Lakota Perspectives 


Page 2

Janis Schmidt

418 Griffin St.

Warwick, ND  48381



April 14, 2011


Weldon Loudermilk, BIA Area Director

Alice A. Harwood, Acting in the name of the Area Regional Director

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Great Plains Regional Office

115 Fourth Avenue S.E.

Aberdeen, SD  57401 


Re:     Objection  


Dear Ms. Harwood,


            We do really seem to have a problem with who decides my Appeal.  I think that is called fraud.  You have deliberately referred to a December 27, 2010,  letter as the operative Notice of Appeal.  That letter is a copy of the letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs, the correct person to decide my Appeal, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 2.4. 


            In my last letter, I clearly outlined my objections pursuant to  Rule 2.4, that one Area Director cannot sit in judgment upon another former Area BIA Director. The process in 25 C.F.R. § 2.4 is that the Superintendent’s decision would be appealed to the Regional Director, and the Regional Director’s decision would be appealed to the Board.  In my case, although I appealed to then BIA Supt. Larry Bodin, and received no answer, I appealed to the Area BIA Director, Robert Ecoffey, who, instead of answering, illegally placed the whole matter in tribal court to decide a Trespass issue without notifying me, the very essence of fraud.  Now you are adjudging former Area BIA Director, Bob Ecoffey, which is conflict of interest, obstruction of justice, and a violation of my First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to bring grievance to be heard with due process.


             Instead of a response to my objection, you dismissed the whole Appeal, stating because:


1.      A notice of trespass is not appealable.  25 C.F.R. 166.803©, citing Miller v. Rocky Mountain Regional Director, 39 IBIA 57 (2003)

2.      With the advice provided by our legal counsel, we are dismissing your appeal because the relief you seek has already been adjudicated the federal courts.  All arguments were considered and found unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal.


            My Response:

1.      I am appealing the lack of decision, not the notice of trespass, as is my right under 25 C.F.R. 2.8;

2.      Your lawyers made the decision to dismiss my appeal, whom you have not identified with name, address, and phone number, which is a violation of 25 CFR 2.4, 42 U.S.C 1983 conspiracy to deprive me of my rights, violation of my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, and my Fourth Amendment right to a fair appeal before my house is seized and destroyed, which is also Obstruction of Justice and violation of 18 U.S.C. 1505.



            You have left me at a grave constitutional disadvantage.  What with all the fraud involved in both my Complaint and my Appeal,  I have been denied my  First Amendment right to bring a grievance to the government for redress, which instead of considering, you summarily dismissed. I had a Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my home, and not to be seized and jailed, without warrant or hearing, all because the BIA refused to make a final decision on the Trespass, which is what I am appealing today, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 2.8.  I had a Fifth and Fourteenth right to due process, which was fraudulently denied when my house was seized, and is again being denied through the wrong person making the decision.  And currently, Robert Ecoffey, as Superintendent of Pine Ridge Reservation in having my house torn down, all to get rid of the evidence, as I said in my very first letter, which you did not address in your decision.  My property is being destroyed, and I have not been afforded any due process in the matter.  Included in my appeal was pictures of my house.  This demonstrates that your decision my my Appeal is a total sham, and ought not be tolerated in America.


            I demand that you give me the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the attorneys since they are the ones who made the decision on my Appeal, and not the Area BIA Director.  And I would like their reasoning clearly stated, along with the statutes they relied on,  so that I can address that in my Appeal of their decision.  Not to do so would violate my 9th Amendment right to know precisely the reasons were for dismissing my appeal, since the lawyers made the decision, and not you, which is totally fraudulent, and in violation of  18 U.S.C. 1505. 


            Considering that I did not receive this decision until April 6th, I presume that my Appeal of this decision is due on May 6th  which places me at an unconstitutional disadvantage, not knowing who made the decision, or what the decision was based upon.  I object.  Please provide clarification.


            Whatever happened to Loudermilk?  It is a conflict of interest for an Area Director to sit in judgment on a former Area Director.  It is a conflict of interest of Ms. Harwood, a former BIA superintendant to be deciding anything in this matter.  It’s another example of the government trying to pull a fast one on its citizens.





                                                            Janis Schmidt


Cc:       Senator Kent Conrad

            Larry Echo Hawk,  Asst. Secretary of Indian Affairs

Website Builder