Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brian L. Melson, Petitioner v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court briefDec 7, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

• i

Brian L. Melson

Petitioner

VS.

The State of Oklahoma

Supreme C~

°urt, U.S.

FILED

DEC 0 7 2022

£2ceofthecleRK

Respondent

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI,

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. $ 1257 (a)1

November 23. 2022

“ORIGINAL’ DATE SUBMITTED

December 21. 2022

“AMENDEIT DATE SUBMITTED

1 Mr. Melson provided his Tribal Registration and C.D.I.B. to the Trial Judge PRIOR to conviction, yet he was told “[will

never recognize Indian Jurisdiction in mv court”. Further, the Judge repeatedly called him a half-breed. The State of

Oklahoma has now implemented race and the most critical element in criminal proceeding(s) yet still refuse(s) to recognize

Indian Jurisdiction. This Honorable Court is “WE THE PEOPLE” only voice and we pray we hear you loud and clear. As

prior to trial, Mr. Melson presented all the requirements of the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in “Prentiss” [“United States v.

Langford” C.A.10 (Okla.) 2011, 641 F.3d 1195); & “U.S. vs. Prentiss” 273, F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2001)].

Page 1 of 25

MR. MELSON PRESENTS THE FOLLOWING QUESTION(s):

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask”'- Did Congress ever disestablish the Cherokee Nation and/or

Reservation as a sovereign nation, [within the State of Oklahoma]? If so what was the exact statute

and/or Act did Congress enact?

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask”'- When the [Fjramers of the Oklahoma State Constitution,

created and enacted Article I. $ 3. [ Unappropriated public lands - - Indian Lands - - Jurisdiction of

United States], did the State of Oklahoma and/or its Official(s) “forevef disclaim and/or waive

jurisdiction within Indian Country? 2

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask" [Although the Mr. Melson is Native], is Mace a critical element

in criminal proceeding(s) within the State of Oklahoma? Or will this destroy a century ofjustice

reform and the abolishment ofracism within our Jurisprudence! 3

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask" What Congressional Law/Statute grants Oklahoma “concurrent

jurisdiction ” within Indian Country, found within the borders of the State of Oklahoma? 4

2 As Congress took care to require Oklahoma to agree and declare that it wouldforever disclaim all right and title in or to ... all lands

lying within [the State’s] limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or nation. 34 Stat. 270.

Quoting the Honorable Neil Gorsuch

3 This question is extremely vital to the Petitioner’s case as he was personally racially discriminated against be the State Judge(s) in

this case. The Black Lives Mater Organization has completely deterred the Court(s) from racially discriminating against Americans

of color, (black), and the Courts have now turned their racism towards Native American(s). This “critical” element adopted by

Oklahoma will subject every citizen to racism for an eternity and/or until this Honorable Court removes the race from the elements

and mandates that the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction of Major Crimes Act and the Tribes have sole jurisdiction pursuant to

the General Crimes Act. Oklahoma simply has zero jurisdiction within Indian country, regardless of race.

4 This question arises from this Honorable Court’s ruling of “Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 {April 27, 2022).

Page 2 of 25

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND

LIST OF DIRECTLY RELATED PROCEEDINGS

•

Mr. Melson in this case is Brian L. Melson. pro-se [and no other(s)], PERSONALLY.

•

The Respondent in this case is the State of Oklahoma, who may be represented by and through

the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office.

•

The proceeding(s) of this matter arise from a “timely Bled post-conviction” that has been ruled

by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

•

As this Certiorari is filed in Direct Collateral Review of his post-conviction, pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. $1257 (a).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question(s) Presented__________________

Concise Statement(s) of Case: (Rule 14.1)

Parties to the proceeding

Opinions Below

Failure to disestablish the Cherokee Reservation

The Major Crimes Act

Cherokee Nation’s Treaties

United States Constitution

Question(s) Proposed

Reasons for Granting the Great Writ_______________

Denial of due process of law for all persons in Oklahoma

Conclusion

Prayer for Relief

Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

United State Constitution

Article III, § 2, cl. 3

Article II Clause 2

Article IV, clause 2

Article VI, clause 2

Page(s)

14, 19

Page 3 of 25

XII Amendment, United States Constitution

Congressional Law

Public Law 83-280

34 Stat. 270

Major Crimes Act, [18 U.S.C. § 1153(a).]

General Crimes Act

28 U.S.C.A. § 1257 (a)

18 U.S.C. s 1152 (1970)

Title 25 U.S.C. s 1321, P (a), (1970)

25 U.S.C. s 1323 (1970)

84 C.F.R. §1200 (2019)

25 U.S.C. § 1301

18 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1153

28 U.S.C. §1983

28 U.S.C. § 1746

18 U.S.C. § 1621

2, 7, 17

2, 12

3, 5

Treaties of Cherokee Nation with the United States

10, 11

The 1833 Treaty

The 1835 Treaty

The 1846 Treaty

The 1866 Treaty

The 1891 Agreement

Congressional Act of 1893

Cherokee Nation Constitution 1839 — amended 1866

Cherokee Nation Constitution 1975 - ratified 2003

Oklahoma Constitution

Oklahoma State Constitution Article I, § 3

Oklahoma State Constitution Article II § 20

2, 6, 7, 17,

18, 20, 21

Supporting Case Law(s)

“U.S. vs. Prentiss” 273, F.3d 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2001)_______

“United States v. Langford” C.A.10 (Okla.) 2011, 641 F.3d 1195

“Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 (April 27, 2022)

“Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department ofHealth, et al.,

Petitioners vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.” (No. IQ-1392)

“Roe vs. Wade” 410 U.S. 113 (1973)________________________ ._____________

“State vs. Littlechief Okl.Cr. 573 P.2d 263 (1978)

1, 19

2, 5, 17, 18,

Page 4 of 25

“C.M.G. vs. State” 594 P.2d 798 (Okl. Crim. 1979)

McBratney, 104 U.S., at 624_____________________

Draper, 164 U.S., at 247_________________________

Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 271 (1913)

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S., at 220

Cohen 506-509.

United States vs. Ramsey’, 271 U.S. 467, 46 5 S.Ct. 559, 70 L. Ed. 1039 (1926)

“Gideon v. Wainwright” 372 U.S. 335 (1963)___________________________

“Faretta v. California” 422 U.S. 806 (1975)___________________ ____________

“McGrit v. Oklahoma”, [(No. 18-9526); 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2022)]

Hogner v. State” (2021) Ok. Cr. 500 P.3d. 629______________________ ______

Holden v. Jay, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211, 237-38, 21 L.Ed. 523 (1872).__________

Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294, 297, 23 S.Ct. 115, 47L.Ed. 183

(1902)______________________________ ______________________________ ___

Cherokee Nation v. JourneyCake, 155U.S. 196, 207, 15S.Ct. 55, 39L.Ed. 120

(1894).___________________________ _____ _____________________________ _

Maxey v. Wright, 54 S.W. 807, 810 (Indian Ter. 1900)_____________________

Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 390, 22S.Ct. 650, 46L.Ed. 954 (1902).

United States v. Cherokee Nation, 202 U.S. 101, 105-106, 26 S.Ct. 588 50

L.Ed. 949 (1906)_______________________________________________________

Armstrong v. State, 1926 OK CR 259, 35 Okla. Crim. 116, 248 P. 877>_______

Cravatt v. State, 1992 OK CR 6, f7, 825 P. 2d 277, 280____________________

Magnan v. State, 2009 OK CR 16, ff 9 & 12, 207P. 3d 397, 402____________

Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 412 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994)____

Mattz v. Arnett 412 U.S. 481, 504, n. 22, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d (1973)

Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 488, 136 S.Ct. 1072, 1079, 194L.Ed.2d 152

(2016)_____________ _______________________ _____________________________

_Wooden, 142 S.Ct. at 1083 (Gorsuch, J., concurring)___________________ _

United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820)_______________

“Spears v. State” F-2019-330 (April 1, 2021)______________________________

7, 8, 9, 10,

11, 12, 16

12, 16

CONCISE STATEMENT(s) OF THE CASE

The Petitioner, [Brian Melson], was charged with:

The Mays County District Court case number is CF-2016‘408

•

Count One: 21 O.S. § 1123 and sentenced to 15 years in the Department of Corrections and

that sentence is to be served Concurrent.

•

Count Two: 21 O.S. § 1123 and sentenced to 15 years in the Department of Corrections and

that sentence is to be served Concurrent.

Page 5 of 25

On or about 21st dav of September, 2016the Prior Creek, Oklahoma police department arrested

Mr. Melson for the above count(s).

On or about 21st dav ofSeptember. 2018 Mr. Melson was physically and mentally coerced to

sign the State’s ambiguous plea of No-Contender.

On or about 4th dav of January, 2019 Mr. Melson filed an appeal out of time with Mays County

District Court.

On or about 4th dav ofFebruary, 2019 Mr. Melson the Mays County District Court refused to

provide an original certified copy of the order causing O.C.C.A. to refuse jurisdiction.

On or about 17th dav ofFebruary. 2022Mr. Melson filed a Motion to Vacate for lacking of

Jurisdiction.

On or about 20th dav ofSeptember. 2022 Mr. Melson the O.C.C.A. refused jurisdiction upon

case number PC-2022-427.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. £ 1257(a)

“Introduction”

Brian L. Melson, [a destitute, prose, petitioned, respectfully requesting a petition for a Writ of

Certiorari to answer his meritorious, auestion(s) that will have a profound impact upon the American

Scheme of Justice that will seriously affect the State’s, Tribe’s and the United States of America s

criminal proceeding(s).

The State of Oklahoma has declared and enacted their CRIT1AL RACE

THEORY5 in all criminal proceedings as a principle element of prosecution6. Since this Court’s ruling

of Castro, the State of Oklahoma has now mandated that race is the most essential and/or critical

5 The United States of America abolished slavery though the enactment of the XII Amendment on January 31, 1865. Yet, tribal

members are being enslaved to the State of Oklahoma by mandating race the most critical element in criminal proceedings. Further,

the State of Oklahoma is attempting to determine the date a Tribal Member “finally” received their Tribal Registration and C.D.I.B.

versus the reality that that person was and is an Indian since the date of the conception and birth. According to Oklahoma a person

obtain(s) all their Constitutional rights from the moment of conception, (prior to even a heartbeat), unless your native.

6 A direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the law”

Page 6 of 25

element in all criminal proceedings. In doing this, Oklahoma has destroyed over a century of justice

reform and the abolishment of racism within the United States and our judicial system.

The, [several], State(s) of the Union utilized “Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi

Department of Health, et al., Petitioners vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.” (No. 101392) to overturn case precedent7 of this Honorable Court and that is the exact strategy Mr. Melson

wishes to utilize in the overturning of Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 (April 27, 2022) and

enriching this Court’s ruling of McGirt by creating a retroactive constitutional order that empowers the

Tribal Nations with full and exclusive jurisdiction within its own territory, only to be concurrent with

the United States of America.

The, [several], States argued that Congress never enacted any Statutory and/or Constitutional

provisions enshrining abortions as a protected right of women. In the same aspect Mr. Melson alleged

that Congress has never disestablished the Cherokee Reservation nor did Congress ever enact any

Statutory and/or Constitutional provision granting Oklahoma “concurrent jurisdiction”.

As seen within the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state has known that it lacks

jurisdiction yet refuses to adhere to State and Federal Law(s).

State vs. Littlechief Okl.Cr. 573 P.2d

263 (1978) and “C.M.G. vs. Staid’ 594 P.2d 798 (Okl. Crim. 1979) possess the same language“Title 18 U.S.C. s 1152 (1970), provides that “Except as otherwise expressly provided bylaw, the

general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in anyplace within the

sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the

Indian Country.” Title 25 U.S.C. s 1321, P (a), (1970), passed in 1968, grants to the States consent to

assume, with the consent of the Indians involved, jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian

Country, and 25 U.S.C. s 1323 (1970), gives the consent of the United States to states to amend their

constitutions or existing statutes to remove any legal impediments to the state assuming that

jurisdiction. To date, the State of Oklahoma had made no attempt to repeal Article I, § 3 of the

Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, which prohibits state jurisdiction over Indian country, so the

federal government still has exclusive jurisdiction over Indian country located within Oklahoma

boundaries. ”

This Honorable Court has held:

“*24 The few occasions on which Congress has even arguably authorized the application ofstate

criminal law on tribal reservations still do not come anywhere near granting Oklahoma the power it

7 «

Roe vs. Wade” 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Page 7 of 25

seeks. In the late 1800’s, this Court in McBratney and Draper held that feral statutes admitting certain

States to the Union effectively meant decisions were, they took care to safeguard the rule that a State’s

admission to the Union does not convey with it the power to punish “crimes committed by or against

Indians.” McBratney, 104 U.S., at 624! Draper, 164 U.S., at 247. Indeed, soon after Oklahoma with

authority to try crimes “not committed by or against Indians, ” on tribal lands. Ramsey, 271 U.S., at

469; see also n. 5, supra; Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 271 (1913); Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S.,

at 220; Cohen 506-509. The decision whether and when this arrangement should “cease” restfed] with

Congress alone. ” Ramsey, 271 U.S. at 469. 8

This is even more so, evident as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is quoted as stating"In 1906, Congress sought to deliver on its treaty promises when it adopted the Oklahoma

Enabling Act. That law paved the way for the new State’s admission to the Union. But in doing so,

Congress took care to require Oklahoma to agree and declare that it would forever disclaim all right

and title in or to ... all lands lying within [the State’s] limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or

nation. 34 Stat. 270. Instead ofgranting the State some new power to prosecute crimes by or against

tribal members, Congress insisted that tribal lands shall be and remain subject to the Jurisdiction,

disposal, and control of the United States. Ibid. Oklahoma complied with Congress s instructions by

adopting both of these commitments verbatim in its Constitution. Article I § 3.

“Under the laws Congress has ordained Oklahoma may acquire jurisdiction over crimes by or

against tribal members only with tribed consent. But to date, the Cherokee have misguidedly shown no

interest in state jurisdiction. Thanks to their misjudgment, they have rendered themselves secondclass citizens.

OPINIONS BELOW

About McGirt - CMG - Hogner

As observed within this Honorable Court’s ruhng of “McGrit v. Oklahoma , [(No. 18‘

9526); 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2022)]:

Congress established a reservation for Creek Nation,'

Government allotment agreement with Creek Nation did not terminate Creek

Reservation;

Congress’s intrusions on Creek Nation’s promised right of self-governance did not

disestablish Creek Reservation;

Historical practices, demographics, and other extra textual evidence were insufficient to

prove disestablishment of Creek Reservation/

Creek Nation originally holding fee title to land did not make land “dependent Indian

community,”rather than reservation/

Eastern Oklahoma is not exempt from the MCA; and

Potential for transformative effects was insufficient justification to disestablish Creek

Reservation.

8 <■<■

United States vs. Ramsey”, 271 U.S. 467, 46 5 S.Ct. 559, 70 L. Ed. 1039 (1926)

Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 (April 27,2022) - Dissenting Opinion

Page 8 of 25

As this Honorable Court has answered the questions of the Creek Nation, however has never

addressed these questions about the Cherokee Nation. The State’s contumacy10 of this Honorable

Court’s Order(s) is quite apparent as the State of Oklahoma is still thrusting its jurisdiction over

Indian(s) within Indian Country. All this in despite of the Oklahoma Constitutional mandate,

limitation of jurisdiction within Indian Country.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rendered its ruling of “Hogner v. State” (2021)

Ok. Cr. 500 P.3d. 629:

“Regarding whether the crime occurred in Indian Country, the ORDER states that the

State of Oklahoma and Defendant/Appellant stipulated that the crime occurred within the historical

boundaries of the Cherokee Nation. The State takes no position as to the facts underlying the

existence, now or historically, of the alleged Cherokee Nation Reservation. In determining whether

Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation, the District Court stated that it

considered the following-'

The Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe. 84 C.F.R. § 1200 (2019).

The current boundaries of the Cherokee Nation encompass lands in a fourteen county

area within the borders of the State of Oklahoma, including all ofAdair, Cherokee, Craig, Nowata,

Sequoyah, and Washington Counties, and portions ofDelaware, Mayes, McIntosh, Muscogee, Ottawa,

Rogers, Tulsa and Wagoner Counties as indicated in Combined Hearing...

The Cherokee Nation’s treaties are to be considered on their own terms, in determining

reservation status. McGirt v. Oklahoma — U.S. —, 140S.Ct. at2461.

In McGirt the United States Supreme Court noted that Creek treaties promised a

“prominent home” that would be “forever set apart” and assured a right to self-government on lands

10 THIS IS OBSERVED through the countless press conferences held by Attorney General John O’Conner, [who lost the

elections due to his mishandling of INDIAN COUNTRY] and Governor Kevin Stitt who is quoted “/ was not going to be the

Governor who lost half of Oklahoma to the Indians!” and “/ will not allow half of Oklahoma to befederalized! Through

the Oklahoma election, Indian Country has been the primary topic next to schools.

Page 9 of 25

that would lie outside both the legal jurisdiction and geographic boundaries of any state. McGirt 140

S.Ct. at 2461-62. As such, the Supreme Court found that “Under any definition, this was a [Creek]

reservation.” McGirt, 140S.Ct. at2461.

The Cherokee Treaties were negotiated and finalized during the same period of time as

the Creek treaties, contained similar provisions that promised a permanent home that would be

forever set apart, and assured a right to self-government on lands that lie outside both the legal

jurisdiction and geographic boundaries of any state.

The 1833 Cherokee treaty “solemnly pledged’a “guarantee” ofseven million acres to the

Cherokee on new lands in the West “forever”. Treaty with the Western Cherokee Preamble, Feb. 14

1833, 7 Stat. 414.

The 1833 Cherokee treaty used precise geographic terms to describe the boundaries of

the new Cherokee lands, and provided that a patent would issue as soon as reasonably practical. Art.

1, 7Stat. 414.

The 1835 Cherokee treaty was ratified two years later “with a view to re-unite their

people in one body and to secure to them a permanent home for themselves and their posterity”. In

what became known as Indian Territory, “without the territorial limits of the state sovereignties, ’’and

“where they could establish and enjoy a government of their choice, and perpetuate such a state of

society as might be consonant with their views, habits and conditions. Treaty with the Cherokee, Dec.

29, 1835, 7 Stat. 478 and Holden v. Jay, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211, 237-38, 21 L.Ed. 523 (1872).

Like the Creek treaty promises, the United States’treaty promises to Cherokee Nation

“weren’t made gratuitously.”McGirt, 140S.Ct. at 2460. Under the 1835 treaty> Cherokee Nation

“cede[d], relinquish[ed], and convey[ed]” all its aboriginal lands east of the Mississippi River to the

United States. Art. 1, 7Stat. 478. In return the United States agreed to convey to Cherokee Nation, by

fee patent, seven million acres in Indian Territory within the same boundaries as described in the

1833 treaty, plus “a perpetual outlet west.” Art. 2, 7 Stat. 478.

Page 10 of 25

10.

The 1835 Cherokee treaty described the United States’ conveyance to the Cherokee

Nation of the new lands in Indian territory as a cession,' required Cherokee removal to the new lands,

covenanted that none of the new lands would be “included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction

of any State or Territory” without tribal consent; and secured “to the Cherokee nation the right by

their national councils to make and carry into effect all such laws as they may deem necessary for the

government... within their own country,” so as long as they were consistent with the Constitution and

laws enacted by Congress regulating trade with Indians. Art. 1, 5, 8, 19, 7Stat. 478.

11.

On December 31, 1838, President Van Buren executed a fee patent to the Cherokee

Nation for the new lands in Indian Territory. Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294, 297, 23

S.Ct. 115, 47L.Ed. 183 (1902). The title was held by the Cherokee Nation “for the common use and

equal benefit ofall the members. ” Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. at 307, 23 S. Ct. 115, see also

Cherokee Nation v. JourneyCake, 155U.S. 196, 207, 15 S.Ct. 55, 39L.Ed. 120(1894). Fee title is not

inherently incompatible with reservation status, and establishment of a reservation does not require a

“particular for of words.” McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2475, citing Maxey v. Wright, 54S.W.807, 810 (Indian

Ter. 1900) and Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 390, 22 S.Ct. 650, 46 L.Ed. 954 (1902).

12.

The 1846 Cherokee treaty required federal issuance of a deed to the Cherokee Nation

for lands it occupied, including the “purchased” 800,000'acre tract in Kansas (known as the Neutral

Lands) and the “outlet west.” Treaty with the Cherokee, Aug. 6, 1846, art. 1, 9Stat. 871.

13.

The 1866 Cherokee treaty resulted in Cherokee cessions oflands in Kansas and the

Cherokee Outlet and required the United States, at its own expense, to cause the Cherokee

boundaries to be marked “bypermanent and conspicuous monuments by two commissioners one of

whom be designated by the Cherokee Nation council. ” Treaty with the Cherokee, July 19, 1866, art.

21m 14, Stat. 799.

14.

The 1866 Cherokee treaty “re-affirmed and declared to be in full force” all previous

treaty provisions “not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1866 treaty and provided that nothing in

Page 11 of 25

the 1866 treaty “shall be constructed as an acknowledgment by the United States or as

relinquishment by Cherokee Nation of any claims or demands under the guarantees offormer

treaties,” except as expressly provided in the 1866 treaty Art. 31, 14 Stat. 799.

15.

Under McGirt the “most authoritative evidence of [a tribe’s] relationship to the

land... .lies in the treaties and statutes that promised the land to the Tribe in the first place. ’’McGirt,

140S.Ct. at 2475-76.

The District Court found that “as result of the treaty provisions referenced above and

related federal statues ... Congress did establish a Cherokee Reservation as required under the

analysis set out in McGirt v. Oklahoma. ”

The current boundaries, are the boundaries estabhshed of the Cherokee Reservation by

the 1833 and 1835 Cherokee treaties, diminished only by two express cessions.

The 1866 Cherokee treaty authorized settlement of other tries in a portion of the

Nation’s land west ofits current western boundary (within the area known as the Cherokee Outlet)

and required payment for those lands, stating that the Cherokee Nation would retain the right of

possession of and the jurisdiction over all said country... until thus sold and occupied, after which

their jurisdiction and right ofpossession to terminate forever as to each of said districts thus sod and

occupied.”Art. 16, 14 Stat. 799.

The Cherokee Outlet cession was finalized by an 1891 agreement and ratified by

Congress in 1893 (1891 Agreement). Act ofMar. 3, 1893, Ch.209, § 10, 27, Stat. 612, 640-43.

The 1891 Agreement provided that the Cherokee nation “shall cede and relinquish all

its title, claim and interest of every kind and character in and to that part of the Indian Territory

encompassing a strip ofland bounded by Kansas on the North and the Creek Nation on the South,

and located between the ninety-sixth degree west longitude and the one hundredth degree west

longitude (i.e., the Cherokee Outlet). See United States v. Cherokee Nation, 202 U.S. 101, 105 106, 26

S.Ct. 588 50 L.Ed. 949 (1906).

Page 12 of 25

Cherokee Nation did not cede or restore any other portion of the Cherokee Reservation

to the public domain in the 1891 agreement.

The original 1839 Cherokee Constitution established boundaries as described in the

1833 treaty and the Constitution as amended in 1866 recognized those same boundaries,

“subject to such modification as may made necessary” by the 1866 treaty 1839 Cherokee Constitution,

Art, 1, § 1, reprinted in Volume 1 of West’s Cherokee Nation Code Annotated.

Cherokee Nation’s most recent Constitution, a 1999provision ofits 1975 Constitution

was ratified by Cherokee citizens in 2003 and provides■ The boundaries of the Cherokee Nation

territory shall be those described by the patens of1893 and 1846 diminished only by the Treaty of the

July 19, 1866 and the act ofMar. 3, 1893. 1999 Cherokee Constitution. Art. 2.

Lewis, Judge, and Concurring in results•' stated the following:

f3 McGirt was also clear that if the reservation was not disestablished by the U.S.

Congress, Oklahoma has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed within the historical

boundaries of the Indian reservation. McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2460. Therefore, because the Cherokee

Nation Reservation was not disestablished, the State of Oklahoma has no authority to prosecute

Indian for crimes committed within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation as was the

case here, nor does Oklahoma have jurisdiction over any person who commits a crime against an

Indian within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation. The federal government has

exclusive jurisdiction over those cases. 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a).

f4 Alack of subject matter jurisdiction leaves a court without authority to adjudicate a

matter. This court has held that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, nor can it

be waived, and it may be raised at any time. Armstrong v. State, 1926 OK CR 259, 35 Okla. Crim. 116,

248 P. 877; Cravatt v. State, 1992 OK CR 6, J7, 825 P. 2d 277, 280; Magnan v. State, 2009 OK CR 16,

ff 9 & 12, 207P. 3d 397, 402 (holding that jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian Country is

exclusively federal).

FAILURE TO DISESTABLISH THE CHEROKEE RESERVATION

“To determine whether a tribe continues to hold a reservation, there is only one place we may

look: the Acts of Congress.” McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2462. No particular words or verbiage are required,

but there must be a clear expression of congressional intent to terminate the reservation.

History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the

will. Sometimes, legislation has proved an “explicit reference to cession” or an “unconditional

Page 13 of 25

commitment... to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land.” Ibid. Other times, Congress has

directed that tribal lands shall be “restored to the public domain. “Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 412

114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994). Likewise, Congress might speak of a reservation as being

“’discontinued, » « abolished,” or “vacated.” Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 504, n. 22, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37

L.Ed.2d (1973). Disestablishment has “never required any particular form of words,” Hagen, 510 U.S.

at 411, 114 S.Ct. 958. But it does require that Congress clearly express its intent to do so, “commonly

with an explicit reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender of

all tribal interest.” Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 488, 136 S.Ct. 1072, 1079, 194L.Ed.2d 152

(2016).

THE MAJOR CRIMES ACT

Title 18 Section 1153 of the United States Code, known as the Major Crimes Act, grants

exclusive federal jurisdiction to prosecute certain enumerated offenses committed by Indians within

Indian country. It reads in relevant part as follows1

Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any

of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter

109A, incest, a felony assault under section 113, an assault against an individual who has not attained

the age of 16 years, felony child abuse or neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony under section

661 of this title within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other

persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

Cherokee Nation’s Treaties

“The United States court to be created in the Indian Territory; and until such court is created

therein, the United States district court, the nearest to the Cherokee Nation, shall have exclusive

original jurisdiction of all causes, civil and criminal, where an inhabitant of the district hereinbefore

described shall be a party, and where an inhabitant outside of said district, in the Cherokee Nation,

shall be the other party, as plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, or shall be defendant or prosecutor in

a criminal case, and all process issued in said district by any officer of the Cherokee Nation, to be

executed on an inhabitant residing outside of said district, and all process issued by any officer of the

Page 14 of 25

Cherokee Nation outside ofsaid district, to be executed on an inhabitant residing in said district, shall

be to all intents and purposes null and void, unless indorsed by the district judge for the district where

such process is to be served, and said person, so arrested, shall be held in custody by the officer so

arresting him, until he shall be delivered over to the United States Marshal, or consent to be tried by

the Cherokee court: Provided, That any or all the provisions of this treaty, which make any distinction

in rights and remedies between the citizens ofany district and the citizens of the rest of the nation,

shall abrogated whenever the President shall have ascertained, by an election duly ordered by him,

that a majority of the voters of such district desire them to be abrogated, and he shall have declared

such abrogation: And provided further, That no law or regulation, to be hereafter enacted within said

Cherokee nation or any district thereof, prescribing a penalty for its violation, shall take effect or be

enforced until after ninety days from the date ofits promulgation, either by publication in one or more

newspapers ofgeneral circulation in said Cherokee Nation, or by posting up copies thereofin the

Cherokee and English languages in each district where the same is to take effect, at the usual place of

handing district courts. ” 11

“The Cherokees also agree that a court or courts may be established by the United States in

said Territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such manner as may be prescribed bylaw:

Provided, That the judicial tribunals of the nation shall be allowed to retain exclusive jurisdiction in

all civil and criminal cases arising within their country in which members of the nation, by nativity or

adoption, shall be the only Nation, except as otherwise provided in this treaty.

The United States guarantee to the people of the Cherokee Nation the quiet and peaceable

possession of their country and protection against domestic feuds and insurrections, and against

hostilities of other tribes. They shall also be protected against interruptions or intrusion from all

unauthorized citizens of the United States agree that the party or parties commencing the same shall,

so far as practicable, make reparation for the damages done. ” 12

“Re-affirmed and declared to be in full force” all previous treaty provisions “not inconsistent

with the provisions of’ the 1866 treaty and provided that nothing in the 1866 treaty shall be

constructed as an acknowledgement by the United States or as relinquishment by Cherokee Nation of

any claims or demands under the guarantees offormer treaties, "except as expressly provided in the

1866 treaty. 13

United States Constitution14

The “jurisdiction to prosecute ANY person within the borders of the United States is

constitutionally described by our Congress in Article III § 2 U 3:

“ The trial of all crimes, except in cases ofimpeachment, shall be by jury! and such trial shall be

held in the State where the said crime shall have been committedbut when NOT committed within

any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

11 Cherokee Treaty of 1866 Article 7

12 Cherokee Treaty of 1866 Article 13

13 Cherokee Treaty of 1866 Article 31

14 This section would justify this Honorable Court in rendering a “retroactive constitutional law” pertaining to jurisdiction within

Indian Country

Page 15 of 25

Article II Clause 2 [Supreme Law ofLand]', - United States Constitution

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance

thereof 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, any

Thing in the Constitution or Laws ofany State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.

Article IV § Clause 2 [Public Lands]', - United States Constitution

“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations

respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States> and nothing in this

Constitution shall be construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or any particular

State”.

In review of the United States Constitution, the State of Oklahoma shall not make or enforce

any law that obstruct(s) a Citizen’s rights nor shall the Honorable Court are bound by:

Article VI If 2 - United States Constitution

“The Constitution, and the Law of the united State which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;

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, any Thing in the

Constitution ofLaws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The rule of lenity thus “places the weight ofinertia upon the party that can best induce

Congress to speak more clearly,” which forces “ the government to seek any clarifying changes to the

law rather than impose the costs of ambiguity on presumptively free person.” Wooden, 142 S.Ct. at

1083 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). And that keeps the power of punishment firmly “in the legislative, not

in the judicial department.” United States v. Wiltberger; 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820).

The rule of lenity, requires that Congress speak clearly to expand sate jurisdiction over crimes

involving Indians in Indian country. Oklahoma is hardly powerless to request congressional action to

expanded authority to Congress. Thus, even if judicial reluctance to enlarge Oklahoma s criminal

jurisdiction in the present context “carries its cost,” the solution is that “the legislature s cumbersome

processes will have to be reengaged.” Wooden. 142 S.Ct. at 1083 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). That is as it

should be in a democracy, where the boundaries of criminal punishment should be clearly delineated

by law, not judicial interpretation.

Page 16 of 26

The reality of the facts at hand is that Congress has spoken loudly by not limiting and/or

disestablishing the jurisdiction of tribal within Oklahoma. This court must look at Congressional

intent and that intent is within the writings of Congress’s when it clearly disestablished and/or

limited Indian Country boarder(s) and/or jurisdiction of the several tribes that have been limited

and/or disestablished. Now looking at the mootness of Congress, their intent is clearly established by

their refusal to draft legislation to disestablish the tribes within Oklahoma. Thus, the Honorable

Courts must adhere to this standard and should never enact a ruling granting Oklahoma concurrent

jurisdiction and/or limiting the Tribal Nation(s) jurisdiction when Congress has never expressly

enacted legislation.

QUESTIONS PROPOSED

“Mr. Melson respectfully askDid Congress ever disestablish the Cherokee Nation

and/or Reservation as a sovereign nation, [ within the State of Oklahoma]? If so what was the exact

statute and/or act did Congress enact?

Mr. Melson poses this question, although the answer is very obvious to even the laymen. Mr.

Melson does wish to remind the Honorable Court that Congress spoke in volumes to the validity of the

Cherokee Nation’s Sovereignty when Congress granted Cherokee the sole jurisdiction over any and all

highways, byways, turnpike(s), paved and unpaved public accessible roadways and all transit within

Cherokee Nation and deliberately excluded and barred Oklahoma’s concurrent jurisdiction. This was

done post the ruling of McGirt through a legislative act. It’s ironic that Oklahoma media negates this

information from its news reports.

Further it is ironic that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeal already held:

To determine whether a tribe continues to hold a reservation, there is only one place we may

look: the Acts of Congress. ’’McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2462. No particular words or verbiage are required,

but there must be a clear expression of congressional intent to terminate the reservation.

History shows that Congress knows how to withdraw a reservation when it can muster the will.

Sometimes, legislation has proved an “explicit reference to cession’’ or an unconditional commitment

... to compensate the Indian tribe for its opened land.”Ibid. Other times, Congress has directed that

tribal lands shall be “restored to the public domain. “Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 412 114 S.Ct. 958,

127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994). Likewise, Congress might speak of a reservation as being “’discontinued, ”

“abolished,” or “vacated.”Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 504, n. 22, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37L.Ed.2d (1973).

Page 17 of 25

Disestablishment has “never required any particular form of words,” Hagen, 510 U.S. at 411, 114 S.Ct.

958. But it does require that Congress clearly express its intent to do so, “commonly with an explicit

reference to cession or other language evidencing the present and total surrender ofall tribal interest. ”

Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 488, 136S.Ct. 1072, 1079, 194L.Ed.2d 152 (2016). 15

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask” When the [Fjramers of the Oklahoma State

Constitution, created and enacted Article I. £ 3. [ Unappropriated public lands - • Indian Lands - Jurisdiction of United States], did they “ forevef disclaim and/or waive jurisdiction within Indian

Country? 16

This question has already been answered by the Honorable Justice Neil Gorsuch”In 1906, Congress sought to deliver on its treaty promises when it adopted the Oklahoma

Enabling Act. That law paved the way for the new State’s admission to the Union. But in doing so,

Congress took care to require Oklahoma to agree and declare that it would forever disclaim all right

and title in or to ... all lands lying within [the State’s] limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or

nation. 34 Stat. 270. Instead ofgranting the State some new power to prosecute crimes by or against

tribal members, Congress insisted that tribal lands shall be and remain subject to the Jurisdiction,

disposal, and control of the United States. Ibid. Oklahoma complied with Congress’s instructions by

adopting both of these commitments verbatim in its Constitution. Article I § 3.”17

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask” Although Mr. Melson is Native, is [Rjace a critical

element in criminal proceeding(s) within United States or will this destroy a century of justice reform

and the abolishment of racism within our Jurisprudence?

This answer is difficult for any person to address, more so for a politician. Thankfully neither

of us are politicians. Observed within this Petitioner’s transcripts and records within the courts of

Oklahoma, the State has made the race the most influential element to any criminal proceeding.

The trial judge, (Terry McBride18), called Mr. Melson a half-breed numerous times in open

court. Mr. Melson was racially discriminated against by the Judge himself from the day Mr. Melson

attempted to obtain an evidentiary hearing to prove the State lacked the subject requisite jurisdiction.

‘Spears v. State” F-2019-330 (April 1,2021) - attached as exhibit

16 As Congress took care to require Oklahoma to agree and declare that it wouldforever disclaim all right and title in or to ... all

lands lying within [the State s] limits owned or held by any Indian, tribe, or nation. 34 Stat. 270.

Quoting the Honorable Neil

Gorsuch

17 « Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 (April 27, 2022) - Dissenting Opinion: The Majority of this ruling violated the

cannons of separation of powers by legislating from the bench. There is not one single Congressional Statute that provides Oklahoma

“CONCURRENT JURISDICTION". This ruling will be collaterally attacked until SCOTUS corrects their error.

18 Without making factless allegations against a Judge for self-preservation it has long been known to be a common fact that this Judge

was and is an active member of the Blue Knights, (KKK). This was well known by the deputies and bailiffs who served in his

15 i

Page 18 of 25

Then appearing within the Order of this Honorable Court19:

“Start with the assertion that allowing state prosecutions in cases like ours will ‘help’Indians.

The old paternalist overtones are hard to ignore. Yes, under the laws Congress has ordained

Oklahoma may acquire jurisdiction over crimes by or against tribal members only with tribal consent.

But to date, the Cherokee have misguidedly shown no interest in state jurisdiction. Thanks to their

misjudgment, they have rendered themselves ‘second-class’ citizens”.

“Mr. Melson respectfully ask” What Congressional Law/Statute grants Oklahoma

“concurrent jurisdiction ” within Indian Country, found within the State of Oklahoma20?

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE GREAT WRIT

The Petitioner’s statement(s) of this case coincide with the following proceeding(s):

Mr. Melson argue(s) that his due process oflaw was violated by the State of Oklahoma and its

official(s) from the moment he was arrested, through arraignment, providing of a public defender, pre

trial. plea of NO-CONTENDER and his sentencing phase.

1. ARREST: The Prior Creek, Oklahoma police department arrested Mr. Melson on or about the

21st Day of September, 2016. Upon arrest Mr. Melson was in possession of his Tribal, {Cherokee},

Registration Card and his C.D.I.B. These card(s) were provided to the arresting officer(s) and the

County Jail. Mr. Melson was told by the arresting officer(s) and jail staff that they did not care

if he was Indian or not. The police violated the Petitioner’s Fourteenth (14) Amendment as to

“Due Process of Law” when the police refused to notify the Cherokee Marshal Service and the

Cherokee Attorney General’s Office that Mr. Melson was arrested pending charge(s). Further the

police were required by law to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigations, (F.B.I.), regarding

the arrest of an Indian within Indian Country. The charge(s) claimed by the State of Oklahoma

were consistent with the Major Crimes Act and thus, the police had zero jurisdiction in

courtroom and the real fact that no person of color ever served in his courtroom. This information was so well know that the District

Attorney also held a file on this Judge.

19 « Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 (April 27, 2022).

20 This question arises from this Honorable Court’s ruling of “Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta” No. 21-429 {April 27, 2022).

Page 19 of 25

investigate, arrest and/or detain Mr. Melson without notification of the F.B.I. Further, each of

the officer(s) were acting without jurisdiction in this matter as the Oklahoma Constitution, Article

I $ 3 barred their jurisdiction within Indian Country. The State Constitution further bars all

State and/or County police officer(s) from being “ Cross-Deputized’ without explicit Congressional

approval. In short the Police never followed the proper procedures and ignored all jurisdictional

issue(s) that deprived Mr. Melson of any and all “Due Process ofLaw”. (Should this Honorable

Court decline Certiorari the lack of “Due Process ofLaw” will only be acerbated by the State and

its officials who have such a racist outlook upon allIndian(s).)

2. ARRAIGNMENT: During the arraignment phase of the proceeding(s) Mr. Melson advised the

Judge that he is an Indian and advised the Court that it lacks all jurisdiction to proceed. The

Court advised Mr. Melson that the Court will never recognize Indian Country Jurisdiction and

that his claims were baseless and meritless. The County Judge violated the Petitioner s Due

Process of Law” by not instantly holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the Indian Status

of Mr. Melson. This procedure was clearly established law:

U.S. v Prentiss” 273 F. 3d. 1277, 1280 (10th Cir. 2001) - - TWO PRONG TESTfor

determining whether a person is an ‘INDIAN’for the purpose of establishing subject matter

jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Country, [18 U.S.C. § 1151]. “Gothorth v.

State” (1982) OKCR 48, 644, P.2d. 114, 116[TWO-PRONG TEST]

The court established a Two-Prong Test to determine ‘jurisdiction

The Accused has ‘some’ Indian blood

The accused is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe and/or Federal Government

This IMPERATIVE PRECEDENT mandates these procedures and were enshrined in 1982 to

protect the “Due Process of Law” of all person(s) within the boundaries of Oklahoma.

The

Arraignment Court deliberately molested the Mr. Melson’s “Due Process ofLaw”by refusing him

an immediate Evidentiary Hearing. (Should this Honorable Court decline Certiorari the lack of

Page 20 of 25

“Due Process ofLaw” will only be acerbated by the State and its officials who have such a racist

outlook upon allIndian(s).)

3. PROVIDING OF PUBLIC DEFENDER: Pursuant to Wainwright21 all criminal defendant(s)

possess an absolute fundamental right to be appointed trail counsel within the competent

knowledge and training of the allegation. That right is further extended to all Indian(s) through

the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Melson had an absolute right to be appointed counsel by

Cherokee Nation, [who held the jurisdiction of the case], as a public defender appointed by

Cherokee Nation possess the knowledge of the jurisdictional parameters of Mr. Melson’s case.

The Oklahoma Indigent Defense System and/or the County Public Defender’s Office lacked

jurisdiction to adequately represent Mr. Melson in any proceeding arising within Indian Country,

more so when that public defender is not licensed to practice law within Indian Country. The

State of Oklahoma violated Mr. Melson’s “Due Process ofLaw”by thrusting a master22 upon him

that lacked any knowledge of the laws within Cherokee Nation. The Counsel thrusted upon Mr.

Melson as his Master lacked any and all knowledge of

Cherokee Nation’s Law(s)

Cherokee Nation’s Constitution

Peace Treaties between Cherokee Nation and the United States ofAmerica

The Major Crimes Act

Jurisdiction of Cherokee Nation

Oklahoma State Constitution Article I, § 3

Public Law 83-280

The Petitioner was stripped of his right to Counsel when the State Judge(s) refused to recognize

Indian Jurisdiction and refused to permit him to have the aid of competent counsel from

Cherokee Nation. (Should this Honorable Court decline Certiorari the lack of Due Process of

21 “Gideon v. Wainwright” 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

22 “ Faretta v. California ” 422 U.S. 806 (1975) “In such a case, counsel is not an *2534 assistant, but a master, and the right to make

a defense is stripped of the personal character upon with the Amendment insists.'

Page 21 of 25

Law” will only be acerbated by the State and its officials who have such a racist outlook upon all

Indian(s).)

4. PRE-TRIAL:

Pre-Trial reaffirms Mr. Melson’s claims within the above number 3 claim. The

O.I.D.S. public defender lacks all intellect and procedural requirement(s) within Cherokee Nation

and this incompetence reveals itself as Mr. Melson’s counsel failed to file an “interlocutory appeal

to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals requesting the case in its entirety be dismissed with

prejudice for lacking of jurisdiction pursuant to the IMPERATIVE PRECEDENT(s) ofa. “C.M.G. v. State”, 594 P.2d 798 (Okl. Crim. 1979) See Attached

b. “State v. LittleChief’, 573 P.2d 263 (1978 OK Cr. 2) See Attached

“To date, the State of Oklahoma had made no attempt to repeal Article I, §

3, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, which prohibits state

jurisdiction over Indian Country, so the federal government still has

exclusive jurisdiction over Indian Country within Oklahoma boundaries.

See “State v. LittleChief’OKL. Cr. 573P.2d263 (1978).”

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals established these imperative precedents

regarding Oklahoma’s waiver of jurisdiction within Indian Country.

Had Mr. Melson been

provided adequate counsel within his pre-trial phase, Mr. Melson could have been tried in a Court

of Competent Jurisdiction where he could have prevailed upon his innocent claims. Trial Counsel

attempted to raise the jurisdictional issues and attempted to obtain an evidentiary hearing,

however the District Judge refused to even hear those argument(s). This is where Counsel’s lack

of knowledge and education exposed itself as counsel could have simply filed an interlocutory

appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and that appeal would have had merit and

would have changed the outcome of the entire proceeding(s). Having incompetent Counsel is a

clear violation of the 6th Amendment right and ties into a malicious violation of Mr. Melson’s “Due

Process ofLaw”.

Throughout the proceeding(s) the Oklahoma District Judge(s) continuously exposed their

bias against Mr. Melson through verbally assaulting him. One the record, the sentencing District

Page 22 of 26

Judge called Mr. Melson a “Half-Breed” multiple times among other names. The actions of the

District Judge were classified by this Honorable Court as “fighting words” and his actions and

words are not protected speech, even as a Judge. Trial Counsel never filed any kind of Motion to

have the overly racist judge recuse himself nor would counsel protect the rights of Mr. Melson out

of fear for retaliation of the District Judge. (Should this Honorable Court decline Certiorari the

lack of “Due Process ofLaw” will only be acerbated by the State and its officials who have such a

racist outlook upon all Indian(s).)

5. PT.EA OF NO-CONTENDER: Through the constant assault and battery of the Trial Judge and

the ignorance of his counsel Mr. Melson was physically and emotionally forced into signing a

PLEA OF NO-CONTENDER. Trial Judge told Mr. Melson on the record that “if he refused to

sign the state’s plea agreement, the Judge would ensure that Mr. Melson would be sentence to no

less than 50 years in the Department of Corrections. Mr. Melson’s lawyer told him, “No matter

what you do or say, you are going to prison. The only difference is how long you re going to serve

in prison. Ifyou refuse to sign this plea, then you will never see your family again . In other

words the trial counsel was paid by the State of Oklahoma to ensure Mr. Melson s jurisdictional

claims were never heard by the court and/or the O.C.C.A.

* Mr. Melson demanded a Speedy Trial to prove his Actual-Factual Innocence of the allegation(s)

alleged within the state’s case. Once Mr. Melson asserted his Constutitonal to a speedy trial

triggered the hatred and anger of the District Judge and accompanied with asserting that this

District Judge lacked all jurisdiction to prosecute anyone within his court ensure that Mr. Melson

would never receive a fair and impartial proceeding.

This is why Melson’s only hope and prayer is that this Honorable Court grants Certiorari.

Mr. Melson’s “Due Process of Law” was molested by the District Judge who berated him with

racist comments about his Indian Heritage and Ancestry. Never mind that Mr. Melson served 19

years in the United States Army and Medically Retired with Honorable Service. Mr. Melson is a

Page 23 of 25

Combat Veteran will verifiable deployments to Afghanistan and other Countries from 2001 until

hift Medial Retirement in 2013. All this overlooked and all the County District Judge could see

was the race of the accused before him. Where is the “Due Process ofLaw” of law when the District

Judge openly calls the accused a “Half-Breed’?

6. SENTENCING: Mr. Melson never had any protection of the “Due Process o/Xaw”because of the

bias actions of the County District Judge. The same judge who deliberately called Mr. Melson a

“half-breed’ also sentenced him to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Mr. Melson prays this Honorable Court grants Certiorari ofthis case as no person within Oklahoma’s

boundaries will ever have their due process oflaw until this Court reverses the ruling of“Castro~Huerta”

and mandate Oklahoma adhere to its very own waiver ofits rights, found within its State Constitution

Article I, §3. When this Court rendered its ruling of “Castro-Huerta” the Court inadvertently subjected

all person(s) within the State of Oklahoma to a significant amount ofracism that must be overturned.

CONCLUSION

The primary focus of this entire argument is that Oklahoma and its Officials were mandated

by Congress to waive their right(s) to all Indian Country and Unassigned Lands within the boundaries

of Oklahoma, pursuant to Article I, §3. Congress gave Oklahoma their one and only opportunity to

obtain jurisdiction and amend their Constitution through public Law 83-280, yet each year this was

available for signature and enactment by the State, it continued to hold their waiver, [15 years of

waivers].

There is not one single Congressional Law granting Oklahoma jurisdiction and/or concurrent

jurisdiction. This Court must render its ruling consistent to the State’s own constitutional waiver.

Page 24 of 25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

This Honorable Court’s ORDER should be consistent with Congressional intent by proclaiming

this ruling a RETROACTIVE CASE LAWregarding Oklahoma Constitution Article I, § 3. Further,

vacating the judgment and sentence of Mr. Melson and a release from custody, instantaneously.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

The undersigned declares, (or certifies, or verifies, or states), under penalty of perjury that he

is the Appellant in the above complaint action, that he has read the above complaint and that the

information contained therein is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

Executed at the Oklahoma State Reformatory, on the £-(

day nf

2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

/Sk£

Brian Melson, [OK—DOC#835327]

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the petition for writ of certiorari

contains 8.990 words, excluding the parts of the petition that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule

33.1(d). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and

18 U.S.C. § 1621.

Executed at the Oklahoma State Reformatory, on the

day of

2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brian Melson, [OK—DOC#835327]

Page 25 of 25

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.