Letter to the Editor,

I think it is important that Lake issue in Red Lake is resolved.   The federal government deals with tribes almost as a foreign nation, I think the politically correct term is “Domestic Independent Nation”.   The definition of treaty is, a written agreement between two states or sovereigns.   The name of our state, Minnesota is a Dakota Indian word meaning, “Sky tinted water”.   This state entering the union assumes or appropriates that they assert rights over all waters as United States Vs. Holt State Bank (1926) affirms.

However, an excerpt taken from the January 6^th, 1908, Winters vs. United States.   “Water rights of Indians are a vital issue as Indians seek economic development of their reservations, and the basic document on Indian water rights is this 1908 Supreme Court decision, Which decreed that where land was reserved for an Indian tribe, there was an implied reservation of the water necessary for the irrigation or other development of the reservation and that the tribe was not subject to the prior appropriation rule of the state.”   This right to water was amplified in Arizona vs. California (1963).

Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hempstead trespassed on Tribal Waters and the result was in favor of the Red Lake Band.   These charges and fines are under our civil code.   The words “found Guilty” are generally associated with criminal charges and should not be used.   Mr. Mueller has stated that he would like to take this case to Federal Court.   The only Federal cases that I came across so far in my research of jurisdiction and sovereignty issues have resulted from criminal proceedings.  

There are two cases, Oliphant Vs. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) and Duro Vs. Rena (1990) that support the fact that Tribal Courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-indians.   The Major Crimes Act would not apply in this case.   I do feel that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hempstead should have been charged with criminal trespass under the general crimes act and the assimilative crimes act, by the FBI who has jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country.   The General Crimes Act and Assimilitive Crimes Act, allow the borrowing of state law when there is no applicable federal statute.   These two acts protect tribal members from non- members and allow criminal prosecution in Federal Court of non-members in most instances.

Mr. Mueller claims ignorance to long standing recommendations of the Minnesota DNR.   GPS coordinates and maps are available and GPS equipment is strongly recommended when fishing on upper Red Lake.    Mr. Mueller’s involvement with P.E.R.M. makes this case suspect after the letter written by a DNR officer earlier this year.   Mr. Mueller wants to take this case to federal court over a fishing rod.   Mr. Hempstead is the owner of the boat, yet he is not making statements to the public and news media.    I just felt that I should make that clear to everyone.  

The Lake of the Woods is located at the border of Minnesota and Canada.   Since Red Lake and Minnesota own some land and the majority of the water in that particular area, should Canada be a respondent/defendant in this case also if it reaches the federal level?   The U.S and Canada have a border that divides the water that is similar to upper red lake.   Should Canada cede their rights to their portion of the water since the state of Minnesota supposedly owns the lake bed?   Maybe Canada should assume ownership of the entire lake because they own the smaller portion of the lake and lake bed?   

I don’t think that will ever happen and that will never happen to upper Red Lake.   The state of Minnesota recognizes Red Lake’s jurisdiction over the land and waters and it should left at that.   I find it hard to believe that our ancestors agreed to divide the waters of our lake in that way illustrated on every modern map.   However, that is another issue altogether.

Rodney Prentice Jr.

Red Lake Tribal Member