Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Casey Jackson, Petitioner v. United States

ORIGI NAL

03

No.

ThiEB

OV 23 2018

OFFCEOF( THE CLERK

F

EOURT U.S.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MICHAEL CASEY JACKSON

PETITIONER

-

(Your Name)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

US COURT OF APPEALS

-

SIXTH CIRCUIT

-

CASE NO. 18-1620

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MICHAEL CASEY JACKSON

(Your Name)

REG. NO. 26116-039

FCC-Yazoo City Medium

(Address)

P0 Box 5000

Yazoo City, MS 391945000

(City, State, Zip Code)

IN PRO PER

N/A

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Whether or Not a District Court Judge Can Restor Lands That By TREATY

Were Relinquished By Indians to the United States All Claims and Rights

They Possessed. Can He or She (They) RESTORE those Lands That Were

Relinquished Then Sold or Disposed of Back to Reservation Status or

"Indian Country' Without it Being an Act of Congress-

-1-

LIST OF PARTIES

[1 All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[XI All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

Mr. Roy Kranz

US Attorney

US Court of Appeals

For the Sixth Circuit

-

ii

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

.

I

JURISDICTION..................................................................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................. v

TABLE -10F AUTHORITIES CITED .......................iv

STATEMENTOF THE CASE ............................................................................................ 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........................................................................

................................................................ 4 d

CONCLUSION....................................................

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .....................5

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX

A

..........................

[United States Court of Appeals Denial of Application For COAl

APPENDIX B

[District Courts Order Overruling Objections, Adoption Report

and Recommendation]

APPENDIX C

[INDEX OF EXHIBITS]

4

EXHIBIT 1

Liot.-5 Treaty With Chipewa of 'Saginaw]

EXHIBIT 2

[Treaty With The Ottawa And Chippewa

-

July 31, 18551

.

EXHIBIT 3

[Treaty with The Chippewa :f Saginaw, Swan Creek, and Black

River

October 18, 1864]

-

-

EXHIBIT 4

[Government's Response Brief

-

Index of Exhibits] .......

EXHIBIT 5

[Isabella County Tax Detail For The Address of 1309 W. Pickard

Street, Mt. Pleasant, MI 49858 / Parcel #17-000-17-604-00 20171

EXHIBIT 6

[Certified Copies of the Land Patent For the Address cited above

Parcel #17-000-17-604-00-20171 ...............

-

lii

•;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

1082

DeCoteau, 420, U.S. at 436, n16, 43L.Ed. 2d 300,

Hagen V. Utah 510 U.S. 399, 411, 114, S.Ct 958, 127 L.Ed 2d 252.

Venetie, 522, U.S. 520, 140 L.Ed,2d 30 S.Ct 948, 98 CDOS 1335

4 d

4:d

4 c

Ellis V. Page (1965 CA 10 okia) 351 F.2d 250

Tooisgah V. United States, 186 F.2d 93 (10::cir)

Saginaw hippewa Indian Tribe V. Granhoia 690 F.Supp 2d'627

4 b

H

(U.S. Dist 6th cir 2010)

gnaw Chippewa Indian Tribe V. Granholm, (U.S. Dist 6th dr LEXIS

4

133496. Dec, 17, 2010)

Wood V. Jameson 130 N.W. 2d 95 (1964)

4 c

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

4 d

STATUTES AND RULES

18 U.S.C. § 1151 :.(Indian Country)

L:.18 U.S.C. § 1152 (Laws Governing)

treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw of 1855

treaty with the Ottawas and Chippewas July 31, 1855.

treaty with the Chippewa of Saginaw, Swan creek and Black River 1865

Article 3 Section 2 clause 1 of the Constitution

Article 1 Section.8 clause 3

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 3

Article 6 clause 2

OTHER

-

iv

-

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Article 1, § 8, Clause 3,

Article 4, § 3, Clause 3,

Article 6, Clause 2,

18 U.S.C.

SS

1151

-v

-

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[XI For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix A

the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[) is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix B

the petition and is

Jackson v. U.S.:: May 7, 2018

;or,

51 reported at 2018 U.S. Dist. LE:XIS 76445

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

j ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the petition and is

; or,

[ ] reported at

[] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

court

The opinion of the

to the petition and is

appears at Appendix

; or,

[ ] reported at

has

been

designated

for

publication

but

is

not

yet

reported;

or,

{]

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

to

JURISDICTION

[X] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

RZ2711R

was

[ 31 No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

, and a copy of the

Appeals on the following date:

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

II] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date)

(date) on

to and including

in Application No. _A______

___________________

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

II I For cases from state courts:

N/A

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

to and including

(date) on

Application No. _A_______

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

- 2 -

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A grand jury indicted Petitioner of Domestic Assault By An

Habitual Offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117. On June 24,

2016, a Superseding Information was filed and charged Petitioner

with Unlawful Imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, § 1151,

§ 1152 and M.C.L. 750.349b.

On June 24, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty pursuant to a Plea

Agreement. Petitioner pled guilty to one count of unlawful imprisonment. On January 26, 2017, the District Court sentenced Petitioner

to 165 months.

Prior to the Grand Jury Indictment, on April 27, 2016, Petitioner

was originally charged in the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal Court with

Family Violence, 2nd or Subsequent Offense Resisting Lawful Arrest,

Disobedience to Lawful Court Order, and Breaking and Entering. Petitioner was heard on the Domestic Violence by a Habitual Offender

Indictment on May 14, 2016.

Petitioner's ARGUMENT/ISSUE contends with the facts of the Case

Where the United States used 18 U.S.C. § 1151 to "Define Indian

Country as (a) all land within the limits of any Indian Reservation

under the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Government notwithstanding the

issuance of any patent. This resulted in the Indictment of Petitioner

under 18 U.S.C. § 1152 Laws.Governing.

Because Petitioner WAIVED his Right to Appeal and therefore no

Notice of Appeal was filed pursuant to a Plea Agreement.

- 3 -

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Petitioner.contends and conceded in his § 2255 Motion that 'the "land

was within the original six (6) Townships of land withdrawn from sale as

per the treaty of August 2, 1855 (Treaty. With the Chippew of Saginaw,

Circuit would

See Exhibit 1 ); (see also Appendix & R )(where the 6th

not debate the issues and where the district court denied Petitioner's

§ 2255).

-,

In Article 1, Clause 2, of-:the Treaty itstatd-, "under the same

rules and regulations, in every respect, as are provided by the agreement

(1)

concluded on the 31st day of July, 1855 A.D., with the Ottawas and

states, "It is

chippewas;'4 and in Article 1, Clause 2, of that treaty it

•also agreed that any lands within the aforesaid tracks now occupied by

actual settlers, of by persons entitled to pre-exemption, thereon shall

be exempt from the provisions of this article." AsinucI as 40',000 acres

Of land in the six (6) Townships and the Saginaw Bay Reserve had been

sold or set-aside before the 1855 Reservation, and thus was unavailable

for allotment to the Chippewas. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Granholm

690 F. Supp.2d 627 (U.S. Dist. 6th Cir. 2010).

The other treaty in question is the treaty with the Saginaw Chippewa

Swan Creek and Black River, dated October 18th in the year of 1864 A-D.

In relevant part of Article 1, Clause 2, it states, "the said Indians

also agree to relinquish to the United States all claim to any right

they may possess to locate lands in the lieu of land sold or disposed

of by the United States upon their reservation at Isabella."

Article 2. Clause 1. In consideration of the foregoing relinquishments, the United States hereby agree to set apart for the exclusive use,

six (6)

ownership, and occupancy. .all of the unsold lands within the

3

ee Exhibits

Townships in Isabella County.

)

In light of this Treaty, Petitioner or the government has not found

in any other treaties any mention that the sold lands are to be restored

back to the Indians or the government. On the contrary, they are to be

Treaty of

exempt in the 1855 Treaty, then they are relinquished in the

.

.1864.

']) Ehibit 2 treaty with tF..0tts ard (hips July 31 1855.

- 4 -

Petitioner can show that the reasons for GRANTING THIS PETITION are

due to the fact that the address of where the alleged offense took,place

is on land that was SOLD or DISPOSED OF by the United States- See GoverBrief Index of Exhibits IExhibit 4 )(where the United

nment's RESPONSE

States Attorney's.'Offices used mapquest to search for the address of 1309

West Pickard Street, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858.

This address is INCORPORATED within the City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Petitioner is providing the Isabella County "TAX 'DETAIL" for the

The TAX DETAIL' describes the legal

cited address- • See Exhibit

description as being: Parcel #17-000-17-604-00-2017 / A.sessors Flat #

1, Lots 104 & 105. This information can be seen ON-LINE at Isabella

Countvorg. 'Furthermore, in the attached EXHIBITS, there is a true copy of

the original land patent certified on August 24, 2018 by one, Mark Harvey,

the State Archivist for the Archives of Michigan. SEthThits 6 )

The date that this original,docurnent was signed was the 8th day of

February, 1858.. it statefl the iand was sold on the 8th day of September,

1856. That land being part of the "E" of the "NE" Township 'Y14" North,

Range "4" West 'Section "16" Parcel #17-000-17-604--00-2017.i The federal

government does not actively control the land in question, nor did not have

any control over the lands when they 1 were relinquished by the Treaty of

1864. The government never retained title to the lands' as acting guardian

for the protection of Indians living there.

This key information and facts establish that this land is not within

the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government.. See Ellis v.

Page,, 351 F.2d 250 (1965 CA 10 OKLA). "Land •is not within-limits of the

reservation whera.the tribes have a duly' ratified agreement ceded all

their claim, title and interest in the reservation to the United States."

Also, it is 'tone thing to open an. Indian Reservation to mineral exploitation

-

-

.

allotment to India-rid., and non-Indian home-steaders by Congressional enactpnb as in Seymour. It is quite another to agree by Treaty to cede and

relinquish all claim, title and interest in the land's within the limits of

a reservation." Relying primarily - upon Tooisgah VUnited'States 10th cir.,

F.2d 93 Id., at 251.

1,86

.

The most important evidence in treaties are the language used.

The language used in the 1864 Teaty states that the Indians also agree to

relinquish to the United States all claim to any right they my possess to

(4b)

locate lands in lieu of lands sold or disposed of by the United States.

This indictes that the land in question if we are to follow the language

of the treaty, would fall in the category of lands sold or disposed of by the

United. States.

The merriam-websterDictionary Define's Dispose of as 1 to transfer to the

control of another 2:to get rid of 3:to deal with conclusively.

When tI- Indians relinquished all claim and right they possessed in the land

to the United States and when the United States sold or disposed of that land

they would have lost any and all jurisdittion over said lands.

The most telling evidence of congress intent to diminish an Indian reservation

is the language used to open the Indian lands, any reference to surrender all

tribal interest suggest that congress meant to diminthh the reservation of the

lands that were relinquished to the Government.

On nov,23, 2010 Judge Thomas L.Ludington U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Michigan approved a settlement. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tri

V.

Granholn et, al.

The settlement declares the entire Isabella reservation to be Indian Country.

(U.S. Dist 6th cir LEXIS 133496. Dec, 17, 2010)

How can Judge Ludington approve a settlement that restores land that was

relnquished by treaty and then declare it Indian Country.

The Supreme Court in Venetie, 1998) 522 U.S. 520,140 l.Ed. 2d 30. s,ct

948, 98 ODOS 1335."held that because congress has plenary power over Indian

affairs under the federal constitution (art,1, 8,cl,3) some explicit action

by congress or the Executive branch, acting under delegated authority-must

be taken to create or recognize Indian Country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1151."

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3, of the constitution states "The congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and

regulations respecting thq territory or other property belonging to the

Urithted States; and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to

prejudice any claims of the United States;or of any State

No one can deny that the onstitution of the Unitdd States is the supreme

law of the land. Article 6, cl, 2, of the constitrntion s4tes that

-

4c-

"

The

S'mreme law of the 14nd and all treaties made, or which shall be made under

the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. "United States

Cons titthjion.

The Unthted States Supreme Court also draws its power from the

Constitution'." This Court's framework for determining whether an Indian

Rservation has beetf diminished is well settled and statts with statüoryi

text." Hagen v. utah, 510 U.S. 399,411,114,S.ct 958, 127 L.Ed 2d 252.

CONCLUSION

It has been held by other reasonable jurists and the jurists

of the Supreme Court that when Indian lands are relinquished by treaty they

are no-longer reservation lands or Indian Country subject to federal

jurisdiction

Petitioner can not be guilty of a federal crime on land that is no longer

federal lands or reservation lands.

He has shown that he is being held in violation of the constitution,laws or

treaties of the United States, and that the United States district court for

the Fstern 1istrict of Micliiigan,and the 6th circuit court of appeals is

in conflict with the decision of another United States Court of appeals on

the same important matter or issue.

The treaty was a signed and ratified document the

Language used was similar to that used in (ieCoteau, 420 U.S. at 436,n16,

43 L.Ed.2d 300.95 s.ct, 1082)

-

Also see Wi&J v. Jameson 130 N.W.2d 95 (1966) Supreme Court of South Dakota"

The track upon which the offense here involved was committed was -a part

of the land relinquished.., to which a patent was issued.

-

4d-

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Petitioner can clearly show

that the Government lackd subject matter jurisdiction and that this Honorable

Court can GRANT Certiorari, all in the interest of justice.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael C. Json/Petitioner

IN PRO PER/Affiant

111848

Date:

-

4e

-