's normal to have a sense of pride in our country. We like to think that our government really represents all of us and that there is something wholesome about our national direction. If our elected leaders do things that seem contrary to this image, it's natural to give them the benefit of any doubt. Few of us have the time or depth of knowledge to question foreign policy matters. To raise questions or complain about national issues is seen as un-American. After all, if we are proud to be Americans, and our country did it, it must be right. But is everything really all right? If you look at smaller countries under our control or influence, things are far from good. We preach democracy yet support third world governments that suppress their citizens. What these countries have in common is a long history of U.S. influence, military dictatorships, a low level of education, and economic systems that, like our Indian Reservations, border on feudalism. After long experience with us, some, like Cuba, seemed to prefer Soviet influence over what we offered. If you take a close look more patterns are apparent. Similar to the old colonies that existed for the benefit of colonial powers, most of them have something we want, and we find a way to take it. Some provide military bases, others fruit or natural resources that we import cheaply, hence the term "banana republic." Instead of transplanting education and democracy to them, more often we provide military aid and CIA support to a series of dictators. We prefer the stability of a strong dictator (assuring a dependable flow of commodities and profits) over the turmoil of a slow transition to democracy. A feudal system is maintained, land reform does not happen and the education needed to produce a middle class and social reform does not materialize. Why do our leaders often seem to short-circuit what we see as the American Way? If there is a "conspiracy," I see it as the drive for personal and political money and power. Our elected leaders put personal or party interests ahead of the common good, and as loyal members of the hierarchy their subordinates "kiss-up" to their leaders, right or wrong, to ingratiate themselves and to seek favors and job security. This is justified with misapplied slogans like "duty, honor and country." The spoils system operates on an international basis as well as within our country, it is our shame. It takes millions of dollars plus substantial personal services to win elections. To get the services of campaign workers, there are implied promises of profitable jobs and contracts. It's no accident that former party leaders and fund raisers are appointed to positions of power. It's the very reason they became fund raisers or party leaders; there was a benefit in sight; a profit motive. Political and judicial appointments are passed out like keys to a candy store. Take what you want, old buddy, just don't be too obvious about it, and remember who gave you the key. The money needed for political expenses comes from organized sources, such as unions, industry groups and corporate officers. In other words, from special interests. As an accountant I've looked at hundreds of personal check books for decades, and I can tell you that relatively little money for political campaigns comes from individuals who expect nothing in return. Special interest groups are not successful in fund raising unless they can point out the benefits to be gained by the contributor. There is a profit motive, George Bush's quid pro quo. Give now, our candidate will return benefits to you. He or she understands our special needs; developing trade, opposing national medical care, cutting timber, or increasing wasteful military spending. This line of discussion could be expanded to fill a book, and there are books that do just that. In your own experience you probably know of situations where there is at least an appearance of a political payoff at the federal, state or local level. The concept of sovereign immunity is slowly on the way out. In many states it is possible to bring a suit against a policeman or a judge for heavy handed or dishonest treatment. At the national level, all we have developed in two hundred years is the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows claims against the United States in relatively limited circumstances. That's not enough. With just one Bill, we can take a giant step in favor of responsible and honest government. Federal politicians claim that their judgment is not corrupted by accepting money from special interests. In turn, the PACs tell their members that they are getting good value (quid pro quo) for the money. The President of my home state CPA society (Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants) wrote to tell me that this money "provides access" to gain the ear of the politician. If it is true that this money "provides access" to those who contribute, then they place themselves in line ahead of those with less (or no) money. Being "better recognized" as his letter also states, by definition causes others to be less recognized. To present ideas is one thing, but paying politicians is quite another. By this process citizens and voters have lost much of our democracy. If judges were to solicit and collect money from interested parties before hearing a case, we would be outraged. This diminishes the equality of the vote, and of democracy itself. It does harm to our fellow citizens. We blame the politicians who prostitute themselves, but we are also a party to it and all of us are cheapened. Getting rid of sovereign immunity will make federal graft illegal, and the PACs will die a natural death, with no one willing to accept their money. Federal financial officers will want audits, in the way that corporation financial officers do. Good auditing proves to the public that financial administration is not corrupt, and in that way it benefits those who manage money. Responsible corporate officers demand audits, and federal financial officers (when they are responsible for their acts) will also demand audits as a matter of self protection. Do you remember that unguarded cash box, described in the irrigation audits? If you were hired as cashier, and were responsible for the cash in the box, I believe you would insist that the box should be kept in a secure place, and you would not share the key with anyone. You would want an occasional audit, to protect yourself from any possible suspicion. And so it goes, when personal liability is applied to federal employees. The climate is one of responsibility. If you're still with me, then here comes the part where you can "step through the looking glass" and enter into the story. A quotation attributed to Margaret Mead is: "never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Like the hero Holden Caulfield in The Catcher In The Rye, we have a unique opportunity to save people at the brink of destruction. We will leave a mark on history, and be worthy of the respect of our children and future generations. CHAPTER 31 FREEDOM and JUSTICE "All of Buddha's teachings can be expressed in two sentences. 'You must help others. If not, you should not harm others.' It expresses the basis of all ethics, which is to cease harming others. His Holiness The Dalai Lama There is a story from World War II that lives on, about King Christian X of Denmark. The Nazi's had occupied Denmark, and planned a "final solution" for all Danes who were Jewish. All Jews were ordered to wear a yellow Star of David to mark themselves as targets for death. Now it was the custom of King Christian to ride alone on his horse through the public park each morning, and on the next day he wore the Star of David. Every Danish citizen understood this silent command, and they rallied to protect the lives of their Jewish neighbors, who were all saved from the horror that had been planned. It is a glorious story, and you can picture the King's gallant ride in support of those marked as victims. I'm told that the mechanics of the happening were not quite so dramatic, but in essence the story is true and it will be repeated forever by lovers of freedom. Now we have another story and the victims have changed, but you too have an opportunity to do a task fit for a King. It will happen or not, depending entirely on your good will. This is the final chapter of the book, and I want to thank you for joining me. There will be no good-bye's because I want to stay in touch with you so we can become the brothers and sisters who walk alone on a single path. Together we can accomplish the things that come from cooperative strength applied with compassion, and leave a mark of beauty on the world forever. The things that I propose we do together should offend no one, or at least no one worth our concern. The goal is to elevate humanity, insure freedom and survival for our American Cousins, serve justice, and leave the United States in better shape for our children. Together we can do that which honors the laws of God and man. The problem with urging civil rights improvements is that you must persuade people to take action, while doing nothing is less risky, and many prefer to straddle the fence and make no enemies. Remember that if our founding fathers had done that, this country would still be ruled by tyrants, it is necessary to take sides, and you need a few enemies. I believe you define yourself as a person not only by the friends you cherish, but also by the enemies you struggle against. Time to Join In: Since you have come this far, you are among the countless worthy people in this country who cherish principles that are above and beyond personal greed and self interest. I am relying on your great numbers, I congratulate you for being what you are, and now I ask you to become part of this story. In Lewis Carroll's classic book, Alice in Wonderland, there was a looking glass to provide a means for Alice to step into a new dimension. In that case it was a trip into fantasy, but for you the steps lead to the creation of a new and better reality. We will need structure and organization to accomplish change, and we must be practical, this is no Wonderland. Congress passes scores of laws each year to benefit special interests. As a former tax accountant, I am aware how complex this sometimes makes laws that would otherwise be simple. Much of this effort favors political supporters who pay our senators and members of Congress. Let's convert some of this selfish effort into work that serves justice and our national interests; the congressional staffs can do the work to draft the laws that meet our specification. The three areas of change I want you to become an advocate for have been described and supported in previous chapters. The first calls for the reinstatement of Julie Matt and myself. I want to recover my back pay, which I believe I have earned, along with my dignity which was assaulted, and be able to "walk the path" I have chosen for myself. The second issue is to provide an environment that will allow our Indian Nations to survive, and the final one is to end Sovereign Immunity. If you don't agree with all of this, at least part well might appeal to your sense of justice, and you can indicate your choices in a positive way. By doing nothing, you indicate disapproval. This leaves reasonable goals that can be accomplished through public pressure. Other than money, public pressure is what politicians respond to. We are going to apply massive public pressure that will force our government to make some very dramatic improvements. Now for the first and easiest step, personal justice. It will repair some of the damage done by BIA to Julie Matt and myself and establish a precedent that free speech is allowed for Federal employees. Both Julie and I were defeated by the appeals process, and my case was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, so the only avenue open on that issue is the executive power of the President. As Chief Executive, the President has the power to order BIA to restore Julie and me to our BIA jobs, with our back pay and allowances. Your part is easy, simply writing a letter, but if enough people do this the President won't be able to avoid the pressure; after all, what's so terrible about free speech exercised by American citizens who took a stand against fraud? I'll need a copy of your letter to add-up the results, so you'll need to make copies. One letter from one reader won't do, but hundreds, a thousand, a hundred thousand or a million will force a response. I need each concerned citizen to make his or her decision known. If both you and your spouse join in, please write individual letters to provide a maximum head-count, and if you have children who are old enough to understand the issues, please help them with additional letters. This could be an evening project for your family or neighborhood, and if there is a home computer available, it could be put to good use. The copies you send to me will be totaled to add pressure on the President, in case he drags his feet. Your letter may be the one that tips the balance. I'll divide this into parts, so you only need do what seems right to you. Your letter should be addressed to: President ..(name).... The White House Washington, DC 20500 and at the end, Copy to: Whistleblower In care of this publisher. (Address at front of book) Following your "Dear Mr. President," please insert what you approve of from the suggestions that follow. I'd like you to include every item, but leave out any part you don't agree with. 1.) Please issue an Executive Order to restore David Henry to his former BIA position with all back pay and allowances. 2.) The same for Julie Matt. 3.) Order the Department of Justice to investigate all violations of law described in Henry's book. Your letter would be a good place to ask for executive clemency for Richard Real Bird and Leonard Peltier (read In The Spirit of Crazy Horse). The President has the power to forgive Real Bird's conviction and to pardon Peltier from his present prison sentence. I told you about my friend Richard. As to Peltier, Amnesty International has stated that his trial was not fair, yet he remains in prison. 4.) Pardon Richard Real Bird. 5.) Pardon Leonard Peltier. The Constitution does not cancel the right of free speech for Federal employees, although common sense limits apply (such as for CIA agents on national security matters, etc.) and have been defined by the Supreme Court. In practice Federal employees are denied free speech. The reinstatement of Julie Matt and myself does make a positive example. If you want to take stronger action, add this: 6.) Issue an Executive Order stating that free speech applies to all executive department employees. Following your signature, print or type your name, address and telephone number. If you are willing, enclose a check payable to "Friends of Whistleblower" with my copy. I'll use any checks to follow up on the missions in this book. The check is optional, but your letter is essential. The second mission is to provide freedom for the Crow Tribe, empowering them to control their own destiny. All of the "solutions" of the past were designed to force Indians onto the "whiteman's road." We alienated them by making them pattern their lives after European standards. This will require an Act of Congress. The proposed law, the CROW NATION RECOVERY ACT, is in the appendix for you to read. The law recognizes that Indian Tribes are self-governing. I want to do this for all the large tribes, the place to start is here and the time is right now. We are back to the word sovereignty again, because it is useful. We see the bad meaning of it in "absolute," which in this country we partly limited with the Bill of Rights. Indians felt the concept had no relationship to them, because their government had no absolute rights to begin with. There are other limits on sovereignty; we see the need for free speech and limits on government oppression beyond our borders as well as at home, and that concept is growing. In centuries to come perhaps we will not have "one world," but instead share more enlightened ideas about liberty and justice that will elevate people to greater nobility than in the past. The first part of this proposed law clarifies the issue of tribal sovereignty. Tribal governments have the power to levy taxes, and are largely exempt from taxation by states, but the distinction has been left cloudy, prolonged court battles result, and the states and federal government chip away at Indian self government. The law will recognize Indian Tribes as our treaties do, and strengthen their inherent power to govern themselves. A difficult problem is that tribal rules for membership (citizenship) differ from the states, so we must consider non-Indian residents of reservations. Non-Indian residents can not vote in tribal elections, and complain about taxation without representation. It is their choice to be there, and they are subject to tribal taxes and authority. This is no different than if they decided to live in Canada, where they would be subject to Canadian law and taxes with no vote. If we need a reason for selecting the Crow as our model, we can say it is because they never raised the rifle against the United States. Before the coming of the white man, their prophets predicted the event and advised the Crow to be friendly with the whites, and they honored their prophets. The best fishing on the Crow Reservation is located below the dam on the Big Horn River, which clearly is the property of the Crow, our treaties left no doubt. The white "sportsmen" did not like to stop at an Indian office to purchase a fishing license from the Crow, who might say "no" or charge a high price. They went to court, and as you might guess the court said that the State of Montana owned the river bed, so whites did not need a Crow license to catch Crow fish. The State of Montana did not exist when the Federal treaties declared that this land with its rivers and water were the property of the Crow. Our law will bypass the Supreme Court to return the river to its rightful owner. Part I of the proposed law lets the Crow manage their own affairs, and gets BIA off their backs. Their present government is a monster designed by BIA, and I suggest they redesign it to suit themselves. Once again they can elect district (or band) chiefs, and have them sit in a representative council with a head chief or administrator, but what they do and how they do it is up to them. The next problem to deal with is the land held by whites, which makes Indians refugees in their own homeland. Here is what the treaty of 1868, between the United States and Crow Nation, guaranteed: (after describing the land boundaries)... and the same is set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the [Crow] Indians ... and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons ..." [except designated federal employees, etc.] "... shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the [Crow] territory described in this article ..." How do you reconcile that formal and binding promise with the situation today, where 95% of the Crow land is owned or controlled through leases by non-Indians? Obviously our Treaties have not been obeyed. The time has come to respect our national honor. They Crow kept their part of the bargain, now it is time to keep ours. Some of these Indian losses took place a hundred or more years ago, so the non-Indian heirs to the land should not be punished. After several generations you can assume they have learned to love the land and they have much of themselves invested in it. And yet, this non-Indian ownership destroys Indians, and dooms them to grinding poverty and gradual but certain genocide. With all possible kindness to the present non-Indian owners, the treaty-land must be returned to tribal ownership. The cost will be subsidized by the federal government, after all, the entire United States once belonged to the Indians, so we owe them something. We will keep the first thirty million acres of Crow land, so this is not "giving it back to the Indians," but just honors our final treaty. They get to keep about eight thirtieths (a little over one quarter) of their original land base as defined by the United States. Small farms and ranches owned by non-Indians can be kept for life, or they can sell out now if they wish. Large unpopulated parcels can be reclaimed at once by the tribe through eminent domain, but where there is a single non-Indian residence the square mile on which that house is located can be kept for life by the present non-Indian owner. By his method the tribe can buy back the land with credit provided by all of us, and at one percent a year the land should pay for itself. Uncle Sam will forgo any interest, and the method of payment is a bargain for the tribe. I believe this is fair. The tribes did not want to sell, and they were paid next to nothing in coerced transactions, to cover the fact that in many cases white squatters had already taken the land by force. The cost to the United States is small compared to "foreign aid," or money dumped on "pork" projects for the home districts of our legislators. The final section of the proposed law deals with trust services. BIA holds the whip, and we have learned that BIA is crooked. Trust services will be taken over by the tribe, bypassing BIA, which will leave BIA with not much excuse for continuing to exist. The Tribe presently contracts to administer some federal programs and services. There is a constant battle about how the money should be spent, and when the Tribe follows its own rules, the federal government calls it misapplication, fraud and corruption. The United States forces the tribe to follow the standards of a white dominated government. For the present these federal programs will continue. The Tribe will take over, and it will need latitude in managing (and determining eligibility requirements) the programs. Part III of the proposed law does that, and pushes BIA out the door. This is a great step forward. Indians, starting with Crow Nation, will have most of the attributes of statehood. They will be free from harassment, control their own land, taxes and police, and will have a chance to survive and grow. BIA will be off their backs, and a model is provided that other tribes can follow. Indians will be free, as we promised. O.K., so we have a proposed solution, an idea whose time has come, but how do we make it happen? It means putting someone else ahead of self interest, a thing history shows that many people won't do, even if they give lip-service to the ethic of caring for those who are less fortunate. We have to give this a lot of publicity, convince people that it's the right thing to do, and that it must be done now. Something you can do is to promote this book and get your friends to read it. Another is to join my "Friends of Whistleblower" group as described earlier, so we can lobby Congress effectively. This second mission requires a second letter from you. This time I will ask you to write your two Senators and your Member of Congress, urging them to sponsor and pass the Crow Nation Recovery Bill, and again to send me a copy.. The letter itself will have a dual purpose, covering both this mission and final one, so the letter it will be described further on. If enough of you write, the pressure on Congress will be impossible to resist and this will become a reality. Finally, the Indians themselves will have to push long and hard to get Congress to pass this law. The white ranchers, land exploiters (there are many) and racist groups will oppose us with slick words driven by greed. We must overcome hate and money with love and determination. Now you know what I am asking, and I ask for your help. There is no "liberty and justice for all" in these United States until our American Indians have their treaty promises kept. To those many Indians who have no chance for jobs because of the white man's illness, let all share one job. Work to regain your liberty, and the Indian land promised by United States Treaty. It's a job with no pay, but there is no work with greater pride. It will take your greatest effort, skill and devotion, but it creates a future for yourself and your children, and your struggle supports the dignity of all who yearn for freedom and justice. There can be no sacred ground in which to bury your dead until the Indian Nations are free. Greet the morning sun as one people. Let the drums sound on this Indian March to Freedom, and all future generations will honor your name. And remember - be ashamed to die until Indians are free. FEDERAL POLITICAL REFORM This is the third and last mission. You can't just pass laws to create responsible government. The root structure and climate must be changed, and by doing that everything else will fall into place. What we are doing will leave a mark on our federal government forever, and the mark is commendable. It is a legacy for our children, and will be the greatest advance of democracy in our time. The kings are dead; government is not absolute and people have intrinsic rights. Getting rid of the doctrine of sovereign immunity will make the federal government subject to the laws in each state for such things as fraud, theft, bribery and embezzlement, but that's not where it will end. Federal laws supersede state laws, so you can be sure Congress will write federal laws about misdeeds similar to those now used by the states, so that enforcement will be uniform throughout the country instead of varying from state to state. This will move jurisdiction to federal rather than state courts, but there is nothing wrong with that. One simple change will trigger this reaction, and responsible laws and better government behavior will follow. Sovereign immunity is an outmoded doctrine that has been reduced and chopped at but still lives. It protects federal politicians who take bribes, and it takes away responsible government. Federal officers, like children, are not responsible for their acts, and neither are their bureaus and agencies. This is a safe haven for crooked dealing, and leads to the horrors described in this book. Federal officers can commit crimes against each other or against citizens with complete immunity. You and I as citizens are responsible for our acts, and if we do harm to others we can be taken to court. We are responsible, and if our acts are done for a company or organization, it is also liable. People behave better when they are held accountable, and law provides penalties to control those who lack principles. Sovereign immunity was and is a mistake, so we must get rid of it forever. One simple law will take care of the problem. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who described the idea of absolute power as tyranny. His ideas were recorded over three hundred years ago, so it's about time we make this revolutionary change. In honor of Mr. Hobbes (I'd like some credit too) we'll call this the Hobbes-Henry Act. Some immunity is reasonable and just, but the Federal Government will have to pass laws about this that are subject to our review and control. Exemptions from liability might include such things as using "reasonable care" and due process. Positive laws are a better approach than the present blanket exemption from liability for all federal employees. It is not effective to advocate reform unless there is a way to get it accomplished. In spite of whistleblower laws, very few have received justice. Federal reforms move at a snail's pace, and sovereign immunity (with political patronage) has been a way of life since the United States was founded. Enough is enough. For the first mission, you could write that letter to the President. The final two missions require the passage of law, so for them pressure has to be applied to Congress. The Senate is the place to concentrate the effort. You can help with these final two missions by writing your second letter, this one to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. To get maximum effect, copy the two Senators from your state, and reserve a copy for me like you did with the President's letter. The address is: Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs Washington, DC 20510-6450 I'd suggest that your letter include the following: 1). Please sponsor and support the Crow Nation Recovery Bill. 2). Please sponsor and support the Hobbes-Henry Act to End Sovereign Immunity. That's it. Add "Copies To" and write in the name of your two Senators, and also my name and address (in care of the publisher) as given earlier, and don't forget your own name and address. If you are not a U.S. Citizen, I still want you to write because your letter will have moral value, although you have no vote. Just identify your country, and obviously you can't direct a copy to individual Senators. Your letters, the copies and postage stamps, can all be handled in a short time at little cost. The copies of both letters can be sent to me in one envelope, and you can include the copies from your spouse, children, friends and neighbors. If you have a computer or word processor, you might offer to help them with the preparation of the letters. Democratic governments don't survive if voters don't care or make their opinions known. Getting the President to act is probably easier that pushing the Senate and Congress, so follow-up effort will be needed until this is a done-deed. We need organization, and it will take time to accomplish all this. This book is a start, and I urge you to have your friends read it and join in. Tell your friends about this, loan them your book or suggest they get their own, and help them to get their letters prepared and mailed. The book and letters might be enough, but it will at least start the ball rolling, and be a catalyst for change. Write me in care of the publisher, or you can do that by just sending me copies of your letters. The publisher will forward your mail to me, and you'll be on my mailing list as a friend and ally. To take a stand, we will need to support or oppose individual politicians and actions by government agencies. No, we will not act like a PAC and pay money to politicians, but we need to reach voters, which means mailings, speaking engagements, advertising and use of radio and television. We will be competing with the negative pressure from special interests that see Indians as victims to be exploited. Please become a Friend of Whistleblower. I need your help and personal involvement. I promised you a way to step into this story , and now you have a way to make your judgment known. We will need to keep pushing, and your help will give us the courage to do that. As a friend, you will be welcome in Indian Country. Schedule your summer vacation to include a trip to Montana, and you can combine that once in a lifetime trip to Yellowstone Park with Crow Fair, which takes place in the third week of August . I want to touch your hand, so we may become friends and draw strength from each other. Write to me about Crow Fair. I will answer you directly, or ask the Crow Tribe to send you information. If there are enough people, we will organize packaged tours and solicit special rates through a travel agency, to provide the best possible trip for you. If you have children, bring them as well as your friends. You will discover that "real live Indians" are also real live people, who are kind, loving and deserve the right to survive in freedom and dignity as part of our culture and American heritage. In addition to an eye- opening experience and personal adventure, you may develop personal friendships with Indians or with the like-minded people who join us in the struggle to uplift humanity. Thank you for hearing my story. Aho. APPENDIX 1. IIM Trust Accounts Documentation supporting CHAPTER 3-2 Subject: IIM (Individual Indian Money) trust accounts. Other documents are quoted in the chapter. In date sequence. 04/17/86: Author's data: Account balance listing prepared by BIA employee Donna Boyer, in her handwriting and initialed by her, prepared at my request. It lists BIA General Ledger balances as of 02/28/86, compared to a Billings Area Office computer summary of the IIM records at the same date. The IIM account balance (net) is lower than the General Ledger balance by $6,313,815.50. 04/29/86: My memo to Bill Benjamin: "The first attempt to tie-in the G/L system to the in- house detailed records indicates a cash shortage as of 2/28/86 of $7,584,313.82." 05/08/86: My memo to Bill Benjamin: Recommended improvement in the IIM and Bureau [computer system] interface. Refers to Donna Boyer's report (above), and states "My first test of balances showed a shortage in IIM of about 7 million, and Donna's study came up with over six million dollars short." 07/28/86: United States Government Memorandum Addressed to Dave Henry, from Bill Benjamin: "This morning, July 28, 1986, you reported several items to me. You stated that at the last IRMS meeting you reported that there is a substantial shortage of cash in the IIM system. You also indicated to me that this had been reported to me on 4/29/86 and I had done nothing about it. In your 4/29/86 memo, on the second page, you stated `the first attempt to tie-in the G/L system to the in-house detailed records indicates a cash shortage as of 2/28/86 of $7,584,313.82, this might get reconciled or explained after some more investigation.' When I received your memo I discussed the "shortage" with Donna Boyer, IIM Supervisory Accounting Technician. Donna stated that after making accounting corrections and reconcilating, that there was not a shortage. "I appreciate your concern. A substantial shortage of cash is a very serious matter. You are here by directed to conduct a full audit of the 2/28/86 balance to determine the "hard figure" of the missing cash. This audit is to begin immediately." Signed: Bill Benjamin, Financial Manager 08/11/86: My 19 page IIM Report, in response to Benjamin's directive dated 07/28/86. From page 10. "The previously undetected difference amounts to a seven million dollar discrepancy." From Page 11. "Difference (short) $7,584,313.82" From Page 12. "The implication would be that BIA had collected money and kept it, instead of crediting it to the rightful beneficiaries. Major embezzlement could be hidden in this discrepancy." Page 14. Recommendations detailed a method to preventing the problem from continuing, an "immediate patch-up" which would allow for reconciliations, and a permanent solution to the problem. 09/21/88: U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General Audit Report 88-116 Title: Review of Selected Aspects of Trust Fund Administration By the Billings Area Office Bureau of Indian Affairs Summary produced from details listed on page 11, which listed the totals for five groups of IIM accounts. (Summary and conclusions are the author's) Rounded to nearest dollar (.00 omited) A.) Cash not credited to owners $34,273,005 B.) Cash short of owners balance 26,688,691 Net, A. less B. ................ 7,584,314 Gross, A. plus B. .............. 60,961,696 Author's comments: The amounts on the OIG audit agree exactly with my earlier reports. Net identifies the $7.5 million problem, and Gross shows an approximate cost to correct the accounts for Indians, before interest. There is no way to approximate the possible claims for unrecorded transactions, which might be much greater than the almost $61 million dollars (Gross) shown above. APPENDIX 2 Individual Indian Money Audit Responses - Source: Arthur Andersen & Co. Audit Progress Report Addressed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Date 2/20/89, page marked Exhibit V: Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act Exact transcript follows below. -- We have begun to receive replies to the negative confirmation requests sent out with the December 31, 1988 IIM statements. As of February 20, 1989 we received approximately 300 replies from account holders who disagree with their account balances, as reflected on the records of the BIA. The majority of the negative comments are from the Phoenix and Billings areas. (Approximately 40% each). The most common complaints are (in order of occurence) as follows: 1. Haven't received checks listed on statements or lease payments they believe they are due. 2.Haven't received regular semiannual statements, and in many instances, had never seen a statement prior to this mailing. 3. Have no knowledge of even the existence of the accounts confirmed. 4. Have no knowledge of the present lease terms regarding their property interests. 5.Can't get letters or phone calls answered when trying to get information from the BIA and individual agencies. 6.Social security # and/or address incorrect and can't get the BIA to take care of it. 7. Same person has 2 account numbers and has no idea what they are for. 8.Fluctuating lease payments for individuals and between family members who supposedly should receive equal amounts. 9. Individuals complain of errors, and incorrect or unreasonable lease payments; when brought to the attention of BIA personnel, they were told the errors would be corrected, but they never are. 10. BIA is unorganized, inefficient and mismanaged; some allegations of fraud. APPENDIX 3 INTRODUCTION: On April 6, 1988 I appeared on a two-hour radio talk show in Billings, Montana. Here is some of the dialogue from a recording of the Laurie Stinchfield Show on radio station KGLB. This is live conversation, so sentences string out and punctuation gets informal. Nothing has been edited from the station engineer's recording except where essential for understanding. We start on familiar ground, and have some interesting callers, not all favorable. THE LAURIE STINCHFIELD SHOW LAURIE: Now, on to the heavy duty business of the day, here on the Laurie Stinchfield Show. With me in the studio today is Dave Henry. Dave is a CPA locally and a former CPA with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Good morning, Dave. DAVE: Good morning, Laurie how are you? LAURIE: Real good, thanks. You call yourself a whistleblower, and you have a whistle around your neck. Do you want to explain the significance of that? DAVE: Yes, I do. I'm wearing the Sundance whistle, which has religious significance to many Indian People; many Plains Indians. It is reputed to have the power to blow away evil, so I blow the whistle at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings Area office. You asked me to blow it. I blow it for the Northern Cheyenne, for the Crow, for the Salish-Kootenai, for the Chippewa Cree, for the Assiniboine, the Gros Ventres, the Blackfeet and all the Plains Indians. LAURIE: OK, tell me a little bit about what your job was, because you got fired. What did you do for the BIA? DAVE: I was hired by BIA in October 1985, and I was to be a systems accountant, which means I check on things like how is money received, how does it get into the bank, how is it accounted for, do the books balance, things that don't sound terribly exciting. But, they are quite important; a matter of internal control, embezzlement and such. And, I found great problems at BIA. LAURIE: You found 7.5 million dollars unaccounted for or missing. Tell me about that. DAVE: Yes, that was one of four basic problems I found. It was probably the most newsworthy. It was picked up by the Arizona Republic in Phoenix as the lead article on Sunday, November twenty second last year. The front page had to do with my case with BIA. That's been picked up nationally. The report has gone to every Senator, every member of Congress in connection with my story and others about fraud against Indian People. A special Senate investigative committee has been formed and funded and I am quite sure I will appear before that [committee] in time. LAURIE: OK, now that 7.5 million. Where did the money come from and where should it have gone? DAVE: Well, first this was not government appropriated money, it was not tax money, it was not charity money, it was the Indians' own money earned from grazing fees, land rents, oil royalties and that type of thing. It's their own personal money. This money is collected by BIA as trustee, and supposedly with the high degree of care that trustees owe their beneficiaries, the money is deposited in the bank. And then, supposedly, credited to the accounts of the rightful owners. LAURIE: But that didn't happen. DAVE: Sure didn't. LAURIE: Well, what happened? DAVE: Well, I noticed that more money came in than went out, on quite a regular basis, and BIA skimmed money off like in Las Vegas, or criminal people might do. Money was skimmed off and placed in a central bank which happens to be in a central place, Albuquerque, New Mexico. So that 7.5 million dollars is real live money that is actually there in the bank, it belongs to Indian People, it has not been credited to their accounts and it certainly ought to be. LAURIE: OK, who was skimming the money, do you know? DAVE: That's a tough question. The books and records are so bad, they are child-like so it's really impossible to tell where the money went. Other locations, for instance the Area Office in Anadarko, I think that's Oklahoma, if I have my state right, the shortage is 42 million dollars for that area. An account has been found for a fictitious Indian person named R. L. Larson, kind of a joke name for larceny. [it appears that] the money was drawn out of there for business and personal purposes by the Area office administration. So that 42 million dollars has been spent. Pure theft, it was stolen out of there. LAURIE: But not by Indian People? DAVE: By BIA people, most of whom happen to be Indian but the fact that they are Indian doesn't matter much, BIA's connection is as a government agency, whether or not the employees are white or black or Indian doesn't matter much, it is a government agency, and the government as trustee has control. So really BIA if you like is a white man's organization. I use white in the Indian sense to mean all non-Indian people. LAURIE: I should mention at this point that Dave is not a Native American. You're from the East originally? DAVE: Yes, I am Caucasian, I have identified with Indian People. I think I am a friend, I try to be a friend and that will be judged in time. I can't speak for Indians, I speak about Indians and to Indians, and about BIA. I can speak with authority about the BIA; I have worked there. LAURIE: OK, let's talk about what happened. You found the 7.5 million dollars missing or not credited properly to the Crow Tribe? DAVE: Crow and all the tribes, there are seven, all the tribes located in Montana and Wyoming. They are administered by the Billings Area Office. LAURIE: OK, so you find the 7.5 million dollars missing, so what did you do? DAVE: Well, first I verbally told that about February, 1986 to my boss Bill Benjamin, who is the financial manager or head of that department for the Area office. He, of course first said I was wrong, then when I showed him on paper how this happened he said well OK, you're right, but it doesn't matter. And I, of course, said it did matter. And it went on in this way as a verbal thing until about April, and in about April 1986 since he was doing nothing about this, and I believed he had to do something about it, it was bigger than both of us, so to speak, I asked him to report this to higher authority. LAURIE: Did he do it? DAVE: No, he did not. So starting about April, I made report of this to him in a letter. And to make sure the letter was not ignored I logged it in so it became official correspondence. That's pretty silly because my desk was just outside his door, but to protect myself and make it clear that a report was made I wrote him a letter and sent it to the man in the next office. LAURIE: So to your knowledge, do the appropriate authorities in BIA know what is going on with this 7.5 million dollars? DAVE: Well, now they know, and now they agree. I had a letter from the Director of Operations, where he said yes I am correct, that the 7.5 million dollars, and down to the exact dollars and cents, where he said yes my finding was correct, but he doesn't agree to the cause. They say the cause is well, bookkeeping errors, whatever that means. LAURIE: So, they are trying to put it back on you? DAVE: No, I didn't do the bookkeeping. A reconciliation problem, we'll find out what the problem is. And he wrote to myself, and to Senator Baucus who was very helpful on this, and said well we'll have this account all figured out by the end of December, 1987. Of course they have not, and as of this day they don't have it figured out. LAURIE: Have they been audited? DAVE: There has been some auditing, yes, and when the auditors came to town, this was the Office of Inspector General out of Sacramento, California, happily they came to see me first when they got to town, we spent a half day together, and then I accompanied them downtown to the BIA to poke around a bit. Their findings come out the same as mine, they agree with the happening. In fact there were four happenings, I'm talking about just one of them, the 7.5 million dollars, the newsworthy happening. There were four happenings and they basically agree, at least mechanically with the facts of all those happenings. LAURIE: OK, so you were fired, and what was the reason that they gave you, we're going to let you go Dave, and here is why? DAVE: I was insubordinate, and I was disrespectful. And then there were some innuendos that I was hard to get along with, which perhaps I was. But I had had, in my roughly one year at BIA, I had had two very minor, very minor unpleasant discussions with two people, who I am now friends with and I was friends with at that time. The pattern in Bill Benjamin's dismissal letters always, I've read several of them, comes up with some innuendos like you're hard to get along with, you're arrogant. I've read several of these and they follow the same pattern. LAURIE: Was there anybody in your office who could back you up, or be on your team or corroborate what you were finding? DAVE: No, really I've told you the Department of the Interior now agrees, and the Inspector General agrees. But as to the cause, whether I was right or wrong they don't agree, and there is a put-down of BIA people from within by their supervisors. LAURIE: Do you have any legal action pending against them? DAVE: I have and I can't discuss that much yet. LAURIE: OK, we're going to take a break. With me in the studios this morning is Dave Henry, former CPA for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He's a whistleblower, it cost him his job. 7.5 million dollars of money that does not belong to the government, it belongs to our native American persons here in Montana. They didn't get it. What do you think about it? We're going to take a break. The number is 256-6300 if you want in on this conversation. You're with 910 AM, Information KGLB, I'm Laurie Stinchfield, this is my show, I'm here from about 8:10 every morning Monday through Friday, until about 10:00 am. We're going to spend a couple of hours talking to Dave Henry this morning. If you've got a question, comment or concern, get in on it. Stay with us, we'll be back. [commercial break] LAURIE: ... dollars had been misappropriated or not put where they should go, which is in the bank to collect interest for native American persons here in Montana. Tried to take it through the proper channels, lost his job because of it. Are you unemployed right now, Dave? DAVE: Well, right now I'm working for Van Pittack, a CPA firm on East Main Street. They'll keep me busy at least through tax season. But basically I've been long-term unemployed. I am 57, getting jobs is not easy when you point to your last job where you were fired for insubordination. That doesn't give much confidence to a new employer. LAURIE: Is there any appeals board or anything you can go to? DAVE: There are a couple of things. There is a Merit Systems Protection Board which was founded in about 1978, and this came as pressure from Ralph Nader, Senator William Proxmire and other people who decided there should be some ethics in government. LAURIE: That would be nice for a change. DAVE: I'm afraid it's not too effective. In the Merit Systems Board about 98% of the whistleblower complaints are allowed to die. They are not followed up. The Merit Board has investigated my case, they have sent people to Billings to interview BIA officials. The case is under consideration presently at the Washington office. There are also thoughts of criminal prosecution. I can't say much more about that right now. There have been criminal actions within BIA. The way they handle a whistleblower complaint is with denial, with deception, with cover-up, with out and out fraud, with suppression, with threats, intimidation and collusion. And ultimately with reprisal. You're fired, you spoke out now you're fired. You are the trouble maker, you are the problem. We don't look at the problem itself, we look at the person who describes the problem and speaks out about it, and we have to get rid of that person as a trouble maker. LAURIE: What do you think about that? Phone 256-6300 if you have a question or comment. And if this doesn't tick you off, you're a lot more stable that I am, because I am furious. DAVE: We can look at some of the problems of the Crow, right now. You know we look for badness somewhere down the road, in Washington or Iran or what have you, but there is badness in our own government right here in Billings Montana we have to deal with. How has this affected the Crow People? The Crow People have been driven almost to their knees, and I say hello to the Crow People. Call your friends and tune in this radio station. You read in the Billings Gazette about the Energy Assistance program being terminated. There are old people who are cold on the Crow reservation. There are people without heat. The WIC program, that means the Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program, has been cancelled. There are babies on the Crow reservation that are undernourished. There are mothers who are hungry. Something has to be done. BIA has been pushing the Crow to their knees. LAURIE: What would you say Dave, to the people who might say, and I've heard it so I know this sentiment is out there, these whining cry-baby Indians, why don't they get off their duff, get a job and quit sitting around on the government dole? DAVE: We're talking about the problems of the victim ... [interrupted by telephone call] LAURIE: What about discrimination, Dave? DAVE: Discrimination is rampant in Billings, Montana, and in Hardin, Montana. As an Eastern person I was raised never knowing an Indian so I was not taught the discrimination that I think western people get from their parents. It is quite a glaring thing to me here, I am aware of it and see it very often. I see it among people I would otherwise call very fine, nice white, by which I mean outside, non-Indian people. It is the common discrimination of blaming the victim for the problem. If you take away a man's pride, if you take away his chance for education, if you mock him for speaking his own language, if you mock his religion and his background finally he reaches some level of despair and hopelessness. That is where many Indians are today. The things that come then, we say drunkenness and irresponsibility, these are problems of the victim, and I don't think we should blame the victim for his problems but look at the root cause. LAURIE: There really is a problem with being Native American and wanting to succeed, because to do that you have to leave the reservation and if you do that you have to deny your past. So they end up in this no man's land. They're not white, the white society says why don't you get off your duff and do something, but we don't welcome them. And we want them to deny their heritage and be white- bred as it were so we can accept them. DAVE: Probably the majority of my friends are Caucasian, Spanish, black and so forth and when we talk about Indians everything is fine when we talk on a light level. When we get into anything of depth, angers flare. People get mad at me, my co-workers, people I deal with get mad at me because I defend Indians and speak on their behalf. I can't speak for them, but I speak about them and I defend Indian People. These non-Indians get mad at me and come up with the same old stuff, not in these words, that the victim deserves it. If you read the obituary column in the Billings Gazette you find that so many people that originated in this country are pioneering stock. Their parents or grandparents came here with the Army, or as pioneers, and at one time they shot and killed Indians like vermin. They treated Indians like coyotes or wolves, something to be destroyed. The children of these people tend to defend the action of their parents, and say the Indians got what they deserved. I hear the argument that every other country has done this. When a dominant race or party has come in to displace the natives, they have generally done it by force, and to the victors go the spoils. I agree that has been the history, and it has been consistent every place. But, I think as we become more enlightened people we talk about peace instead of war, we talk about brotherly love and Christianity, I think we have to redress some of these problems. You know, countries like Russia and others point out our horrible failures with our own people. One of these failures that every European knows is how we have treated our native American people. They are very aware of that. We as a nation have a bad reputation. LAURIE: 256-6300 if you want in with this conversation with Dave Henry, BIA whistleblower. No, he is not an Indian person, he speaks not for them, but about them and with them quite often. Dave, you blew the whistle at the BIA, you're a white person, you could have saved your job, why didn't you just shut your mouth when they told you to. DAVE: Well, I wonder that myself sometimes [both laugh]. It would have been the easy thing to do but I felt driven. I only had a few honest words to say, but I find honest words ring terribly loud, and I was surprised when everybody around me said shut up. As a whistleblower you are utterly and completely alone. Only sometime after leaving BIA I found out that there are other whistleblowers, other people have done this. LAURIE: And lost their jobs? DAVE: And lost their jobs. LAURIE: Isn't there supposed to be some sort of government agency that was set up for whistleblowers to encourage that, to fight government waste, to fight ethics or unethical people in government? I thought you people were supposed to be protected somehow. DAVE: Well, that's again back to this Merit Systems Protection Board. Yes, there are all kinds of nice laws in this area, but they are not enforced. Senator William Proxmire said the price of being ethical, now he's talking about whistleblowing, the price of being ethical is the loss of one's job, reduction in status and personal ruin. Now I've hit all of those things. [Proxmire continued] Rules of proper behavior need to be enforced in order to be effective. Well, they do. I have many moral and ethical things I try to live up to, certainly religion in a general sense. I think if you are going to practice religion whether you are Christian of something else, you have to try to do this. Brotherly love is not something you talk about, it's something you do. LAURIE: You do it, you live it. DAVE: There is a very high price, not too many people want to pay that price. LAURIE: 256-6300 with about four minutes to the break. I'd like to know that you're out there, I'd like to know what you think about this and as I've said if you don't agree, that's OK because that's what America is all about, being able to express your opinion. I get calls everyday and after the break, from people wanting me to be their personal Ann Landers, and I'm sorry folks I'm just not willing to do that. If you have some good comments, some good wisdom, why not share it with the others that are listening. DAVE: Monday evening I spoke at Crow Agency, and I felt quite honored. It was a closed meeting, I was the only non-Indian in the building. I spoke to perhaps three or four hundred Crow People. The most enthusiasm I received in my talk was when I called for the resignation of BIA Area Director Richard Whitesell. Richard, it you're listening, you're going to resign, if you don't we are going to get you to resign or we're going to get you fired. You deserve to go. I'm going to talk a bit more, naming names. People say, Henry you'll get in trouble with slander. Well, no I won't because what I say is true, and I'd just love Mr. Whitesell to bring a suit against me for slander so I could bring a counter suit against him for fraud, which is what Richard Whitesell is up to. So Richard, you should go, and take your friend Mary Jo with you. LAURIE: Mary Jo ... DAVE: Mary Jo Dimich, who's the queen of BIA locally, and her purpose in life is to serve as the hostess for Richard. LAURIE: OK, let's go to the phone lines and see what's on your mind this morning. Hi caller, welcome. CALLER: [male voice] I'd like to talk to Laurie. LAURIE: OK, I'm here. CALLER: OK, I just wanted to ask, was it Dave? LAURIE: Yep, Dave Henry. CALLER: I was interested to know whether the Indians were receiving funds to go up here to EMC [Eastern Montana College]. I know some students up there, and I was under the impression that they did receive, you know state money or from the government to attend college. So when you made the statement that they weren't getting an education I thought that their opportunities were actually better than some of the non-Indians. LAURIE: OK, Dave? DAVE: Come with me to Little Big Horn College. Little Big Horn College is originally a federally funded school. It is run by several very dedicated teachers, some Indian, some white. The purpose and program is beautiful, to educate Indian people. Look at the funding, it's been pulled. The money is cut, then the money is cut again, the money's cut again. The desks there often are packing crates. LAURIE: And you should also know that a lot of native American students, after they get out of high school, have had such a poor education that at a college level they can't compete, so they drop out. I had a friend who was teaching on a reservation around here, and teachers who were smoking pot, teachers who had sexually abused children, were hired at this school. It was the dregs of the earth, except for a few dedicated people like my friend. CALLER: Well, what I was interested in, is that a lack of opportunity or is that their cultural problem they've had because, you know. LAURIE: Some of that I think is cultural, when kids parents are drunk and they don't get them to school. Tell you what, we've got to take a break, can we get you to call us back and we'll continue. [station break]. LAURIE: Caller, Hi there, you're on the air. CALLER: [male voice] Hi, Laurie. My folks came off the ranch, between Custer and Hardin, and I'm not unfamiliar with some of the problems the Indians have had. However, I'm trying to walk a middle road emotionally. It seems like the government has grown out of touch with the people and is not responsive to the will of the people and it seems we no longer have a democracy but a government by committee, and the committee solution to any problem is to throw money at it. LAURIE: You bet. CALLER: The bad thing about it is, any Indian nation, they were a conquered people over a hundred years ago, and here we're treating them like they were children, as wards of the government instead of letting them make their own decisions, which should have phased out the BIA a hundred years ago also, and integrated these people into our society. As a resource, they're tremendously rich in cultural background, heritage and talent. We no longer see that. Instead we treat them like we're taking them to the baby sitter every day. The Crows that I know, and the Crows that work on the ranch and work with my folks, they also resent this attitude on the part of the government. It creates a tremendous disrespect for the government in the first place, and it does not do a thing for the ego of the individual in the second. LAURIE: Not one bit. CALLER: By handling it like that, BIA in the first place and government by committee, you no longer have an entity that's responsive to society. What we can do to get rid of it I don't know. It seems they're more concerned with job security than doing the job they were intended to do. LAURIE: Good point, very good point. We just bagged the break. Sometimes calls are too important to put on hold. I'm so glad you called. Anything else you want to share this morning? CALLER: I'd like to hear a response to that, and I don't think I am alone in my opinion. LAURIE: I think not. Dave? DAVE: We're talking about two areas. One is responsible government. Part of this is our laws came mostly from England and England had kings. They had a thing called sovereign immunity, that a king can do no wrong. Sadly, we brought many good things from Europe with us, English laws have a lot of value. We brought with us this doctrine of sovereign immunity, that government officials are not responsible for what they do, like children. You find this all the time, in dealing with Internal Revenue Service, dealing with federal officials, they can do about anything and they are immune from suit. I've mentioned crimes here done in Billings Montana by BIA officials. Why aren't all those people arrested? Why can't I go down to the police station, fill out a warrant for fraud, and get Bill Benjamin arrested? This is the great difficulty in the doctrine of sovereign immunity. There is a law called the Tort Claims Act which says that we will allow the government to be sued only for a few certain things. Fraud is not among that. LAURIE: Let's go to the phone lines now, and see what's on your mind this morning. Hi caller, welcome. CALLER: [female voice] Good morning. I think Dave is a very convincing speaker, and I have to agree with some of the things he says. But I worked with him. I think he's a disgruntled fired employee. I feel he's trying to use the plight of the Indians to further his own cause. DAVE: You're Jackie, right? [Bill Benjamin's former secretary at BIA] CALLER: You bet. DAVE: Hi, Jackie, how are you? CALLER: H,i Dave. DAVE: I'm not angry with you. CALLER: I am angry with you. DAVE: Fine, OK, say your piece, go ahead. CALLER: Go ahead, Dave. DAVE: Well, Jackie, you see me as being, if you like, insubordinate to my boss. I was not being insubordinate to my principles. I looked for something higher than Bill Benjamin. One, my accounting ethics say that you will disclose fully, which is a way of saying you will speak the truth. I spoke the truth and I was shut up for it. I was fired for it. CALLER: Oh, spare me, Dave. LAURIE: OK, Jackie, what do you have to say? CALLER: I have a lot to say. I think that Dave has gotten off on a tangent here. I think that a lot of the things he says about the Indians, I think there is a problem. LAURIE: But what about the money, Jackie, is he lying? CALLER: The money part of it, I think that should be investigated further, because I think that Dave doesn't have all of the facts. DAVE: Mr. Ragsdale, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, has investigated and says those facts are correct. The Inspector General of the United States, or more correctly of the Department of the Interior, I have his letter addressed to Senator Baucus, or perhaps Senator Melcher, I'm not sure, but he also says my facts are correct. LAURIE: Jackie? CALLER: Well, I'd like to see that. I would have to see that, because I think there are a lot of things that Dave has said that are unfair. LAURIE: Jackie, are you still working at the BIA? CALLER: No, I am not. LAURIE: Why did you get out? CALLER: Because I had other things to do with my life. LAURIE: OK. DAVE: Have you met Julie Matt, Jackie? CALLER: No, I haven't met Julie Matt. DAVE: She's a Northern Cheyenne woman who worked in our office prior to my being there. She was fired for raising issues about Docket ... [interrupted by caller] CALLER: I think that I should also mention that I am an Indian. LAURIE: Oh, OK, good. CALLER: So, I think that some of the things that Dave is saying, I think he maybe has his heart in the right place, but some of his facts I think need qualifying. LAURIE: Well, I'm so glad you called. Anything further you want to share this morning? CALLER: No, that's all. LAURIE: Thank you , Jackie. 256-6300, if you want in on this conversation. Back to the phone lines. Hi, caller. CALLER: [female voice] One gentleman caller said, we should integrate them into our society. How bigoted a statement that is. DAVE: Right, I'm with you. CALLER: It's as if their culture is nothing and ours is the greatest, and that makes me very, very angry. As to culture, we're just pushing ours on them. I would like the gentleman there to bring a little of this out. DAVE: I caught that. I wrote down that word integrated when the caller mentioned it. I agree with you, and I couldn't agree more. CALLER: I'd like to hang up and listen to him. LAURIE: OK, thank you for calling. DAVE: OK, integrated is a nice word, but what does it mean. It means to destroy the Indian culture and background. I don't think we have the right to integrate Indians. It is not for us to judge that they should be destroyed as a people. They are an endangered species. I think they offer some very wonderful things and it is for us to learn from them, not to require them to be like us. If I had my way, which I guess I won't, Jackie won't let me, I would encourage Indians to use their own names in their own language. We can learn how to spell their names. I think it is a shame for white people to have named Indians "whiteman" or "like a white man" or "almost whiteperson," things like that are terrible. That should not have been allowed. Crow People, I hope you will give your babies Indian names, not English names. Let's all be proud to be what we are. LAURIE: 256-6300, good calls this morning. I'm glad you're listening, and I'm glad you want to talk out. Do it some more. I'm not always right, I'll admit that. Let's go to the phone lines and see what's on your mind this morning. Hi caller, welcome. CALLER: [man's voice] Laurie, I'm the one that called earlier and made the comment about integration. LAURIE: OK. CALLER: The problem with the person you have on there, is he has a bad case of selective perception. If it doesn't fit his image, he refuses to address it in the manner in which it was meant to be taken. I apologize if I offended anyone, but the words I used were those of Mr. Real Bird, and his comment at the meeting was that we don't let them make their own decision. We treat them like second class citizens. Let them become what they truly are and that's Americans, we're all Americans. LAURIE: They were the first Americans. CALLER: Well, I don't know if they were the first Americans, or whether they were the orientals, or whether they came across the bridge from Alaska, or what. I mean I'm not a student of history. But, lost my train of thought. DAVE: You were also talking about sovereignty of Indians ... CALLER: Wait, wait, wait. I'm not talking about sovereignty of Indians, I'm talking about people that are Americans and they are of this country and they are in our society, we should work together as a single unit instead of in separate factions. And I see you as being a portion of the problem that is making people work in disparate fashions and separating the common goals and I agree with Jackie, I think a lot of this is self-serving. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. Thank you. LAURIE: You have every right to your opinions and I thank you for calling. Dave, your response? DAVE: Well I think women are women and should be proud to be women, they are also Americans and can be proud to be that as well ... [break in tape, I went on to describe Indians as dual citizens who are also good Americans. Indians would like to integrate in an economic sense yet retain their tribal sovereignty and their land. Recording continues in middle of call from young male Indian college student.] LAURIE: How do your fellow students treat you, do they think you are on the dole, are they jealous of you. CALLER: No, not really. They take me as a person. I excel in school, I'm proud to be going to Eastern [Montana College in Billings] and plan to get my degree here next year. I don't have any problems as far as other students saying you are getting money from the federal government. The federal government is setting the qualifications, and from there it is going down to the tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs. I don't think that's right, I think it [decision about qualifications] should remain with the tribe, and they should be able to fund their kids and we should not have to go through this [BIA and federal government]. LAURIE: Best of luck, my friend. DAVE: I think Indian people know that this idea of having lovely sounding government projects and then pulling the funding out, is in the area of government dirty tricks. Make it sound good, then take the money out of the program. Let them go hungry. The Women, Infants and Children's supplemental food program on the Crow reservation, God help us, has been shut down by BIA. There is no money for the impoverished. LAURIE: What's the reason for this? DAVE: BIA wants to drive the Crow Nation to its knees, and it's doing a pretty good job of it. Crow people, you're going to have to stand up and be counted. You're going to have to confront, and when Richard Real Bird gives you the word, you're going to have to march. END of radio talk show. In writing a book, it is necessary to think about the people who are likely to read it. Since the population is thin in areas where most Indians live, it seems logical that many of you will have little first hand knowledge from associating with modern Indians. I don't pretend to be the ultimate authority on the subject, but perhaps I can shed some light. I assume that you are a well meaning person who is looking for knowledge to develop a greater understanding of human rights issues that relate to American Indians. With that in mind, I try to look back to the time when I had no personal involvement with Indians and relate to you the discoveries that were meaningful to me. The callers raised some issues that did not get settled before time ran out. INTEGRATION: I was a little rough on the male caller who used the word integrate. His intentions might not have been negative at all, but the term is a trigger word and the female caller noticed that; so did I. The family land he described (between Hardin and Custer) is part of the original Crow land that is no longer owned by the tribe. Subsequent treaties reduced Crow borders, and it is apparent that his family benefited from what the Crow lost. I hear the word integrate often in conversations with white friends who suggest that Indians should merge into the mainstream and relinquish their tribal identities. The caller's comments about America and Americans seemed to follow that line of reasoning. There are other versions of that same story. It goes; my family came from (Europe or Asia), worked hard, saved their money, learned English and got ahead, so why don't the Indians do the same. Usually the second part of the story implies that Indians are of little worth because they fail to follow the specified integration pattern that leads to what is usually called success. The circle is complete; the victims deserve their plight. If you are sympathetic about the plight of Indians, you will need a response to that. As I see it, most of those who emigrated here came to escape some man-made horror, poverty or poor living condition in their former country. There was an implied bargain to give up old languages and national loyalties in exchange for the new. Those who were not escaping came for "free" Indian land or for the economic growth that resulted from the seizure of the land. Old loyalties to king and homeland were cheerfully abandoned. In contrast, by all accounts the Indians were content with their land and way of life. They did not choose to change or to move elsewhere, and in fact resisted with all the force they could muster. As many as twenty million American Indians were killed by guns and disease, so meeting the white man was not a joy. What many refer to as "American" really means transplanted English language, customs and values. The natural and original American language of South Central Montana, the Crow homeland, is Crow. In the fall of 1992 I began the study of the Crow language at Little Big Horn College in Crow Agency, Montana. Many western whites speak of native American languages with some contempt as if they were gibberish for the ignorant; a childlike prattle. Bigotry does not allow these whites to recognize that Indians have bilingual status, and as you should know, until recent years the missionaries and white teachers did their best to suppress native languages and children were punished if they were caught speaking their native tongues. I find Crow a complex but beautiful language, and after several weeks I'm at the stage of simple sentences like "the boy threw the ball," about equivalent to "Look, Jane, see Spot run," in English. All I was exposed to in the past was a little Latin in Junior High, and some Japanese phrases while overseas as a soldier, so I'm no judge of languages. My friend Sally Noe, who joined me in learning Crow, has several college degrees in language and is fluent in German, Spanish and several other European languages, plus a smattering of exotics like Mandarin Chinese and Icelandic. She has either made extended visits or lived and studied in several of these countries, and although she does not call herself a linguist, she has enough skill to make informed judgements about a language. Believe it - Crow is a full fledged language, beautiful, complex and expressive. Many of us forget that we were trying to run away from the society we were born into. We found the society that our own people had developed was so miserable that we elected to abandon it. A problem with this is that we brought with us the same culture that we could not live with elsewhere. In many cases the Indians saw us as carriers of both biological diseases (smallpox and others) and of diseases of the spirit, greed and avarice, the "white man's illness." I submit that there is a large measure of truth in that viewpoint; we carry a plague with us, our transplanted European values. History does not show that the meek inherit the earth, it records that the aggressive kill the gentle. By this process of weeding out less warlike groups we evolve towards a day when only two monsters remain alive, with their clubs raised to strike each other. I acknowledge that the Indians were defeated both in war and in the peace that followed. As a departure from the past, I believe they should be allowed to live. I tell you that we are continuing to kill them by less violent means and I ask your help in stopping this destruction. In this book you will see that I sometimes treat historical happenings as if they were current events. Ignoring the bounds of time is deliberate because I see history and current events as one continuous chain. Today you and I set the stage for tomorrow. Concerning mistreatment of Indians, I so often hear people say "that's not my fault," and the claim is that it was someone else far away, which makes the issue "not my problem." The exact same logic is used to explain away any responsibility for the holocaust directed against Jews in Europe. I just don't buy the idea that nobody is responsible for anything. If the horrors of the world were not done by us, then they were done by our cousins or by our ancestors. The problems and the attitudes that caused them are our inheritance and they are our responsibility. The lesson of the holocaust is that you and I are responsible for it, and that each of us is capable of repeating it. There was a holocaust right here in the United States, in fact a multitude of them in most or all of our States and colonies, and after a fashion it continues today. We have inherited the customs and values of those who committed past horrors and if we don't stop to question our old attitudes, we will pass them on to our children. English may be the dominant language, but there is nothing "American" about it. It is no more natural than Afrikaans (Dutch) in South Africa. American Indians are Americans, nothing less. It is their birthright to be here and to be Indian. The extent to which they integrate is a matter for them to choose. It is not anti American to have diverse cultures, diverse values, diverse religions and diverse languages. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness. SELF-SERVING: The caller named Jackie, who at BIA was Bill Benjamin's secretary, raised the issue of self-serving motives, specifically that I was using Indians to further my cause. I declared my motives in the introduction to this book. Motives are internal, and can't be proven or disproved. Actions are external and are subject to proof. I did take a $20,000 immediate reduction in pay from my employment as a CPA in California to work for BIA in Montana, and in past years in my private accounting practice I had produced much more than that. I don't claim that was entirely unselfish. In addition to a desire to work with Indians I also wanted to live in Montana, which makes the financial sacrifice a mixed bag. That goal was so mixed that I can't segregate the parts of it myself. If you like, you may call it entirely self-serving to select a desired job in a preferred location. I see the primary reason for getting into trouble with BIA was that I supported my professional ethics as a CPA. There is nothing unique or holy about that. The ethical obligation simply comes with the profession. I was not looking for trouble, the trouble was already present in situations that I did not cause. I was required to report the problems. Reprisal came from BIA. I felt it was not deserved and I was not willing to accept it graciously. Those issues were described in an earlier chapter. If you want to call my five or more years of protest as a whistleblower self-serving, that's OK with me. The problems I reported all have to do with Indians. As to actions, I have not asked Indians to spend time, money or effort on my behalf. There have been some unsolicited offers of assistance but I have accepted nothing beyond an occasional meal or shared feast. The most I have ever suggested (from Indians) is that if I got a federal court action underway, one or more tribes might want to file a "friend of the court" brief. The purpose of the brief would be for them to claim any funds that the court might award them, such as the missing IIM trust money, resulting from my court battle. I have not asked Indians to serve as witnesses or take any other action on my part. Each of the issues I raised has importance to Indians. The first time my specific problems with BIA were combined with general problems of Indians was in the newspapers. I did not write or plan the stories, the reporters did that on their own and they made a solid connection between me and Indians. The initial contact with the Crow Tribe was initiated by the Crow Tribe, not by me. That is true of most if not all other contacts with individuals or tribal groups. At this point, there was a definite merger of interests. I have become an advocate of the interests of Indians in general, and of the Crow Tribe in particular and I do not feel this is self-serving. My claim to be their supporter and ally is measurable and observable. I do not claim that they have joined my personal battle or that they support my personal cause. This review of what happened should put Jackie's questions about self-serving motives to rest. I am welcomed into the homes of Indian leaders where Jackie would not be accepted. Seeking justice for myself does not need to be explained. There is not much money in civil rights work, in fact none at all, so perhaps you question that. Why do Catholic priests, social workers and others endure self-sacrifice in the cause of serving humanity? Perhaps Jackie would say they are selfish scoundrels, interested only in their own souls or that their altruistic behavior fills some personal lust for glory. If humanity is served, does motive matter? I am not a leader of Indians, and do my best to avoid telling them what to do. The furthest I have gone in this direction is to (rarely) suggest methods Indians might use effectively to reach goals they have already chosen. I listen often and speak seldom. People who see what I have done as a valiant deed often have a personal need to transform me into a hero or martyr. I was not looking for that and I wince at such titles. I am simply an accountant who was doing his job, and when ethical behavior was opposed I went as far as I was willing to go with it, and followed where the situation led me. The situation was simply there, I was looking for nothing more lofty than public service, and I expected to be paid for my daily work like most people are. By chance, good fortune or environment I believe I have a relatively strong character, but I did nothing to deserve it. It is a gift rather than something I earned by merit, and all humans have inner strength or power to some degree or other. Many people live out their lives without meeting a situation that tests their strength, and I envy that good fortune. A test was there for me, and it hit me head-on. I believe I met my test with valor, and I have paid the price and earned the right to take pride in my behavior. Hero or martyr, no. I am a respectable man with a strong character, and you're damn right I met the test of that. I hold my head high and no man can call me weak or a coward. I would not have included this in the book, except to respond to caller Jackie's challenge, because taking the time to deny being self-serving is itself self-serving. I hope this covers the issue. Both in the radio talk show and in this book I recommend a civil rights march. That is a direct form of peaceful confrontation, and confrontation is, or at least at that time was, an announced policy of the Crow Administration. Marches and demonstrations were used with great success by Martin Luther King, Jr. and by Gandhi. At present, the Indian struggle for survival appears to be failing, so strong measures are needed. It is not for me to decide whether or not Indians will march. Such decisions are made by tribal members, whose wishes are relayed to their tribal leaders. I urge all tribal members to have serious thoughts about marching because marches work. If you decide to go, I'll come with you if invited. APPENDIX 4 AUTHOR'S NOTE: I want you to see exactly what the Supreme Court Justices read, omitting the routine parts of the brief. You will find repetition of facts you already know, but this will give you a look at the case exactly as the Supreme Court saw it. They were to read it and vote on it, so be thinking about how you would vote if you were one of the Justices. What follows is an exact copy of the arguments and evidence, although the various supporting documents referred to are not reproduced here. Where OW2S appears as a reference, it relates to an early version of this book, with the working title of One Whistle, Two Songs. United States Supreme Court Case 90-7189: F.) STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This case involves the absolute denial of personal civil rights, the unlawful acts of federal government officials, and the restraint on civil rights of minority American Indians. The facts of the case are simple and largely prima facie, i.e.; the events and facts are substantially proven by subsequent admissions by Agency and by third party documentary evidence provided with this brief. Petitioner, David L. Henry, CPA, is an experienced accountant and auditor who was employed by the Billings, Montana, Area Office of BIA during 1985 and 1986, for approximately ten months. My status was as a "preference eligible" (Korean War veteran) full time employee; an applicant for "career status" which would be automatic upon completion of the first year's employment. The job title was "operating accountant," but work descriptions [Ex. W-1] and assignments were in the nature of "systems auditor" and "audit coordinator." Assignments all related to auditing; to review, report, and recommend improvements within specified BIA.accounting systems, using the professional knowledge and judgement of a CPA. As audit coordinator, I was the person in charge of certain audit related responsibilities for BIA and the Indian Tribes within Montana and Wyoming; specifically to resolve problems raised in audits performed by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and contract CPA firms. My work as "audit coordinator" brought no problems, work as "systems auditor" is where there were problems. This was a newly created position, and I was the first and only CPA (or accountant) ever employed by the Area Office, according to the memory of the oldest employees. The speech referred to in this case was not gratuitous or uncalled for. The audit reports I issued [Ex. B, K, L] were directly assigned to me through my job description and work assignments [Ex. J]. I was required to issue reports concerning specific Indian trust accounts and activities within BIA. Repeated intimidation and threats were used to urge me to change the content of the reports. The changes, as specified in detail by my supervisor, Benjamin, would have concealed gross fraud, waste and abuse involving millions of dollars in cash missing from Indian Trust accounts, and similar additional financial abuses relating to Indians citizens. My only option was to either speak honestly or yield to intimidation and issue false and misleading reports. To do so would force me to: 1. Subordinate my professional judgement as a CPA; violate the code of ethics of my profession and violate my personal integrity. 2. Violate federal law by concealing gross fraud, waste and abuse, making me a party to existing fraud and apparent grand larceny. 3. Violate the Code of Ethics for Federal Employees. 4. Discriminate against minority citizens, in violation of law, by denigrating the property rights of American Indians as a disfavored race or class. This in turn would require me to violate my oath of office to support the Constitution. 5. Violate my sincerely held religious belief that "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This would dishonor God as well as humanity. I could not do these things, and refused. The reports I issued were honest and correct, as further proven by subsequent admissions by Agency, subsequent audits by the Inspector General, and a Senate Investigative Committee. In response, I was immediately reprimanded and soon fired in retaliation. I was financially ruined by these events, virtually unemployable with a destroyed career (fired for "insubordination"), and have spent over four years appealing this injustice, with no relief. - ARGUMENTS - THE CONSTITUTION - GENERAL: (Arguments): (Arguments are numbered -A- thru -D-) A-1. There are two parties to the Constitution, the government and its citizens; in this case the government and myself. The Bill of Rights has a single purpose - to protect the citizen from government. As a war veteran who enlisted and swore to protect it with my life, I have fully supported my part of the bargain and in this matter I have absolutely "clean hands," while Agency, as you will see, does not. I take the Constitution seriously; to me it is not something to be toyed with or bartered away, although I accept common sense and reasonableness in its application. Bivens [403 U.S. 388 (1971)] reflects this right. Where the laws (CSRA, et al), cases and doctrine clarify the Bill of Rights, I accept that as a helpful intrusion. Where they remove or obscure a right, they are null and void; unconstitutional, and as a party to the Constitution I do not agree to their de facto cancellation. I have fully honored my obligations to the Constitution, have clean hands in this relatively simple matter, and have not bartered away my rights. I respectfully request the Court to enforce the Constitution. THE CONSTITUTION - DUE PROCESS: (Arguments) A-2 Both the Constitution (Amendment V), and the Civil Service Reform Act, hereinafter CSRA [Senate Report 95969, Pages 24 and 40, referring to Sec. 4303] require Due Process, and the law specifically allows for constitutional considerations in the matter of firing federal employees. I submit that in my case there were grievous faults by Agency, including prima facie fraud and unlawful behavior (below), that clearly exceeds the bounds of Due Process. Carlson [446 U.S. 14 (1980)] held that a Bivens- type remedy is available even though allegations could support a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Davis [442 U.S. 228 (1979)] held that a cause for action is available under the fifth amendment. Fausto [484 U.S. 439 (1988)] held that although certain classes of employees are a disfavored class, there are remedies though "limited to those instances where the agency violates its own regulations." [p-451]. In contrast to Fausto, Petitioner was a preference- eligible and an applicant for the career service, and submits further arguments (below) as to status and cause. A-5 The discharge violates the policies of Agency. My audit reports revealed civil rights damages to minority Indian citizens, through funds missing from their trust accounts. Reprisal for these reports [Ex. P] is cited by BIA as a major reason for my discharge, which serves to deny Indians (equal) civil rights of property ownership. BIA's stated policy is to support the civil rights of Indians (BIA Employee Handbook, enclosed), described as "The Bureau's Mission," quoted in OW2S, CHAPTER 2, Page 7]. Here you see that Agency's policy was violated. A-6 Ethical behavior by government accountants is an established federal policy. Accounting, auditing and reporting standards are specified by the Comptroller General, General Accounting Office (GAO). The oft-cited federal "Yellow Book" is the federal standard, and in turn it refers to the well established rules and standards of the American Institute of CPA's (AICPA). These rules include the requirement of "full disclosure" in financial reporting, and my reports in all ways conformed to that standard. For BIA to prohibit this is a violation of established federal accounting policies. A-7 To conform to what BIA wanted (change my reports to conceal the fact that funds were missing from Trust accounts) would have required me to become a party to fraud and abuse, certainly beyond any "public policy" discretion. A-8 BIA used FRAUD in this discharge. Petitioner's supervisor, Benjamin, knew and fully understood that there were trust funds unaccounted for. He solicited assistance from BIA accountant Young to prepare a false report [Ex. N] stating that my reports [Ex. B, Ex. L] were in error. This important point is described in detail [OW2S, Ch. 3 thru 5] in narrative form, with references to enclosed exhibits. Young's report is cited in the notice of discharge [Ex. P]. Employing fraud to discharge an employee is beyond public policy discretion. My reports were known to be correct at that time by Benjamin, and subsequently have been proven accurate by third-party evidence. Each item in my report is accepted as accurate by Agency's highest ranking (non-political) employee, Director of Operations, William Ragsdale [Ex. YA-19], and/or later by audit findings of the Interior Inspector General [Ex. AF-4, AF-5]. This information and the exhibits are coordinated in the book [OW2S], chapters referred to above. A-9 The above fraud crossed state lines (Young was in New Mexico), and Young's report was "faxed" to Billings from that state. Several individuals were involved in this fraudulent scheme, which makes it RICO-type behavior (organized crime) [Title 18, U.S.C., CHAPTER 95, Racketeering] by BIA. Racketeering is beyond the Agency's public policy discretion, and should not be profitable for BIA. Also see Hobbs Act [Title 18, Sec. 1952] which describes extortion. A-10 Other unlawful behavior by Agency: Official federal records (minutes of Committee meeting) [Ex. W- 5] were changed by deleting my report relating to the missing funds, by BIA's Committee chairman, Pennington. This is described in narrative form [OW2S, Ch. 5, pp 6- 7]. His action violates federal law [Title 18, U.S.C., CHAPTER 101, Sec. 2071] concerning official records and reports, and connects to the RICO conspiracy described above. Certainly not good public policy. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 [42 USC 1983] prohibits the violation of civil rights "under color of law," as was done in this instance by BIA, both to me and to Indians. A-12 Racial discrimination, although directed at Indians rather than at myself. Please refer to the arguments on that subject. Violates BIA's official policies. (Argument C-1 et seq.] A-13 Constitutional issues were treated as "frivolous" by MSPB, in defiance of the law of the land. [MSPB decision, p-4, footnote], and this was Affirmed by the Appeals Court. This makes the Constitution "de minimus." Does MSPB have no responsibility to the Constitution? A-14 Is there no right to challenge fraud? A-15 There is the matter of the lack of "clean hands" by BIA. Although I am listed as the Petitioner, in fact I am defending against the aggressive acts of BIA, similar to a defendant, and I believe that the aggressor is required to have "clean hands" before the Court. For background about BIA, I suggest you refer to 2, the report issued by the Senate Special Committee on Investigations concerning BIA. The impetus for that investigation to take place came in part from my complaints, and a story about my case reported in the Arizona Republic newspaper. The Senate reported that: [p-3] (BIA) was "riddled with fraud, mismanagement and waste. Worse, ... federal officials in every agency knew of the abuses but did little or nothing to stop them. [p-8] "In every area it touches, the BIA is plagued by mismanagement." "Yet, the Bureau made little effort to avert this massive fraud and financial scandal." [p-10] "BIA's mismanagement is manifest in ... financial management of Indian trust funds ... and ostracizing the few capable employees who dared to speak out ..." It should be obvious to the Court that I am one of those "capable employees" who dared to speak out, and I submit that BIA does not have clean hands in this matter. B.) THE CONSTITUTION - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (Arguments) B-1: For people with sincerely held religious beliefs, personal and professional ethics must conform to some higher standard, that of religion, in my case the Judeo- Christian tradition. The state has no substantial and compelling interest to restrict honesty as required by basic religious tenants. I was not in a "sensitive" position, such as the FBI or military service. Yielding to my supervisor's demands would have required me to violate the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" [Holy Bible, Exodus 20:16], and I would not do it. It was not some trivial thing, a "white lie" that would do no harm to others; it would do great harm to a large group and class of Indian people. I spoke honestly with full awareness that it would cost me my job and bring me ruin. I'm not a saint, and admit that I wavered and delayed in the face of intimidation. Each time Benjamin called me into his office and directed me to "look again," and "it's just Indian money, it doesn't matter," I'd respond with an "O.K., I'll take another look," and I delayed my final report, hanging on as long as I could. But the challenge did not go away, and finally I had to meet it. To do what Benjamin wanted would dishonor my most sincerely held religious beliefs. We might argue all day about the nature of God; whether there is a conscious spirit, or if what we call God is simply the most noble yearnings of humankind, and I don't have the answer. However, if the question is whether or not I believe in God, my answer is "YES." B-2 Religious test for Office (Article VI): In a secular sense, we could look at the test I encountered as simply a test for corruption. Corrupt yourself, do what Benjamin demands, it's no big deal to change an audit report and you can keep your job. To a secular person, it would simply be a matter of trading off values, and self interest has a very high value. The problem is that I think of myself as a religious person, and religious standards go beyond self interest. If it had not been for that, I could have passed Benjamin's test. That is the dividing line, where the test becomes a religious test for public office. A secular person guided by self interest could have easily passed Benjamin's test. A religious person, guided by religious mandates, would absolutely fail it. All religious codes for conduct value honesty and integrity over lies and dishonesty. Therefore, it would absolutely eliminate from that office all people with sincerely held religious beliefs. C.) THE CONSTITUTION - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION C-1 GENERAL: In this case discrimination did not involve my personal rights, but instead my obligations under the Constitution as a federal employee in an Agency that deals with minority Indians. The subject of discrimination is difficult to divorce from matters of public policy and Due Process, or civil rights laws that prohibit interfering with the rights of others. Further, in this case it is stirred in with the common law relationship between trustees and beneficiaries. It is official policy for BIA to serve as an "advocate for the sovereignty and rights of American Indian tribes" [Employee Handbook], and yet my work assignments did not involve the aggressive advocacy of civil rights. In this situation it was a matter of double negatives - my supervisors wanted me to harm Indians, and I would not. C-2 The harmful act (changing my audit reports) would conceal the fact that Indian trust funds were missing and not accounted for, a very serious matter for Indians, the most impoverished identifiable class of people in the United States, who are clearly a racial and political minority. Indians had no way to withdraw money not credited to their accounts. At best, their assets slipped through some crack. At worst, the money had been stolen by the supervisors responsible for its safekeeping. Note that this was Indian money, with related trustee obligations for a high level of care. With the advantage of hindsight, allowing all benefit of doubt to the beneficiaries, the shortage in Indian accounts in the Billings Area Office is about 85 million dollars [OW2S, Ch. 3, p- 15], no small matter. C-3 For me to conceal this would denigrate minority Indians and violate the common law concerning trustee relationships. My supervisors, in attempting to make me do this, conspired to violate federal civil rights laws [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985]. In Berkovitz [486 U.S. 531 (1988), the Court noted that "employees of regulatory agencies have no discretion to violate the command of federal statutes ... " [p-534] I assert that the Agency did "hinder" or "impede" the "due course of justice, with intent to deny ... the equal protection of the laws" to Indians. [42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985] Clearly this is not a protected discretionary function. D.) THE CONSTITUTION - FREE SPEECH (Arguments) D-1 GENERAL: This is the common defense used by whistleblowers; the right to free speech. I will avoid needless repetition -- the facts in this case are relatively simple, and most have been recited. Certainly an auditor's report is a form of written expression that relates to free speech. Ethical requirements, and the most pervasive rules of the CPA profession require "full disclosure." In lay terms, that means to report all material (substantial) matters, the bad along with the good. Whistleblowers are often called ethical resisters, people who feel a need to speak out on some (usually gratuitous) matter of importance. D-2 A clear difference in this case is that my speech was in the "line of duty," required, and directly related to my assignment and profession. I performed my duties fully, obeyed the ethical requirements of my profession, and obeyed both the spirit and letter of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. My reports were absolutely correct, which Benjamin knew at the time, and as subsequently proven by the attached documents which have already been cited. I did no wrong. D-3 There was repeated prior restraint and intimidation from my supervisor. Threats also came from Ellingson, that employees who "don't do what Benjamin wants don't last six months," and the like. The incidents of intimidation are too numerous to list, so I'm just describing the most blatant ones. Also see the narratives in the book [OW2S Ch. 5]. D-4 From the office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (Ross Swimmer), there came a RIF notice (reduction in force) that, amazingly, would have an effect on only one job -- mine. D-5 At that time, I did not know about Julie Matt, but her story shows that I was not the first to be intimidated and fired for honest behavior. The same was done to her [Ex. AB-4], in the same department, by the same supervisors, for the same reasons. See the book for Julie's story. [OW2S Ch. 3, p-19, and Ch. 6, pp 2- 6]. I have her sworn statements, and will offer them in testimony if the Court so wishes, and Julie is available in person as a witness. She was severely damaged, and deserved none of it. D-6 In addition to Julie there have been others, in the same department, treated in a like manner by the same supervisors for the same reasons. I was also not the last. They come to me, and it breaks my heart. I have listened to their stories and have seen their papers, and they follow the same pattern; all fired by Benjamin. It is the Malek-May pattern described in the Antioch Law Journal 1 [p-10], a method of breaking the law and defeating the Constitution by silencing honest voices. The various papers are similar, all imply personality disorders and offer one-sided slander that is not warranted. E.) JURISDICTION and TIMELINESS (Arguments) E-1 GENERAL: The Constitution is relatively eternal, and beyond time. Bivens [403 U.S. 388 (1971)] in turn cites Madison v. Marbury; that every citizen has a right to claim the protection of the laws whenever he has received an injury. Merit does have a relationship to jurisdiction - see the preceding arguments. "Rights are not meaningful unless victims can enforce their violations in the courts" [ 1, p-6]. The courts have held that damage actions against ... officials "are an important means of vindicating constitutional guarantees" [Imbler, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)]. I am a good citizen who has done no wrong, yet my rights have been invaded, and I have suffered serious injury [OW2S Ch. 5, pp 16-22] and [OW2S Ch. 7, p-6], and [Appeals Brief, Page 11]. My career came to a halt, and my professional reputation has been damaged with slander. E-2 The CSRA and the Senate Reports, which further describe it, clearly state that blowing the whistle honestly and on matters of importance is a privileged function that deserves protection, for employee and applicant alike. I believe this clearly transcends employment status, and would appreciate your decision on the matter. If there is no jurisdiction, then the law is defeated. E-3 If there is no professional privilege, the CPA can not honor "full disclosure," the lawyer can not issue a legal opinion, and the physician can not diagnose, without fear of reprisal. Employee status, as probationary or career, does not cancel the ethical obligation of members of the professions; it did not cancel my obligation to be honest. There must be access to the Courts on matters of ethics denied, else justice is thwarted and integrity a lost cause. E-4 In theory, perhaps I have (or had) some other avenue for redress, such as state civil and criminal laws concerning fraud and the like, but theory is worthless unless it works, and in my case it did not. Years have elapsed while I have followed the only practical route open to me, and meanwhile the statutes of limitations expire on civil and criminal actions. I have not delayed in seeking justice, and where it has not been open to me it is the government process I have relied on that is culpable, [MSPB Brief, dated 1/01/90, p-2], and Agency should not profit from that. If following that route causes excessive delay and slams the door to the courts, then there is no effective remedy available, and both the law and Constitution are defeated. E-7 A mere claim of "unacceptable performance" by Agency would allow of no challenge, no matter how far- fetched or fraudulent. This becomes an absolute; "magic words" used to stifle all integrity, with no response allowed. A lie should not stand without the possibility of challenge, yet to date it has prevailed over all appeals. H.) REQUEST FOR RELIEF I request the Court to remand this case to MSPB, with instructions to find for Petitioner. In the alternate, remand to U.S. District Court (Montana), with similar instructions. A jury might be useful! If the Court feels damages are justified, or punitive damages are necessary to prevent similar future abuses by Agency, then I will consent to that. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, a writ of certiorari should issue to review the judgements of the Merit Systems Protection Board and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this matter. End of brief, case number 90-7189. In response, the Court issued an order, dated April 1, 1991:: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. AUTHOR'S NOTE: In reading the court rules, one last appeal was available, a request for the Court to reconsider. Here is the content of that final brief. RECONSIDERATION BRIEF INTRODUCTION: It is not at first apparent that by denying certiorari this case becomes a precedent-shattering decision of the Court, yet I submit that would be the result. That will happen because large groups of people, and society as a whole, will be adversely affected if the case is not heard. Failure to correct this case will make the executive branch exempt from Constitutional controls, and will place reprisal above principle. It will reverse ethical standards and parts of the social contract that have been accepted by society for centuries. The decision will draw outrage from the religious community because it invades the jurisdiction of the Ten Commandments. If not corrected, there will be a great disturbance among our citizens and to our system of government. To avoid serious upheaval and great injustice, I urge the Court to reconsider it's decision to deny certiorari. ACCOUNTING PROFESSION: The accounting profession traces it's origin to the dawn of history. The third-party attest function (audit opinion) developed out of necessity and is essential for commercial and financial activity. The courts have never challenged the audit function, except where the auditor was dishonest or negligent, or the report failed at full disclosure. The underlying assumption is that audit reports should be accurate and honest, and fully disclose the situation reported on. Expert skills are needed and CPAs have a clear responsibility to the public trust. This produces the obvious; the CPA must never subordinate his/her judgement to the laity. In private employment as well as under contract, it is unethical for CPAs to associate themselves with financial deception. As it stands, this case would place the federal government in a unique category, different from all others. CPAs employed by government could be required to submit their audit opinions for prior censorship by lay supervisors, and the threat of reprisal could prevent honest reporting and full disclosure. As a man now 60, who has spend most of his adult years as an accountant, I am certain that my fellows would not consent to this, because it would destroy their stock in trade -- the independent professional status of the auditor. To submit would destroy the profession. To protect their own self interest, CPAs would (and should) disassociate themselves from federal government accounting, including government sponsored corporations such as TVA, RTC and the like. CPAs are intensely interested in this case. I have recent correspondence with the Chairman of the American Institute of CPAs. Chairman Rimerman stated: "... the AICPA is steadfastly opposed to the firing of any CPA for bringing financial irregularities to the attention of management ..." and he notified the Professional Ethics division of the AICPA. The Montana Society of CPA's officers, administrators and ethics committee members have all expressed great concern, and there was a similar response from the Ohio Society of CPA's (my former location). This case, if not resolved, will make headlines in the accounting journals, and it reverses the trend towards financial accountability within the federal government. The implications are enormous. I believe an auditors' boycott of government would result -- anything less would discredit the profession. The Court supports freedom of the press; the right of the news reporter to use honest words. Should not the financial reporter (the auditor), also be allowed to speak honest words (in assigned audit reports) without censorship and fear of reprisal from government administrators? MINORITY INDIANS: I pray that each Justice, and your Law Clerks, have read CHAPTER 3, and CHAPTER 5 (pp 3-5) of the book, One Whistle, Two Songs. It describes my audit findings and the fraud and reprisal used by BIA to silence that report. Indians are Citizens and do not deserve abuse from BIA. Since it's formation in 1849, BIA operations have resulted in repeated investigations and demands for reform. The Arizona Republic series "Fraud in Indian Country," the resulting Senate investigation, and news releases from the Associated Press and similar current reports, indicate that problems continue within BIA and that the general public has been made aware of them. Please refer to the Arizona Republic report on my case, attached. BIA misdeeds will continue, and there can be no meaningful reform within BIA if honesty is suppressed. The Court can not correct all injustices concerning Indians, but it can allow the single voice that spoke out honestly from within BIA to be heard. RELIGION: In the Supreme Court, there is a display of the Ten Commandments, one of which is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," and another, "Thou shalt not steal." It was apparent to me, an experienced auditor, that BIA supervisors had been stealing from the Indian accounts held by them in trust. I was fired when I got close to determining the methods, the amounts, and the supervisors involved in the scheme. My BIA supervisors insisted that I should change my audit findings, which would conceal fraud and require me to bear false witness to the detriment of Native American citizens. By allowing BIA to fire me for honest reporting, the Court sends this message: the demand for an Executive Department cover-up exceeds any obligation for Government honesty, and there is no individual right to honor the religious mandate for personal integrity. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: The Civil Service Reform Act was said to be the greatest change in federal employment law in almost a hundred years, and was to provide clear protection for whistleblowers. It simply did not work. After public outrage and legislative hearings, a supplemental law, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, was passed. It also does not work - honest voices remain silent in fear of reprisal. The problem is not the law. The law is not administered with good will; witness the deplorable record of OSC and MSPB. These are Executive Department agencies that pass judgement on other Executive Department agencies, a doubtful activity at best that ignores the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution. Without Court oversight, law enforcement fails. My case is clear, and not opposed by the Solicitor General. Denying certiorari is a warning to Federal employees that free speech is not allowed within Government; and the law will continue to be defeated. RECONSIDERATION: For the reasons set forth above, I ask the Court to reconsider it's Order of Denial dated April 1, 1991, and I request that a writ of certiorari should issue as described in my original brief. End of reconsideration brief. The Court issued an order, dated May 13, 1991: "The petition for rehearing is denied." APPENDIX 5 Proposed Federal law relating to the Crow Tribe of Indians. Brief description and purpose: Part I: Restores self government as promised by federal treaty. Part II: Recovers part of the original Crow Indian Reservation land. (About one quarter of the original land base recognized by the United States Government). Part III: Removes control by BIA, and allows the tribe to serve its members directly and unhampered by BIA. CROW NATION RECOVERY BILL Part I, Sovereignty PROVISIONS 1). The Crow Tribe of Indians is recognized to possess inherent sovereign power and exclusive legal, political, police power, water rights and jurisdiction over the Crow Indian Reservation, including the ceded lands. 2). Sovereignty includes activities conducted by the Tribe beyond the Reservation in accord with treaty rights, such as hunting, fishing, gathering, harvesting or extracting minerals, the products of such activities, and all tools and equipment necessary to perform them. 3). The Major Crimes Act shall not apply to the Crow Indian Reservation or its ceded lands, and the administrative authority of BIA over Tribal Police is transferred to the Tribal Government. 4). The Secretary of the Interior has no authority to approve or disapprove acts of Tribal Government. 5). The Tribe is exempt from state taxation, and tribal members may not vote in state elections. 6). Only tribal members may vote in tribal elections. 7). The Constitutional Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section I) shall apply to the Crow Tribe, and the Tribe is subject to the provisions of the United States Constitution where not expressly exempt therefrom. CROW NATION RECOVERY BILL Part II - Restoring Indian Lands PROVISIONS: 1). The Crow Tribe shall forever have the right of first refusal for all non-Indian land transfers within the reservation and ceded lands, including lands transferred by estates on account of death. 2). The right of eminent domain may be applied by the tribe at any time to purchase unpopulated land owned by non-Indians (within the reservation and ceded lands) that is not included within municipal boundaries. Unpopulated land is defined as any complete section (square mile) of land, as shown on U.S. Geological Survey maps, having no resident nonIndian households as of December 31, 1993. All Federal lands are included in this section, excepting National Parks, the Little Big Horn Battlefield and Cemetery, and the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. All such federal lands claimed by the Tribe shall be transferred to the Tribe by the United States at no cost. 3). The right of eminent domain may be applied by the tribe to any fractionated land (land that is divided among eight or more individuals, partners, beneficiaries or shareholders) within the reservation and ceded lands. 4). The tribe may purchase any land within the reservation and ceded lands that is offered by willing sellers. 5). All land that the Tribe elects to purchase shall be appraised, shall be purchased by the United States at the appraised value, and title immediately will be transferred to the Crow Tribe by the United States. The cost of appraisal shall be paid to the appraiser at the time of closing, as an operating expense of the United States. 6). The Crow Tribe shall reimburse the United States for all purchases at the rate of one percent of the purchase price annually, without interest. As security, the United States shall have a lien on the land until final payment is made, but the lien shall not be enforced before the date for final payment. 7). At any time that the United States has by default not appropriated sufficient funds to cover all land purchases, then the Crow Tribe may issue Crow Tribal Bonds to secure funds needed to purchase the land. a.) The Crow Tribal Bonds will be guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and interest and principal will be paid by the United States Treasurer when due. b.) Bonds may be issued with such terms and conditions as needed to produce the proceeds (to be held in trust until used) as required for land purchases. c.) As in paragraph 6). above, the Tribe shall reimburse the United States for the funds used for land purchases. Any related costs such as bond discounts and interest shall be paid by the United States at the appropriate time. CROW NATION RECOVERY BILL Part III - Federal Trust Services PROVISIONS: 1). All trust and other services formerly provided by or through BIA shall be transferred to the Crow Tribe within one year from the date of this act. 2). The Secretary of the Interior shall provide financial assistance, personnel and equipment as needed to provide for the orderly transfer of this responsibility. 3). The title to all real estate, equipment, supplies and vehicles owned by the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs and regularly located within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation and ceded lands shall be transferred to the Crow Tribe of Indians. 4). Each month the Secretary shall compensate the Crow Tribe of Indians for all reasonable and necessary costs and direct overhead, plus ten percent (10%) for general administration, for providing services formerly provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 5). In determining eligibility requirements for federal programs, the Crow Tribe may use reasonable judgement in varying the requirements specified by each program to suit its own traditions and social customs, which are known collectively as the "Crow Way." 6). Federal support of public education shall remain unchanged until such time as the Crow Tribe levies and collects a general real estate tax to support the education of its children, at which time the State of Montana's obligation to provide public schools for Crow Indians shall cease. APPENDIX 6 Draft of Proposed Federal law to end the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in the United States. HOBBES-HENRY ACT 1). The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity shall not apply to the United States, in any state or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of the United States. 2). The Federal Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims brought under federal law against the United States, it's employees, officers and agents. 3). The Federal Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims brought under state laws against the state, it's employees, officers and agents, when brought by a citizen of another state. 4). The States have jurisdiction to hear claims brought under state laws against the State, it's employees, officers or agents, by a citizen of that same state. 5). This act shall not apply during a war or national emergency to the armed services or to the President 6). This act shall not apply to the National Guard while it is on emergency duty under orders of the governor of a state. APPENDIX 7 Recommended Reading List. By reading several of the books on this list you will gain a background in American Indian subjects and the topics covered in this book. The recommended books are mostly (but not always) free of anti-Indian bigotry. Many Indian books make the ethnocentric (bigoted) assumption that Indians should become part of white society, abandoning their unique culture, social and religious beliefs in the process, and assume that their is something evil about holding land in common for all to enjoy. Beware. AMERICAN INDIANS TODAY by Judith Harlan, Copyright 1987. Publisher: Franklin Watts/an Impact Book, 387 Park Avenue South New York, N.Y. 10016 In my opinion accurate, this book is an easy to read yet well researched description of current issues and conflicts faced by American Indians. It is a research work (no personal involvment by the author). THE AMERICAN INDIAN by Henry C. Dennis, Copyright 1971. Publisher: Oceana Publications, Inc., Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. Historical overview and summary. AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS by Sharon O'Brien, Copyright 1989. Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma Describes traditional Indian Tribal government, gives a good historical background of the demise of tribal life, and looks into present day tribal governments and tribal soveringty. Excellent historical summaries. APSAALOOKA - The Crow Nation, Then and Now, by Lloyd "Mickey" Old Coyote and Helene Smith, Copyright 1992/1993. Publisher: MacDonald Sward Publishing Co., Preservation Hill, Box 104 A, RD 3, Greensburg, PA 15601 Co-authored by my good friend Mickey Old Coyote, a father (clan Uncle) to the Real Bird brothers. Mickey, like myself, was a supporter of the Real Bird tribal administration, and does not conceal his honest anger at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BEHIND THE TRAIL OF BROKEN TREATIES by Vine Deloria, Jr., Copyright 1974. Publisher: Delacorte Press, New York, N.Y. In my estimation, Vine is the leading author on Indian subjects, and anything written by him is worthy. This book describes and defines genocide and urges that tribes be treated like nations in accordance with treaty agreements and the Constitution. THE BEST CONGRESS MONEY CAN BUY by Philip M. Stern, Copyright 1988. Publisher: Documentary describing Political Action Committees. Congress is being mortgaged to the highest bidder. Reader can look up the amount of "the take" for their own federal politicians. THE CALIFORNIA CONQUEST, by: Winifred E. Wise, Copyright 1967. Publisher: Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY Account of Father Junipero Serra and the California Missions, and destruction of the Chumash and related tribes in the name of Christ and civilization. THE FIGHTING CHEYENNE, by George Bird Grinnell, Copyright 1915. Publisher: University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 See Chapter 14 concerning the Sand Creek Massacre. THE GOSPEL OF THE REDMAN, by Ernest Seton, Copyright 1963. Publisher: Ernest Seton Seton Village, Santa Fe, New Mexico Compiles ethical, religious, civil and criminal laws and approaches by Indians. Ranks their cultural values very high. A compendium from many sources; religious with a broad view although it is slanted towards Christianity. IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE, by Peter Matthiessen, Copyright 1980-1991. Publisher: Viking-Penguin 375 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014 The story of AIM (the American Indian Movement) on the Sioux Reservation, the second incident at Wounded Knee, and the resulting trials of AIM leaders, including Leonard Peltier. INDIAN COUNTRY, by Peter Matthiessen, Copyright 1979-1984. Publisher: Viking Press, 40 W. 23rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10010 Sympathetic to the values of traditional Indians. Describes environmental damages of energy development and uranium mining. Finds large energy companies to be in conspiracy with wealthy whites and federal politicians. The land is destroyed and poisoned. LAND GRAB, by John Upton Terrell, Copyright 1972. Publisher: The Dial Press, New York, NY Excellent account of the exploitation and killing of Indians for land. Ruthless and factual, a different view of American History, a revelation to most Americans. THE WHISTLEBLOWERS, by Myron Peretz Glazer and Penina Migdal Glazer, Copyright 1989. Publisher: Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY A definitive work on whistleblowing, subtitled "Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry". Gives noteable case histories and describes the retaliation, anguish and despair that comes to those who fight corruption within the system. THE LIMITS OF ALTRUISM, by Garrett Hardin, Copyright 1988. Publisher: Indiana University Press An ecologist's view of survival, and an eye-opening ethical review about self-interest and the common good. NATIVE AMERICAN TESTIMONY, edited by Peter Nabokov, Copyright 1978, 1991. Publisher:Viking Penguin, 327 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014 "A Chronicle of Indian-White Relations from Prophecy to the Present, 1492-1992. As seen through Indian eyes and told through Indian voices". NIGHT, by Elie Wiesel, Copyright 1986. Publisher: Bantam Books Winner of 1986 Nobel Peace Prize, the book is a personal account of the Nazi Holocaust. OF UTMOST GOOD FAITH, by Vine Deloria, Jr., Copyright 1971. Publisher: Straight Arrow Books, 625 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 Doctrine of discovery, view of land ownership. Digest of federal court cases concerning Indians. ONE HUNDRED MILLION ACRES, by Kirke Kickingbird and Karen Ducheneaux, Copyright 1973. Publisher: Macmillan An account of the present state of Indian Lands, and a proposal for restoring some lands to Indians. UTNE READER, Publisher: LENS Publishing Co., 1624 Harmon Place, Minneapolis, MN 55403 Described as the best of the alternative press. I suggest you subscribe to this magazine, and also order a copy of the NOV/DEC, 1988 issue, or locate it in your library. That issue contains a masterful analysis of the concept of Devolution, about the need for survival of the many unique nations of diverse peoples. With this concept, there is bright hope for our planet, humanity is elevated and all people benefit from the survival of diverse cultures. In addition the July/August, 1992, issue discusses tribalism. VICTIMS OF THE MIRACLE, by Shelton H. Davis, Copyright 1977. Publisher: Cambridge University Press, 32 E. 57th St., New York, NY 10022 Development and the Indians of Brazil. Chronicles the mass murder and destruction of people to get at their land. There is involvement by cattle ranchers, timber interests and multi-national corporations, some with U.S. interests. WE TALK, YOU LISTEN, by Vine Deloria, Jr., Copyright 1970. Publisher: Macmillan Co., 866 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 Tribalism related to today's changing world. The last two chapters are a revelation. WASI'CHU, by Bruce Johnansen & Roberto Maestas, Copyright 1979. Publisher: Monthly Review Press Expose of "takes the fat" (greedy person) view of life. Describes and lists energy companies who with cooperation from the federal government exploit the resources and persons of Indians for financial gain. Details about uranium and coal mining and the tailings, fly ash and poisons caused by them.