WHITE EARTH BAND OF OJIBWE

WHITE EARTH BAND OF OJIBWE

IN TRIBAL COURT

MANOOMIN, THE WHITE EARTH

BAND OF OJIBWE; MICHAEL

FAIRBANKS; LEONARD ‘ALAN’

ROY; RAYMOND AUGINAUSH;

KATHY GOODWIN; CHERYL

‘ANNIE’ JACKSON; TODD JEREMY

THOMPSON; DAWN GOODWIN;

NANCY BEAULIEU; WINONA

LADUKE; PATRICIA ‘ALEX

GOLDEN-WOLF’ OSUNA; JUSTIN

KEEZER; TANIA AUBID; SIMONE

SENOGLES; GINA (PELTIER) EELE;

TARA WIDNER; TARA HOUSKA;

JAMIE “JAIKE SPOTTED-WOLF”

WORTHINGTON and other tribal

members and Water Protectors similarly

situated, and SHANAI MATTESON and

ALLEN RICHARDSON invited nonIndian guests and Water Protectors

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Case No. GC 21-0428

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

MINNESOTA DEPT of NATURAL

RESOURCES (DNR);

COMMISSIONER SARAH

STROMMEN; RANDALL DODEEN

DNR, EWR CAR SECTION

MANAGER (Ecological and Water

Resources Conservation Assistance and

Regulation Section Manager), and

BARB NARAMORE, DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER, DNR

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

(arresting or threatening tribal water

protectors) JOHN DOES? (1 -10),

Defendants.

_________________________________________________________________

Manoomin et al respectfully requests a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

pursuant to Rule XI, section (b) because it clearly appears from specific facts

shown by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

damage will result before notice can be served and a hearing thereon. Manoomin

also requests an evidentiary hearing scheduled for Preliminary Injunction pursuant

to Rule XI, section (a) and any other relief the Tribal court deems fair, just and

equitable.

The test used by the courts for evaluating a motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) is generally the same.

Although the test for obtaining a TRO or PI may vary slightly across jurisdictions,

generally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy a four-factor

test: (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or

she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of

equities between the parties support an injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the

public interest.

(1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims;

This is case of first impression and tribal remedies as officially established

by the White Earth Band of Ojibwe tribal laws have not yet been exhausted. The

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 2.

Tribal Court has already found jurisdiction under the White Earth tribal laws and

ordinances, which are federally protected under Public Law 280 §1360(c).

The Chippewas have unique, expressly reserved, treaty rights to title to the

lands and environmental jurisdiction over interests in Chippewa lands, water

rights, surface rights to lands, and subsurface mineral and metal rights.1 These

rights need to be protected from the DNR infringement and recognized as preempting the State’s sovereign immunity, which like Ex parte Young, came after

the relevant treaties in time.

Jurisdiction is not an old Indian word. It means the right to decide over a

specified territory, and that word jurisdiction, was written by the drafters in the

1826 Treaty with the Chippewa for other non-Indians to recognize. The Mille

Lacs2 decision treaty analysis declared start point is what did the Indians

understand at the time of the treaties, ambiguities in treaties to be construed in

favor of the non-drafting Indians. Any rights not expressly relinquished or

abrogated by Congress with Dion3 analysis and compensation paid, are retained by

the Indians. As this Tribal Court already determined the Chippewa are relying

upon their inherent sovereignty that preceded land cession treaties with the United

States, recorded at the 1825 and 1826 Treaties with the Chippewa, ratified by

1

See 1825 and 1826 Chippewa Treaties with the United States generally.

See Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999).

3

See United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986).

2

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 3.

Congress and codified as a federal statute, which describes the environmental

jurisdiction separate from title to the land.

The DNR is relying on Ex parte Young State sovereign immunity, which in

part is relying on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

whereby

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against

one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or

Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Eleventh Amendment was not intended to apply to Indians. At the time of the

forming of the Constitution, Indians were specifically identified and separated out

by Treaties being the law of the land4 and recognized as Indians not taxed, twice,

once in the Constitution5 and again in the 14th Amendment6. It was not until 1924

that Indians were made citizens by Congress under the Indian Citizenship Act.7

The Indian Reorganization Act8 (IRA) created federal corporations for tribes to

4

Article VI, Clause 2.

Article I, Section 2.

6

See meaning of Indians not taxed https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2015/03/13/9643/

7

See https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act1924.pdf

8

See https://aghca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/indianreorganizationact.pdf Sec. 5. The

Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to acquire through purchase,

relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, water rights or surface rights

to lands, within or without existing reservations, including trust or otherwise restricted allotments

whether the allottee be living or deceased, for the purpose of providing lands for Indians.

5

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 4.

operate and account for federal funding etc. based primarily on federal treaties with

the United States.

Ex parte Young is not an Indian sovereignty vs Minnesota’s sovereign

immunity case. However, the Supreme Court did rule that the exception to

Eleventh Amendment immunity set out in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is

not limited to suits against those who implement or enforce state laws or policies,

and extends to state officials who act unconstitutionally in their official capacities.

Plaintiffs Manoomin et al assert that the state officials are in fact acting

unconstitutionally in their official capacities by intentionally regulating Chippewa

water property rights and usufructuary property rights, all of which are inextricably

linked, in violation of treaties, federal statutes and the limited grant of jurisdiction

from Congress 1953, Public Law 280. Therefore, there is no actual law regarding

a state’s sovereign immunity, just case law like Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,

517 U.S. 44 (1996).9 The Seminole case preceded in federal courts before most

tribal courts were established, and relied on federal Indian Gaming Act in federal

For the acquisition of such lands, interests in lands, water rights, and surface rights, and for

expenses incident to such acquisition, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any

funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 in any one

fiscal year . . . .

9

See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), a United States Supreme Court

case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress

the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the

Eleventh Amendment.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 5.

court for relief. The Chippewa are not relying on an Eleventh Amendment waiver

or an act of congress, but instead a ratification by Congress after the Executive

Branch negotiated and drafted the Treaty, and consistent with the U.S. Supreme

Court in Mille Lacs, how did the Indians in 1837 understand the treaty. Important

to remember is Chippewa treaties are different from other tribes and case law

involving Florida Seminole in Florida, cannot simply be substituted for Chippewa

environmental jurisdictional rights, without proper treaty and federal Indian law

analysis.

Minnesota, along with several other states were granted limited civil and

criminal jurisdiction over Indians on and off reservation under Public Law 280,

across Indian Country everywhere in Minnesota but the Red Lake Reservation.

For the Chippewa, Indian Country is north of the 1825 Prairie du Chien boundary,

on and off reservation.

Public Law 280 criminal and civil sections (b) both provide almost identical

exceptions to the congressional grants of jurisdiction to Minnesota10 declaring

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation,

encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property,

including water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian

tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or

is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United

States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in

10

See also Bryan v Itasca County Minnesota, 426 U.S. 373, 96 S.Ct. 2102 (1976).

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 6.

a manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or

statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall deprive

any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right,

privilege, or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement,

or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the

control, licensing, or regulation thereof.

See 18 U.S.C. § 1162. (Emphasis added). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1360 provides at

section (b) that

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the alienation,

encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including

water rights, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or

community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a

restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall

authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner

inconsistent with any Federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with

any regulation made pursuant thereto;

Id. (Emphasis added).

Here, DNR has zero authority granted by Congress in Public Law 280 to

alienate or encumber Chippewa water rights, or the related treaty rights of Indians.

Unfortunately, the DNR giving 5 billion gallons of water unilaterally to Line 3 and

letting too much water go out of the rivers is regulating Chippewa water property

rights inconsistent with Chippewa treaty rights. Maintaining water levels are

critically important for Manoomin and all of living creatures of the share

ecosystems.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 7.

The DNR obviously knew making tribes aware of the 5 billion water

appropriation request by Enbridge after December 2020, was going to be

challenged.11 Consequently, the DNR officials intentionally took steps to avoid a

contested case proceeding for the excessive water demand as compared to the

original Line 3 EIS alleged water need. The DNR waited until May 14, 2021, then

to only contact some tribal natural resource people, but not Chippewa elected

leaders directly with an actual Notice or Opportunity to be heard, or right to appeal

the DNR decision.12

The DNR is without any federal grant of authority to regulate Chippewa

water property rights, but when the river is way down, de facto regulation of fresh

water resources is occurring by Minnesota, in violation of tribal rights protected by

Public Law 280. The DNR officials are acting with unclean hands and therefore

outside the scope of their authority, contrary to rights, protections and privileges of

the Chippewa, and contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the Chippewa on

and off reservation.

11

Enbridge was issued permit no. 2018-3420 on December 8, 2020 for a total of 510.5 million

gallons of water and are requesting to increase that volume through this amendment for a total

volume of 4,982,768,568 gallons.

12

See ENBRIDGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT Water Appropriation Permit

Amendment No. 2018 – 3420 (Construction Dewatering), FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER, Water Appropriation Permit No. 2018-3420 Enbridge Line 3

Replacement Project June 4th, 2021. See also report at DNR website

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/features/line3/decisions/04june2021-update-trench-wateringdecisions.pdf

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 8.

Additionally, the DNR must defer to Congress’ paramount authority in

matters concerning Indian policy to respect the unique relationship between Indian

tribes and the United States. The DNR must also defer to the inherent sovereign

authority of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe (a/k/a WERBC) to adopt and enforce

their own environmental protection and water quality regulations in their own

forums. Accordingly, in the absence of a clear and plain intent by Congress for the

Eleventh Amendment to apply to Indian tribes, the DNR’s reliance on Ex Parte

Young in White Earth Tribal Court is misplaced. Consequently the DNR officials

acts are ultra vires and deprive the Chippewa of significant civil rights protections

under §1981 et seq on and off White Earth reservation.

Consequently, because the Eleventh Amendment is silent about Indians and

cannot be simply presumed to apply to an Indian tribe, Ex Parte Young sovereign

immunity cannot be raised as of right or suggest a waiver is necessary, without

clear abrogation of the jurisdiction described in the 1826 ratification Treaty with

the Chippewa. This is a case of first impression and tribal remedies have not been

exhausted.

THE WHITE EARTH TRIBAL COURT AND JUDGE ARE ACTING WITHIN

THE SCOPE OF TRIBAL LAW AS DULY ADOPTED BY THE WHITE

EARTH RESERVATION BUSINESS COMMITTEE (WERBC).

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 9.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (MCT) is a federally recognized, Indian

Reorganization Act tribal government. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe is

considered a constituent band and a federally recognized Indian tribe, and the

White Earth Reservation Business (WERBC) is the federally-recognized, duly

elected tribal government to which the federal trust responsibility is owed. The

DNR does not have a trust responsibility or trust obligation.

The White Earth Tribal Court and its Chief Judge DeGroat, are acting within

scope of their jurisdictional authority as provided for by the White Earth

Reservation Business Committee, the duly elected governing body of the federally

recognized tribe. The White Earth Band has adopted a series of tribal laws to

protect off and on reservation treaty protected resources and the health, safety and

welfare of tribal members. Public Law 280, §1360(c) provides that

Any tribal ordinance or custom heretofore or hereafter adopted by

an Indian tribe, band, or community in the exercise of any authority

which it may possess shall, if not inconsistent with any applicable

civil law of the State, be given full force and effect in the

determination of civil causes of action pursuant to this section.

Id. Tribal ordinance established White Earth Tribal Court two decades ago. There

is/was not a state law preventing establishment of tribal courts or for those tribe’s

to decide which forum and venue to regulate off-reservation usufructuary rights in

Indian Country.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 10.

White Earth Tribal ordinance established the Conservation Code for the

1855 Ceded Territory in 2010, based entirely (changing 4 to 5 in 1854 to 1855

mostly) on the 1854 Treaty Authority off-reservation treaty area conservation code

because: the 1854 territory is wholly within the state of Minnesota like the 1855

territory, the 1854 bands are part of the MCT like the 1855 bands, and whereby

Minnesota compensates the 1854 Chippewa13 millions of dollars every year to not

exercise their commercial, off-reservation treaty protected usufructuary rights.

Tribal ordinances for the 1855 Conservation Code, for Rights of Manoomin

and Rights to Travel, Use and Occupy are valid laws, duly adopted and very much

based on ancient natural law, as well as Chippewa customs and cultural practices

and spiritual beliefs. The White Earth tribal laws, including the 1855 Conservation

Code are not inconsistent with any applicable civil law of the State, and must be

given full force and effect in the determination of civil causes of action.

Recently Minnesota has criminalized civil rights of people to assemble in

public places, public waters and public lands which are the primary places under

Mille Lacs for the Chippewa to enjoy and protect off-reservation usufructuary

property. The DNR Conservation Officers in conjunction with other state law

enforcement have arrested tribal water protectors for trespass, unlawful assembly,

13

See 97A.157 1854 Teaty Area Agreement

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2019/cite/97A.157/pdf

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 11.

attending unlawful assemblies and nuisance for being on public lands protecting

nature’s gifts and food for the people. The recently adopted White Earth resolution

to establish off-reservation jurisdiction for this Tribal Court is not inconsistent with

other Chippewa Indians exercise of off reservation Indian Country jurisdiction

through the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) or the

1854 Treaty Authority.

The existing paradigm of Ex Parte Young has continued in federal and state

courts, but this is a case of first impression, based on a very unique set of express

treaty protected property rights and legal terms. The White Earth Band has

provided for tribal laws under the jurisdiction of the tribal court for the Rights of

Manoomin on and off reservation and 1855 Treaty Authority Rights to Travel Use

and Occupy Traditional Lands and Waters Code. These are administrative

remedies provided to protect tribal resources and tribal members, under the tribal

law which enabled this Tribal Court to find jurisdiction.

Here, case law history suggests Ex parte Young would prevail, but

Mille Lacs, Hererra and U.S. v Brown14, Tibbetts, Bellefy, et al in Operation

SquareHook reveal that Chippewa treaty rights are not subject to an act of congress

where the language does not specifically abrogate treaty rights. Ex parte Young

14

See https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/8th-circuit-opinion-upheld-square-hookchippewa-treaty-rights-2-10-2015.pdf U.S. v Brown et al.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 12.

isn’t an act of congress, nor a federal law case decision based on Chippewa treaty

rights. As such, the White Earth Tribal Court off-reservation environmental

jurisdiction and conservation code are contemplated by Congress and provided for

and protected by Public Law 280, §1360(c) so that all tribes may declare and

recover their individually inherent and uniquely, distinct rights through the creation

of tribal laws.

Under this unique set of treaty rights and the establishment of tribal civil

laws not inconsistent with the State under Public Law 280(c), the federal court will

be more likely to dismiss the State’s Complaint about jurisdiction than enjoin this

tribal court for exercising its different civil rights protections and immunities from

state laws, under duly adopted tribal laws, whose remedies have not been

exhausted.

(2) that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary

relief;

It is hard to imagine what irreparable harm Minnesota DNR can experience

except finding out Ex parte Young doesn’t apply to Chippewas. There is no harm

to DNR other than declarations about civil rights deprivations under 42 U.S.C.

§1981 et seq and ultra vires acts of unjust taking of Chippewas and other creatures

necessary waters, to facilitate and exacerbate climate change impacts from fossil

fuel. Plaintiff’s will still need federal enforcement.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 13.

The DNR is more likely concerned that its veil of sovereign immunity may be

pierced and may not provide the protections contemplated in the 11th amendment,

than protecting the environment which we all depend upon.

Irreparable harm can only continue to happen to the Manoomin and the

health, safety and welfare of the Chippewas and the entire freshwater ecosystem on

and off reservation as has happened to Rice Lake based on the unjust taking of 5

billion gallons of public waters for Line 3. It is happening every day and public

waters that support Manoomin on and off reservation are severely impacted

irreparably harming certain ecosystems.15 Those waters support the ecosystems

that supports the Chippewa lifeways and ability find food, clothing and shelter and

earn a modest living on and off reservation. The DNR’s unilateral giving 5 billion

gallons of water during a clear and obvious drought is unconscionable. It’s a

callous disregard for the rights and spirituality of the Chippewas to waste water on

facilitating environmental threats compounding climate change impacts to water

and air and life. Sovereign Immunity can be a shield provided state actors have not

acted contrary to rights and laws protecting tribal civil rights as described in Public

Law 280(b).

15

See Water Report: What Happens When the Water Goes Down? By Renee Keezer, previously

attached as Exhibit A to the Manoomin Complaint and attached here as Exhibit 2.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 14.

Environmental irreparable harms include about 30 plus frac-outs that the

DNR’s partner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) appears unprepared

and incapable of stopping Line 3 non-compliant releases of drilling compounds,

chemical and trade secret unknowns and concerns generally of irreparable

environmental harms necessarily relying on the 5 billion gallons of water from

DNR.16

Cultural genocide irreparably harms spiritual practices, the language,

practices and community wellness, all achieved through the intentional destruction

of cultural foods, practices and places to gather with DNR permits across public

lands and waters, the primary place for the Chippewa to exercise treaty reserved

usufructuary rights and particularly harvesting manoomin. See On-going

Conditions Creating Cultural Genocide Report, By Dale Greene, Jr., Expert

Witness, Chippewa Culture, History and Practices for Manoomin et al v DNR et al,

Civil Case No. GC 21-0428 – August 23, 2021 attached as Exhibit 1.

(3) the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction;

Normally federal interests are the same as tribal interests with regard to

treaty rights and civil regulatory jurisdiction in Indian Country, on or off

16

See MPCA Frac-Out Report and Comments dated August 23, 2021, by Renee Keezer, Renee,

White Earth Pesticide Coordinator attached as Exhibit 3.

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 15.

reservation.17 Because the White Earth tribal laws, ordinances and customs are

within the authority and rights of tribes, and because the DNR has violated tribal

laws and the public trust to unjustly take 5 billion gallons of water of clean, fresh

waters from Plaintiffs unjustly to exponentially exacerbate and worsen plaintiffs

environmental threats on and off reservation from increased fossil fuel extraction

and production, the unjust taking requires an injunction now.

DNR filed in federal court, for a determination on jurisdiction. The federal

complaint does not suggest any urgency or emergency at issue for the Plaintiffs

Manoomin, the Chippewas or the unjust taking of 5 billion gallons of water.

Therefore, this White Earth Tribal Court must continue to exercise jurisdiction,

continue to work through and exhaust tribal remedies and provide an Injunction

against the DNR because by the time federal court looks at filings the issue of 5

billion gallons of water unjustly taken by DNR will be completed and moot and

Plaintiffs will be left without remedy because Line 3 is likely to be completed18.

See Exhibit 4 USACE 1997 Issue Paper and District Recommendation, the Agency’s Trust

Responsibilities Toward Indian Tribes in the Regulatory Permitting Process, regarding Mole

Lake Band of Chippewa treaty rights and Crandon Mine in Wisconsin. See last page about on

and off usufructuary rights and federal trust responsibility owed to federally recognized tribes.

18

See Line 3 pipeline to be in service by end of year, despite legal challenges: Enbridge CEO

says pipeline remains on schedule and is now 80 per cent complete The Canadian Press · Posted:

Jul 30, 2021 7:45 AM MT https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/enbridge-q2-2021-earnings1.6123832

17

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 16.

This Court is exercising the proper jurisdiction and must provide a TRO

immediately to preserve and protect Chippewas treaty protected resources which

all rely on abundant, clean freshwater . . . the environment that Manoomin and

everything else depends upon. The Court should also schedule a full evidentiary

hearing for the preliminary Injunction.

(4) the injunction is in the public interest.

Fighting the causes of climate change is THE public interest to creatures

who like to drink clean water and breathe clean air, and want the same for their

family and friends and our future generations. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe

with the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe developed the Anishinabe Cumulative Impact

Assessment for the Line 3 EIS process and White Earth adopted the No Build

option along with the 1855 Treaty Authority and filed same with the Minnesota

Public Utilities Commission.

Minnesota’s politicians and state agencies are caught up regulatory capture

by big oil corporations more interested in profits than protecting actual public and

nature’s interests. Line 3 does cross through the greater Leech Lake Reservation

created by the Treaties of 1863-64 to relocate the Chippewas of the Mississippi

north. Three years later White Earth Reservation is created as 36 townships Royce

509. But Royce 507 remains as a Menominee type Chippewas of the Mississippi

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 17.

reservation with exclusive usufructuary and water property rights and protections

being usurped and unjustly taken by DNR.

The Chippewas of the Mississippi have a lot of natural resources being

irreparably harmed on and off reservation and more in jeopardy from DNR’s

unilateral, unjust taking, which is still an on-going crime against nature that can

only be stopped now, by this Tribal Court. Raparian water rights means we all

share the water and we all are expected to leave the waters in the same fashion we

found them, as we all share the rights and responsibility with Raparian water

rights. Chippewa have first in time water rights, in quantity and quality necessary

for the production of manoomin, fish and maple, our primary treaty foods, under

the Winter’s Doctrine19.

19

See Winters v U.S. (1908) decision http://supreme.justia.com/us/207/564/case.html

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 18.

Therefore, because the White Earth Band has formally adopted tribal laws to

protect Manoomin, on and off reservations of the Chippewas of the Mississippi,

the tribal court necessarily possesses inherent and treaty-reserved jurisdiction to

protect manoomin on reservation and off reservation, as part of the usufructuary

property rights jurisdiction expressly reserved in the 1825 and 1826 Treaties with

the Chippewa.

Dated: August 23, 2021

Manoomin et al, v. Mn/DNR et al

Request for TRO and schedule full

Preliminary Injunction evidentiary hearing

August 23, 2021 draft, page 19.

____/s/ Frank Bibeau______

Frank Bibeau, Tribal Attorney

Joe Plumer, Tribal Attorney

For the Manoomin, et al