IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COGRAREME COURT

IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COGRAREME COURT

FILED

CITIZENSHIP BOARD OF THE OCT 14 2025

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION, LM

CONNIE DEARMAN

Appellant, MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

Case No: SC-2023-10 COURT CLERK

vs. (District Court Case No.: CV-2020-34)

RHONDA K. GRAYSON and

JEFFREY D. KENNEDY,

New Nee Nee nee ee ee ee ee” ee” ee

Respondents.

Respondents’ Renewed Motion for Contempt and for Court Enforcement of Order and

Judgment and for Order to Show Cause

Damario Solomon-Simmons, MCN # 354

SOLOMONSIMMONSLAW, PLLC

601 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 602

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

918-551-8999 — Phone/918-558-8039 — Facsimile

dss@solomonsimmons.com

Jana L. Knott, MCN #1320

BASS LAW

252 NW 70" St.

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 262-4040 — Phone/(405) 262-4058 — Facsimile

jana@basslaw.net

M. David Riggs, MCN # 1239

RIGGs, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS, P.C.

502 West 6th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

(918) 587-3161 — Phone/(918) 587-9708 — Facsimile

driggs@riggsabney.com

Attorneys for Respondents

INTRODUCTION

The Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“Citizenship Board”) is a

constitutionally created board, and Principal Chief David Hill (“Chief Hill”) has no power over

the Board beyond appointing its members. See Muscogee (Creek) Const. Art. III; 7 Muscogee

(Creek) Nation Code of Laws § 2-101. In issuing Executive Order No. 25-05 (the “Executive

Order”), Chief Hill has overstepped, encroaching on the Citizenship Board’s independence,

violating his duty to uphold the law, and usurping this Court’s authority. The Citizenship Board’s

continued failure to issue citizenship identification cards to the Respondents—Rhonda Grayson

and Jeffrey Kennedy—is a willful and blatant violation of this Court’s clear and unambiguous July

23, 2025 Order and Opinion that cannot be tolerated. Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation v. Rhonda K. Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek)

Nation July 23, 2025) (“July Opinion”).

This Court ordered the Citizenship Board to do one simple thing: “issue citizenship to the

Respondents.” Jd. at 23. Nearly twelve weeks after the Court’s Order, the Citizenship Board has

still not complied with this Court’s unequivocal order to issue the citizenship cards. That means

this Motion is—unfortunately—now necessary to effectuate this Court’s July Opinion and to

reassert and safeguard the principle that it is this Court’s authority, “province[,] and duty” to “say

what the law is”—not Chief Hill’s. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).

PROCEDURAL POSTURE

In denying Respondents’ previous Motion for Contempt, the Court afforded the Board a

“reasonable amount of time” to establish procedures in line with the Court’s Order and issue

Respondents citizenship cards. Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rhonda K.

Grayson & Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10, at 2 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Aug. 28,

2025) (“Order Denying Motion for Contempt”). On August 21, 2025, the Citizenship Board itself

stated that it only needed four-to-six weeks to process Respondents’ applications. Ex. A JJ 13-14

(Affidavit of Rhonda K. Grayson); Ex. B ff 13-14 (Affidavit of Jeffrey D. Kennedy). Almost

eight weeks have now elapsed since the Citizenship Board made this declaration, surpassing the

average four-week processing time for citizenship applications due to Chief Hill’s illegal

intervention rather than administrative backlog. See Ex. C (Email from Allan Colbert, Jr. on

October 2, 2023, confirming the application process takes four-to-six weeks). Respondents’

Motion is no longer premature. See Order Denying Motion for Contempt at 2 (reasoning that

Motion was premature).

A “reasonable” amount of time has now passed, and now Chief Hill’s Executive Order

halts any processing of citizenship cards for Freedmen descendants for the indefinite future—or

perhaps forever. Ex. D (“Exec. Order”). The Executive Order directs the Citizenship Board to

“not issue citizenship cards or any form of membership identification cards to [Muscogee (Creek)

Freedmen descendants] until all law and policy have been fully reviewed and amended to meet the

qualification requirements under Article II of the Treaty of 1866.” Exec. Order J 2.01. The

Citizenship Board must “maintain the status quo by continuing to accept, process, and issue

determinations for applications for new Mvskoke citizens in accordance with current law and

policy”—directly contrary to this Court’s Order. Jd. § 2.02; July Opinion at 2, 23 (requiring the

Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to Respondents because this is simply “what Mvskoke law

demands.”). The Executive Order has no end-date; it is effective “until further notice.” Exec.

Order { 4.01. The Executive Order thus fundamentally alters what could otherwise be

characterized as mere administrative delays, transforming them into a mandate for an indefinite—

if not permanent—injunction on the issuance of Freedmen citizenship cards.

Chief Hill’s obstructionist order undermines this Court’s authority and violates the

separation of powers. Muscogee (Creek) Const. Art. VII § 1 (“The judicial power of the... Nation

shall be vested in one Supreme Court... .”). The Executive Order states that the Court’s July

Opinion “encroach[ed] on the authority of the other branches,” going as far as to suggest this

Court’s Order “ha[s] the potential for creating a constitutional crisis[.]” Exec. Order ] 1.05. But

in the next breath, Chief Hill proceeds to ignore an order of this Court and issue an Executive

Order with a contrary mandate. To be clear: The executive branch “cannot do indirectly what [it]

is barred from doing directly”—it cannot create an end-run around a lawful order which it is bound

to follow. Nat'l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024); see also Students for Fair

Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181, 230 (2023) (““*[W]hat

cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not

shadows,’ and the prohibition against racial discrimination is ‘levelled at the thing, not the

name.””) (citation omitted). But that is exactly what Chief Hill attempts to accomplish through

the unlimited and indeterminate delay created by his shocking Executive Order.

Critically, the Executive Order, which Chief Hill based solely on “the executive authority

vested in [him] as Principal Chief,” Exec. Order at 1, directs the Citizenship Board not to grant

any descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen citizenship—including Respondents. Chief

Hill’s mandate directly contradicts his disclaimers, both in federal court and in the M(C)N District

Court, that he does not have any role in processing citizenship cards. See, e.g., Grayson v.

Citizenship Bd. of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, CV-2020-34, at 2 (Dist. Ct. Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Jan. 6, 2023) (Def.’s Mot. Quash Non-Party Deposition Subpoena) (arguing that Plaintiff's

subpoena is overbroad because Chief Hill “has not been involved in any aspect of Plaintiff's

case.”); Ex. E 4:24-5:3 (Tr. Hrg. Mot. Quash) (“Chief Hill is not on the citizenship board, has

nothing to do with the involvement of records or rolls. . . . [t]here is no relevance for Chief Hill to

be deposed now .. . .”); Graham v. Haaland, No. 4:22-cv-404, at 2 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2023)

(Def. David Hill’s Mot. Dismiss) (arguing that Chief Hill is a tribal official with “no sole

independent power to enact legislation for the Nation and with no authority or control over the

Nation’s citizenship rolls.”). Yet, he is now actively using his position as Executive to prevent the

Citizenship Board from issuing citizenship to Respondents. Moreover, Chief Hill’s vehement

opposition to citizenship for descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen within the Nation has

escalated, with citizens joining to stop this Court’s decisive and necessary action. See Ex. F (Press

Release on September 2, 2025, announcing Tribal Listening Conference on M(C)N Supreme Court

Decision); Ex. G (Facebook Petition to Remove M(C)N Supreme Court Justices and Related

Comments).

The Citizenship Board’s continued and unnecessary “administrative delays” caused by

Chief Hill’s August 27, 2025 Executive Order, amount to deliberate obfuscation of this Court’s

order. An indefinite delay is patently unjustified given this Court’s clear ruling as to Respondents,

nor would a delay of several months (let alone years) be a “reasonable amount of time to establish

appropriate changes.” Order Denying Motion for Contempt at 2 (emphasis in original). Ms.

Grayson and Mr. Kennedy, as lawful citizens of M(C)N, eagerly await their citizenship cards and

remain ready, willing, and able to begin the process of reconciliation with the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation’s leadership.' But these recent developments have forced Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy

' Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy have diligently attempted to resolve this issue since July 23, 2025,

but have been stonewalled in their extrajudicial attempts to obtain their citizenship cards. See

generally Ex. I (Ms. Grayson’s October 1, 2025 email); Ex. A §§ 2-14; Ex. B § 2-14; Ex. H

(Damario Solomon-Simmon’s July 24, 2025 letter and follow-up correspondence). And they have

already been denied their right to vote in this Nation’s most recent elections, despite their clear

legal entitlement to citizenship in this Nation and their unambiguous “excitement to participate in

official Mvskoke exercises of citizenship.” Order Denying Motion for Contempt at 2.

4

to reluctantly return to this Court, renew their motion for contempt, and seek redress yet again.

This Court should intervene and issue an order requiring the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill to

show cause as to why this Court should not hold them in contempt for failing to comply with the

Court’s Order, or alternatively, hold the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill in contempt, compel the

immediate issuance of citizenship cards to Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy, and award them their

fees and costs associated with this Motion under M(C)N RAP 20(C).

ARGUMENT

This Court has the power to enforce compliance with its orders through civil contempt.

See Ellis v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Nat’l Council, SC-2006-07, at 5 (Sup. Ct. Muscogee (Creek)

Nation Aug. 30, 2007); Frye v. Cox, No. CV 90-10, at 1 (Dist. Ct. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Oct.

30, 1990); see also Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 793 (1987) (finding

that “it is long settled that courts possess inherent authority” to hold disobedient parties in

contempt). Alternatively, a failure to abide by this Court’s Order warrants “[a] finding of contempt

against the party in non-compliance” or the “[i]mposition of a penalty or costs.” M(C)N RAP

20(C)(4), (5).

To hold a party in contempt for willful disobedience of an order, this Court must find “by

clear and convincing evidence that (1) the allegedly violated Order was valid and lawful; (2) the

Order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator(s) had the ability to

comply with the Order.” Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5. This is similar to the standard for contempt in a

federal court: the moving party must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person

allegedly in contempt violated the court’s order. See Chi. Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Lab. Leasing, 207

F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2000). Further, the Nation’s executive branch and its officials are a proper

subject of a contempt order when the three elements are met. See Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5-6.

I. The Citizenship Board

All three elements are satisfied here as to the Citizenship Board. First, this Court’s July

Opinion was valid and lawful, as confirmed by the August 20, 2025 Order and Opinion that denied

the Citizenship Board’s petition for rehearing. Second, the July Opinion unambiguously directed

the Citizenship Board to “apply the Treaty of 1866 and issue citizenship to the Respondents, and

any other future applicant who is able to establish a lineal descendant on the Creek By Blood

Dawes Roll, or the Creek Freedmen Dawes Roll.” July Opinion at 23. And third, the Citizenship

Board still has not complied with the July Opinion despite having more than two months to issue

Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy their citizenship cards—more than enough time to complete the

simple administrative task assigned to it by this Court. Ex. I (Ms. Grayson’s October 1, 2025

email); Ex. A { 16-18; Ex. B ¥ 16. Further, the Citizenship Board has now stopped communicating

at all with the Respondents and other Creek Freedmen descendants despite Ms. Grayson’s email,

Ex. I, and multiple phone calls requesting an update.

Indeed, the Citizenship Board’s delay in issuing Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy their

citizenship cards appears to be the product of willful delay: after four weeks of waiting, the

Citizenship Board summarily informed Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy that their cards would not

be available for at least another four weeks. Ex. A §f§ 2-14; Ex. B J 2-14. When Citizenship

Board staff were presented with this Court’s July Opinion by Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy, they

informed Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy that the managers of the Citizenship Board were

“unavailable” and that they would instead be meeting with the Attorney General to discuss the

matter of Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy’s citizenship. Ex. A 4 15; Ex. B 15.”

2 Not to mention, the Citizenship Board received Ms. Grayson’s and Mr. Kennedy’s initial

citizenship applications over two years ago.

Soon after that, Chief Hill issued the Executive Order, manufacturing complications

ostensibly caused by this Court’s clear Order, claiming “the Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Administration is currently challenged with the task of implementing the Order and following the

direction of the Supreme Court to apply Article II of the Treaty of 1866 and without reference to

“by blood’ citizenship in any application for citizenship by Freedmen descendants.” Exec. Order

4 1.05. Worst of all, Chief Hill unlawfully forbids the Board from following this Court’s order

and issuing citizenship cards to Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen descendants indefinitely. He claims

the executive branch needs to “work on the necessary amendments and/or adoption of new laws”

as well as “appropriate policies and procedures.” Jd. J{ 1.06, 2.01. Respectfully, there are no laws

that need to be adopted or policies that need to be changed. This Court made clear that the

Citizenship Board must “apply the Treaty of 1866 and issue citizenship [cards] to the

Respondents.” July Opinion at 23. Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy are M(C)N citizens—all that

is left is for the Citizenship Board to issue their citizenship cards.

Chief Hill provides minimal detail beyond his threadbare assertions of supposed urgency;

he presents no timeline, no steps taken by the executive branch, or even any detail about what laws

and procedures he believes must be put in place or their justification. By conditioning the lawful

grant of citizenship cards ordered by this Court on unnecessary legislative and constitutional

actions that could take years, Chief Hill not only oversteps the bounds of his own executive

authority—he also seeks to nullify the July Opinion. The Citizenship Board has chosen to listen

to Chief Hill instead of this Court. Those decisions have consequences.

As Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy have met their burden as to the first three elements for

contempt, the burden shifts to the Citizenship Board to show its inability to comply—a burden that

it cannot meet. See Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 505. To show that compliance is presently

impossible, the defendant must demonstrate: “(1) that they were unable to comply, explaining

why categorically and in detail, (2) that their inability to comply was not self-induced, and (3) that

they made in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe of

Neb., 254 F.3d 728, 736 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 506). The

Citizenship Board cannot and will not meet its burden because it has no excuse (and has articulated

no valid excuse) for failing to issue the citizenship cards.

The Citizenship Board cannot rely on Chief Hill’s Executive Order as a justification for

noncompliance. Even in the face of a contrary executive order, a coordinate government agency

still must obey a judicial order. The recent case of /.G.G., et al. v. Trump is instructive. In March

2025, after President Trump signed a proclamation removing certain individuals from the United

States under the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered

an ex parte temporary restraining order preventing the government defendants from deporting the

plaintiffs. Order, No. 25-766, at 3-5 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2025). When the government deported the

plaintiffs in violation of the TRO, the court held it in contempt, regardless of the President’s

directive. Jd. at 31-37. The court declared that “[t]he Constitution does not tolerate willful

disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworm

an oath to uphold it.” Jd. at 2. After all, “[t]o permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments

of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those

judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’” Jd. (quoting United

States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.)). The same reasoning applies

to the Treaty of 1866 here, which this Court recognized is “the supreme law of the land.” July

Opinion at 21.

Furthermore, in civil rights cases, delaying compliance with a court’s order is cause for

civil contempt. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, the

court issued several orders requiring vacant magnet school seats to be filled by a certain percentage

of black students. 666 F. Supp. 159, 160 (E.D. Ark. 1987). The court found the school district in

contempt after the school board voted not to fill seats and told the court they intended to ask the

court to modify the orders. /d. at 161 (“Rather than energetically and diligently complying with

the orders, the LRSD voted to ask for modification after the first release of seats was a_ fait

accompli.”). The court warned “any further delay in the implementation of the orders” would

subject the school board to “severe sanctions.” Jd.

Similarly, in Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education, the court ordered the school

board to implement a recruiting program that would “actively seek out minority group

administrators, supervisors, and counselors who are interested in employment with the [school

district].” 384 F. Supp. 846, 847 (C.D. Cal. 1974). The court held the school board in contempt

when the school board slow-rolled compliance by making “temporary” appointments, explaining

that “under the guise of making ‘temporary’ administrative appointments of a continuing nature,

the Board could ‘permanently’ frustrate the aims of the Plan relative to the hiring of minority

administrators.” Jd. at 848-50.

Like those school boards, the Citizenship Board, at the direction of Chief Hill, continues

to drag its feet in what can only be described as bad faith. Instead of “energetically and diligently”

granting citizenship, Little Rock Sch. Dist., 666 F. Supp. at 161, the Citizenship Board has and will

continue to concoct administrative reasons it cannot yet comply in their fidelity to the executive

branch over a valid judicial order from this Court. To the extent there are any remaining

administrative delays in processing the citizenship cards, they are wholly attributable to the

Citizenship Board’s own lack of expediency in its compliance with this Court’s orders, particularly

given the Citizenship Board’s own statements that the process should only take four-to-six weeks.

Ex. A { 14; Ex. B ¥ 14; Ex. C.

Tribal entities are no strangers to civil contempt, as tribal and federal courts alike have

found civil contempt an appropriate remedy to compel compliance from election boards and tribal

councils. In 2000, the Supreme Court of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes held an election board in

contempt and ordered it to place a name on the election ballot after it failed to comply with the

initial order. Cheyenne-Arapaho Election Bd. v. Tabor, 7 Okla. Trib. 121, at 1 (Sup. Ct. Cheyenne-

Arapaho Tribes Oct. 27, 2000). The district court had found that its order was valid, definite, and

clearly violated by the election board, and the Cheyenne-Arapaho Supreme Court affirmed. See id.

In Santee Sioux Tribe, the Eighth Circuit reviewed a district court’s finding of contempt

against the Santee Sioux Tribe when it failed to comply with the court’s injunction ordering the

Tribe to cease class [II gaming. 254 F.3d at 731. The district court declined to hold the individual

Tribal Council members in contempt because a tribal referendum vote precluded the Council from

closing the Ohiya Casino and therefore ending the class II] gaming activities. Jd. at 736. The

Eighth Circuit disagreed, concluding that because the referendum lacks legal effect, the Tribal

Council members could not show they were unable to comply with the court’s order. Jd. at 736-

37 (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 57-58 (1990) (holding that state legislature cannot

hinder federal law from being implemented by passing a law that prohibits its implementation)).

Specifically, the court reasoned: “The Council members cannot hide behind a spurious tribal

referendum because the Tribe cannot pass such a referendum in contravention of federal law,

including the lawful orders of a federal court.” Jd. at 737.

10

In holding that the Council members could not show that compliance was presently

impossible, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the Council members never intended to comply with

the court’s order. Jd. One day after the district court ordered the Tribe to cease class III gaming,

the Tribal Council convened a special meeting in which the Council acknowledged they were

aware of the court’s order to shut down the Ohiya Casino, but the Council nonetheless voted to

deny closure. Jd. The entire Tribe then considered the issue through a referendum vote, again

voting to keep the Ohiya Casino open despite the court’s order. Jd. While the Council members

“attempt[ed] to cloak their actions with the cape of the tribal referendum,” the court reasoned that

the “Tribe’s noncompliance with federal law cannot serve as justification for the Council’s

inability to comply with the court order.” Jd. As a result, the Eighth Circuit found the members

of the Tribal Council in contempt. Jd.

So too here. The Citizenship Board “‘attempt[s] to cloak [its] actions” by obeying an

obstructive Executive Order from Chief Hill instead of a lawful Order from this Court. The

Citizenship Board cannot hide behind the Executive Order to avoid complying with this Court’s

order, and their actions suggest that the Citizenship Board does not intend to comply with the

Order in the near future, or perhaps at all. Accordingly, this Court should order the Citizenship

Board to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt.

II. Chief Hill

Chief Hill should likewise be held in contempt for his obstructive Executive Order,

described supra. “The contempt power extends to cover those individuals who, despite not being

parties to the action, ‘have notice of the court’s order and the responsibility to comply with it.’”

Schrunk v. J & T Servs., LLC, No. 19-cv-1137 (SRN/DTS), 2020 WL 9171087, at *3 (D. Minn.

2020) (quoting Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at 507). “Judge Learned Hand explained that, while

11

no court can make a decree that binds ‘the world at large,’ a non-party ‘may be punished if he

either abet[s] the defendant or [is] legally identified with him.’” Chi. Truck Drivers, 207 F.3d at

507 (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930)).

Chief Hill certainly has notice of the Court’s Order, as evidenced by the Executive Order

and his long, public history of opposition to Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen descendant citizenship.

See, e.g., Principal Chief David Hill, Facebook, (September 28, 2023, at 02:26 P.M.

ET), https://www.facebook.com/ChiefDavidHill/posts/pfbid02a0CmNaMA 6y8xtU7YxPAP4i4s

NrTc4vdW1iJW4a9eZ9RtntjSp3hmeThiFfDqWkgyl (disavowing M(C)N District Court Judge

Mouser’s decision to order the Citizenship Board to reconsider the citizenship applications for

Respondents).

Chief Hill also has the responsibility to comply with this Court’s Order. In his Executive

Order, Chief Hill insinuates that this Court’s Order is “directly contrary to the process of amending

the laws and policies of the Nation, which are powers reserved to the Legislative and Executive

Branches of the Nation.” Exec. Order J 1.04. But as the head of the executive branch, he has the

responsibility to “uphold the Constitution and the Laws of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation”—not

amend the laws of the Nation. Muscogee (Creek) Const. Art. V § 1(e). The Muscogee Supreme

Court—through interpreting the Constitution and the Treaty of 1866—has spoken clearly and

decided that the Constitution requires the Citizenship Board to issue citizenship cards to

Respondents. Separation of powers principles and Article V, Section 1(e) of the M(C)N

Constitution require Chief Hill to not only respect this Court’s decision, but to uphold it. Instead,

Chief Hill conveniently forgets the core constitutional principle of judicial review, usurping this

Court’s role in the M(C)N’s constitutional framework by obstructing the Citizenship Board from

carrying out the July Opinion. Chief Hill’s actions are especially surprising, given his clear

12

understanding of the sanctity of the Treaty of 1866, which according to Chief Hill, is “the supreme

law of the land.” See Ex. J (Chief Hill’s August 30, 2023, Letter to Governor Kevin Stitt about

State of the State Address); see also Principal Chief David Hill, Facebook, (October 8, 2025 at

4:33P.04:33P.M.ET) http://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1463633762190345 (emphasizing

hunting and fishing rights established by treaties between tribes and the United States). He respects

and upholds this supremacy—except when it comes to Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen.

As previously stated, to hold a party in contempt for willful disobedience of an order, this

Court must find “by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the allegedly violated Order was valid

and lawful; (2) the Order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator(s) had

the ability to comply with the Order.” Ellis, SC-2006-07, at 5. As established supra, elements

one and two are satisfied. And as for element three, Chief Hill easily had the ability to comply

with the Order, as he simply had to sit back and let the Citizenship Board do its job.

Unfortunately, Chief Hill has done the opposite. With the issuance of the Executive Order,

he injected himself into this controversy, despite previous disingenuous statements to the contrary.

See, e.g., Grayson v. Citizenship Bd., CV-2020-34, at 2 (Jan. 6, 2023) (Def.’s Mot. Quash Non-

Party Deposition Subpoena) (arguing that Plaintiff's subpoena is overbroad because Chief Hill

“has not been involved in any aspect of Plaintiffs case.”). He openly defied this Court and ignored

the foundational principle of judicial review by claiming this Court “encroach[ed] on the authority

of the other branches.” Exec. Order J 1.05. And he attempted to nullify the July Opinion when

he directed the Citizenship Board to “not issue citizenship cards or any form of membership

identification cards to [descendants of Muscogee (Creek) Freedmen] until all law and policy have

been fully reviewed and amended.” Jd. 4 2.01.

13

In Jn re Seanez, 9 Am. Tribal Law 329 (Sup. Ct. Navajo Nation 2010), the Supreme Court

of the Navajo Nation held a show cause hearing and sua sponte issued a writ of prohibition against

Frank Seanez, Chief Legislative Counsel for the Tribe. In legal opinions and memoranda issued

to the Legislative Council, Seanez had advised the Council to defy the Court’s holding that “the

People have the ultimate authority to determine their governmental structure and amend all

provisions that concern doctrines of separation of powers, checks and balances, accountability to

the people, and service of the anti-corruption principle.” Jd. at 333. Instead, Seanez told the

Council that they had “unquestioned” authority to amend various Titles without restriction. Jd.

Seanez also wrote in a memorandum to the Council that “the Court had no authority to invalidate

the Navajo Government Development Act of 2007 and call for the reestablishment and re-funding

of the Government Reform Commission.” Jd.

The Court ordered Seanez “to immediately desist and refrain from giving legal advice and

issuing opinions and memoranda that defy orders of the Navajo Nation courts[.]” Jd. at 331-32.

The Court ultimately concluded:

People as individuals will always have differing opinions regarding the application

of various court holdings, regulations, policies and statutes. Such differences are a

matter of free speech that this Court fully supports. However, we cannot and will

not condone a government lawyer intentionally using his position to undermine the

very foundation of a stable Navajo Nation government by providing justifications

for unlawful conduct. There can be no doubt that Mr. Seanez knew, or should have

known, that through his denial of this Court’s authority he was facilitating the

breaking of Navajo Nation laws.

Id. at 334 (emphasis added).

The same can be said of Chief Hill. He understands his duty to uphold the Constitution

and the laws of the M(C)N. And although he is the head of the executive branch, he has no legal

authority over the Citizenship Board’s administrative functions. See Muscogee (Creek) Const. Art.

Il; 7 TVSEKVYV/AHONKVTKEPE [Muscogee (Creek) Nation Citizenship Code], Muscogee

14

(Creek) Nation Code of Laws §§ 2-106, 2-107 (2010), https://www.creeksupremecourt.com/wpcontent/uploads/title7.pdf. Again, the Citizenship Board is a constitutionally created board, and

Chief Hill has no power over the Board beyond appointing its members. /d. Chief Hill has

overstepped, encroaching on the Citizenship Board’s independence, violating his duty to uphold

the law, and usurping this Court’s authority. Such willful and blatant obstruction of a lawful court

order cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, this Court should order Chief Hill to show cause as to

why he should not be held in contempt.

CONCLUSION

As before, Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy do not file this Motion lightly. They would

prefer—and have repeatedly sought—a proactive, collaborative resolution with this Nation’s

leadership. But they have been rebuffed, their rights under the Treaty of 1866 and this Court’s

July Opinion have been deliberately castigated. The Citizenship Board’s willful decision to follow

Chief Hill’s illegal Executive Order attempting to nullify the July Opinion and its failure to heed

this Court’s instruction to issue citizenship cards are just two more barriers in a series of carefully

placed obstacles in the executive branch’s forty-five-year-long effort to defy the Treaty of 1866’s

command that the descendants of “Creeks of African descent” shall enjoy citizenship with M(C)N.

Although the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill continue to resist issuing Respondents’ citizenship

cards, it is “what Mvskoke law demands.” After this Court resisted the executive branch’s attack

on its judicial authority via the unconstitutional special justice law, and after this Court

unambiguously ordered full compliance with the Treaty of 1866, Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy

respectfully submit that action is, unfortunately, needed once more.

This Court should (1) order the Citizenship Board and Chief Hill to show cause as to why

the Court should not hold them in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s Order, (2) find

the Citizenship Board in contempt for its willful failure to comply with this Court’s July 23, 2025

15

Order and Opinion, (3) order it to issue Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy citizenship cards

immediately, (4) hold Chief Hill in contempt for his obstruction of this Court’s July 23, 2025 Order

and Opinion, and (5) award Ms. Grayson and Mr. Kennedy their attorney’s fees and costs

associated with this Motion pursuant to M(C)N RAP 20(C).

Respectfully submitted,

Damario Solofron-Simmons, MCN # 354

SOLOMONSIMMONSLAW, PLLC

601 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 602

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

918-551-8999 — Phone/918-558-8039 — Facsimile

dss@solomonsimmons.com

Jana L. Knott, MCN #1320

BASS LAW

252 NW 70" St.

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 262-4040 — Phone/(405) 262-4058 — Facsimile

jana@basslaw.net

M. David Riggs, MCN # 1239

RIGGs, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS, P.C.

502 West 6th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

(918) 587-3161 — Phone/(918) 587-9708 — Facsimile

driggs@riggsabney.com

Attorneys for Respondents

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 14th day of October, 2025, I caused the foregoing document to be

transmitted to the following counsel of record via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:

Geri Wisner

Clinton A. Wilson

Jeremy Pittman

THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, OK 74447

gwisner@menag.com

cwilson@menag.com

jpittman@mcnag.com

Jang #. Knot

17

AFFIDAVIT OF RHONDA K. GRAYSON

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF Oklahoma )

I, RHONDA K. GRAYSON, being of legal age and being first duly sworn upon oath, depose

and state as follows:

l.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“MCN”) Supreme Court issued an Order and Opinion on

July 23, 2025, directing the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and Mr.

Jeffrey D. Kennedy.

On July 23, 2025, I sent an email to Nathan Wilson, Director of the MCN Citizenship

Board and Allan Colbert Jr., Office Manager of the MCN Citizenship Board providing a

courtesy copy of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion and inquiring about the

procedure to process our citizenship applications. A true and correct copy of this email

and the emails described in Paragraphs 3-12 below are attached to this Affidavit as

Exhibit A.' See Exh. A at 6.

On July 24, 2025, Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to my email and stated that the MCN

Citizenship Board would be processing our previously submitted citizenship applications.

and that the MCN Citizenship Board “is meeting soon to update the citizenship policies

and procedures to comply with the Supreme Court decision.” Exh. A at 5.

On July 24, 2025, I responded to Mr. Colbert Jr.’s email inquiring about the application

process for others impacted by the Supreme Court decision and suggested that a

statement or meeting could help streamline the process and reduce calls to the MCN

Citizenship Board office. Exh. A at 4.

I sent a follow-up email to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson on July 24, 2025 asking the

MCN Citizenship Board office to clarify whether the office wanted individuals to call the

office to request their applications be re-processed and reiterated my suggestion for a

meeting. Exh. A at 3-4.

In my follow-up email on July 24, 2025, on behalf of Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy and several

of my family members, | requested that their applications be processed. Exh. A at 4.

On July 28, 2025, I emailed Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson again, regarding comments

made by an employee of the MCN Citizenship Board office to another member of the

' Due to privacy concerns, email addresses in these emails and the names of individuals who are not parties to the

case before the MCN Supreme Court and are not associated with the MCN Citizenship Board have been redacted in

these emails.

1

EXHIBIT “A”

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, stating that the office was taking applications,

but not processing them “because the Creek Nation is still discussing the Creek Nation

Supreme Court ruling regarding Creek Freedmen.” Exh. A at 3.

On July 29, 2025, Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to my email and apologized “for any

confusion” MCN Citizenship Board “staff may have caused” with their comments. Exh.

Aat 2.

In his July 29, 2025 email, Mr. Colbert Jr. again stated that the MCN Citizenship Board

would be meeting “to update the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the

Supreme Court decision. Applications are being taken and will be processed in alignment

with the new policies and procedures.” Exh. A at 2.

On August 3, 2025, having received no further response from Mr. Colbert Jr. or Mr.

Wilson, I followed up via email requesting any information or explanation for the

continued delay. In that email, I provided the language from the MCN Supreme Court’s

Order and Opinion requiring the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy. Exh. A at 1.

On August 4, 2025, I again followed up via email to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson

inquiring as to the accuracy of another statement made by MCN Citizenship Board staff

to a member of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band (Mr. Ron Graham) that the

citizenship cards would not be issued until October. I requested a response “as soon as

possible” given the already-existing delay. Exh. A at 1.

On August 4, 2025, instead of responding to my emails, the MCN Citizenship Board filed

a Petition for Rehearing, which was denied on August 20, 2025.

On August 21, 2025, in light of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion decision,

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy and I visited the MCN Citizenship Board office in person to

retrieve our citizenship cards.

On August 21, 2025, MCN Citizenship Board staff informed us that our cards would not

be available for another 4-6 weeks.

On August 21, 2025, we requested to speak with either Director Nathan Wilson or Office

Manager Allan Colbert, Jr. regarding the additional delay, but we were told they were

currently unavailable and would be meeting with the MCN Attorney General to discuss

the matter.

To date, I have not received any additional information from the MCN Citizenship Board,

nor have I or Mr. Jeffrey D. Kennedy been issued citizenship or a citizenship card in

accordance with the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion.

17. This is true of many other similarly situated individuals who are entitled to citizenship

18.

under the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion but who have not been issued

citizenship or citizenship cards, such as my family members referenced in Paragraph 6.

Without citizenship, we cannot vote in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

election. The right to vote is fundamental and essential, it is the hallmark of citizenship,

and it is the lifeblood of democracy. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

September 20, 2025 election requires citizens to register to vote by September 9, 2025. If

we are not issued citizenship by the MCN Citizenship Board before September 9, we will

be deprived of the opportunity to have our voices heard as citizens of the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation.

[Cant Xv Sreapo

RHONDA K. GRAYSON

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this the 27 day of August, 2025.

ANsanite 07%

NOTARY PUBLIC

. 2 STATE OF Oblahome

“111 ARN My Commission Expires: OY Ito [2¢

RU

Satin ie

ge Fags

e

* Lay

eS

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY D. KENNEDY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

) ss.

COUNTY OF dE lahoma )

I, JEFFREY D. KENNEDY, being of legal age and being first duly sworn upon oath, depose

and state as follows:

1.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“MCN”) Supreme Court issued an Order and Opinion on

July 23, 2025, directing the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to me and Ms.

Rhonda K. Grayson.

On July 23, 2025, Rhonda Grayson sent an email, copied to me, to Nathan Wilson,

Director of the MCN Citizenship Board and Allan Colbert Jr., Office Manager of the

MCN Citizenship Board providing a courtesy copy of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order

and Opinion and inquiring about the procedure to process our citizenship applications. A

true and correct copy of this email and the emails described in Paragraphs 3-12 below are

attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit A.' See Exh. A at 6.

On July 24, 2025, Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to Ms. Grayson’s email and stated that the

MCN Citizenship Board would be processing our previously submitted citizenship

applications, and that the MCN Citizenship Board “is meeting soon to update the

citizenship policies and procedures to comply with the Supreme Court decision.” Exh. A

at 5,

On July 24, 2025, Ms. Grayson responded to Mr. Colbert Jr.’s email inquiring about the

application process for others impacted by the Supreme Court decision and suggested that

a statement or meeting could help streamline the process and reduce calls to the MCN

Citizenship Board office. Exh. A at 4.

Ms. Grayson sent a follow-up email, copied to me, to Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson on

July 24, 2025 asking the MCN Citizenship Board office to clarify whether the office

wanted individuals to call the office to request their applications be re-processed and

reiterated her suggestion for a meeting. Exh. A at 3-4.

In Ms. Grayson’s follow-up email on July 24, 2025, she noted that I was copied on the

email thread and requested on my behalf that my application be processed. Exh. A at 4.

' Due to privacy concerns, email addresses in these emails and the names of individuals who are not parties to the

case before the MCN Supreme Court and are not associated with the MCN Citizenship Board have been redacted in

these emails.

EXHIBIT "B"

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

On July 28, 2025, Ms. Grayson emailed Mr. Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson again, copied to

me, regarding comments made by an employee of the MCN Citizenship Board office to

another member of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band, stating that the office

was taking applications, but not processing them “because the Creek Nation is still

discussing the Creek Nation Supreme Court ruling regarding Creek Freedmen.” Exh. A

at 3.

On July 29, 2025, Mr. Colbert Jr. responded to Ms. Grayson’s email and apologized “for

any confusion” MCN Citizenship Board “staff may have caused” with their comments.

Exh. A at 2,

In his July 29, 2025 email, Mr. Colbert Jr. again stated that the MCN Citizenship Board

would be meeting “to update the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the

Supreme Court decision. Applications are being taken and will be processed in alignment

with the new policies and procedures.” Exh. A at 2.

On August 3, 2025, having received no further response from Mr. Colbert Jr. or Mr.

Wilson, Ms. Grayson followed up via email requesting any information or explanation

for the continued delay. In that email, she provided the language from the MCN Supreme

Court’s Order and Opinion requiring the MCN Citizenship Board to issue citizenship to

me and Ms. Grayson. Exh. A at 1.

On August 4, 2025, Ms. Grayson again followed up via email, copied to me, to Mr.

Colbert Jr. and Mr. Wilson inquiring as to the accuracy of another statement made by

MCN Citizenship Board staff to a member of the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen

Band (Mr. Ron Graham) that the citizenship cards would not be issued until October. Ms.

Grayson requested a response “as soon as possible” given the already-existing delay. Exh.

Aat 1.

On August 4, 2025, instead of responding to Ms. Grayson’s emails, the MCN Citizenship

Board filed a Petition for Rehearing, which was denied on August 20, 2025.

On August 21, 2025, in light of the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion decision,

Ms. Rhonda K. Grayson and | visited the MCN Citizenship Board office in person to

retrieve our citizenship cards.

On August 21, 2025, MCN Citizenship Board staff informed us that our cards would not

be available for another 4-6 weeks.

. On August 21, 2025, we requested to speak with either Director Nathan Wilson or Office

Manager Allan Colbert, Jr. regarding the additional delay, but we were told they were

currently unavailable and would be meeting with the MCN Attorney General to discuss

the matter.

16. To date, | have not received any additional information from the MCN Citizenship Board,

nor have I or Ms. Rhonda K. Grayson been issued citizenship or a citizenship card in

accordance with the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion.

17. This is true of many other similarly situated individuals who are entitled to citizenship

under the MCN Supreme Court’s Order and Opinion but who have not been issued

citizenship or citizenship cards.

18. Without citizenship, we cannot vote in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

election. The right to vote is fundamental and essential, it is the hallmark of citizenship.

and it is the lifeblood of democracy. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s upcoming

September 20, 2025 election requires citizens to register to vote by September 9, 2025. If

we are not issued citizenship by the MCN Citizenship Board before September 9, we will

be deprived of the opportunity to have our voices heard as citizens of the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this the __ day of August, 2025.

eeeellttag,

ss \A GOy

ERS,

= * g2qnosorT * % =

an Poet 7 NOTARY PUBLIC 7

Seal aw ootl ¢ STATE OF_ Okan

My Commission Expires:

es)

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please

notify the sender by return e-mail and delete and/or destroy all

copies of this communication and any attachments.

From: rhondagrayson@cox.net <rhondagrayson@cox.net>

Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:33 PM

To: Allan Colbert Jr <acolbertir(@men-citizenship.com>

Cc: Nathan Wilson <nwilson@men-citizenship.com>

Subject: Citizenship Application-Resubmission

Thank You, for the response.

We have received a few calls stating that the Jenks office requests the entire

application package instead of the first page. | was only required to resubmit the

1st page of the application at the Jenks office., | am told Okmulgee is requesting

the 1st page of the denied applicant packet for reconsideration. What paperwork

should be submitted going forward? | hope there is minor since the Citizenship

Department is now maintaining the records of the Freedmen. Once we determine

what is needed, can that information be communicated to both offices so that

everyone has the exact instructions on what is required for reprocessing

applications for reconsideration?

Kind regards,

Rhonda Grayson

From: Allan Colbert Jr <acolbertir@mcn-citizenship.com>

Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 10:54 AM

To: rhondagrayson@cox.net

Cc: Nathan Wilson <nwilson@mcn-citizenship.com>

Subject: Re: Set Hearing Date and Time

Good Day,

Thank you for your email. | did receive your Citizenship application and it is going

through the application process, which this process will be 4-6 weeks. We will be

in contact with you.

| did CC, Nathan Wilson (Citizenship Director), in this email per your request in

your previous email.

EXHIBIT "C"

Respectfully,

Allan Colbert Jr.

Office Manager, Citizenship Board (Okmulgee Location)

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580 | Okmulgee, OK 74447

T (918) 732-7753 | F (918) 732-7716

acolbertir@men-citizenship.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any

attachments may contain confidential and privileged information for

the use of the designated recipients named above. If you are not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received

this communication in error and that any review, disclosure,

dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is strictly

prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please

notify the sender by return e-mail and delete and/or destroy all

copies of this communication and any attachments.

From: rhondagrayson@cox.net <rhondagrayson@cox.net>

Date: Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 10:29 AM

To: Allan Colbert Jr <acolbertirp@mcn-citizenship.com>

Subject: FW: Set Hearing Date and Time

Hello Mr. Colbert,

| am writing to inform you that | resubmitted my application for citizenship as per

the attached order dated September 27, 2023, by the Honorable Judge Denette

Mouser, District Court Judge of the Muscogee Creek Nation. Based on her order

and opinion, my citizenship should be immediately approved. The Jenks office

has already taken my photo and signature. When should | expect to receive my

citizenship card?

*Please forward my email to Nathan Wilson, Citizenship Director *

Kind regards,

Rhonda K. Grayson

14

Muscogee (CREEK) Nation

Executive Office

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 25-05

PURPOSE: TO ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK FOR INCORPORATING THE

QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN ARTICLE II OF THE TREATY OF 1866 IN

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION LAW FOR THE

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION CITIZENSHIP OFFICE, PURSUANT TO THE

SUPREME COURT ORDER IN CASE SC 2023-10

Authority: By virtue of the executive authority vested in me as Principal Chief by the Constitution

and the laws of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (“Nation”), I hereby order the following:

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

Findings:

On July 23, 2025, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court issued its Order and

Opinion (the “Order’’) in the case of Citizenship Board of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation v.

Rhonda K. Grayson and Jeffrey D. Kennedy, SC-2023-10, on the question of whether the

Freedmen and their lineal‘descendants are entitled to “all the rights and privileges of native

citizens” as guaranteed by the Treaty of 1866 between the United States and the Muscogee

(Creek) Nation. ,

The Order makes a specific finding that there have been no acts of Congress to abrogate

‘ the Treaty of 1866 and thai “this treaty stands as the supreme law of the land under both

federal and Mvskoke law.” The Order concludes that the Citizenship Board must apply

the provisions of Article J] of the Treaty of 1866 when considering Freedmen descendants

citizenship applications. The Order also declares the reference to “by blood” citizenship

in the Nation’s Constitution and in the Nation’s Code, rules, regulations, policies, or

procedures as being unlawful and void ab initio, although nothing in the Order provides

any guidance for how this declaration affects the Nation’s present day governmental

operations, other than the processing of citizenship applications.

I, as Principal Chief, and every elected officer and every judge and justice of this Nation

took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the Nation’s

Supreme Court has previously held the Constitution “is the Supreme Law of the Muscogee

(Creek ) Nation . . .” Harjo v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation Election Board, SC 07-50

(Muscogee (Creek) 2007).

EXHIBIT "D"

P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447-0580 1-800-482-1979

1.04

1.05

1.06

Lod

>

N

—)

—_

2.02

2.03

The Order finding that any reference to “by blood” citizenship in the Constitution and

Nation laws and policy as being unlawful and declared to be stricken is directly contrary

to the process of amending the Constitution, which is a power reserved to the National

Council and a vote of the eligible voters, under Article IX of the Constitution, and is

directly contrary to the process of amending the laws and policies of the Nation, which are

powers reserved to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Nation.

I, as Principal Chief, have always respected the doctrine of separation of powers between

the branches of the Nation’s government, and I do believe in each branch being co-equal,

with none having greater powers than the others. That being said, I believe the Order’s

directives encroaching on the authority of the other branches and the rights of the citizens

have the potential for creating a constitutional crisis within the Nation; however, I also

believe a critical role for the Principal Chief is take all necessary action to protect and

preserve the stability of the government during difficult times. Even though my hope is

that the citizens and all elected officials continue to discuss these issues and find solutions

that are constitutionally sound and respectful of the Nation’s sovereign rights, the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation Administration is currently challenged with the task of

implementing the Order and following the direction of the Supreme Court to apply Article

II of the Treaty of 1866 and without reference to “by blood” citizenship in any application

for citizenship by Freedmen descendants.

This will require the Administration, the Citizenship Office and the National Council to

work on the necessary amendments and/or adoption of new laws to incorporate the

qualification requirements under Article II of the Treaty of 1866 and to adopt appropriate

policies and procedures establishing the necessary evidence and documentation that

Citizenship Office would require to consider applications in a standard and consistent

manner.

Authority/Action:

The Office of the Principal Chief hereby declares and directs the Citizenship Office to

continue accepting applications from Freedmen descendant applicants, but not issue

citizenship cards or any form of membership identification cards to such persons until all

law and policy’ have been fully reviewed and amended to meet the qualification

requirements under Article I] of the Treaty of 1866.

The Office of the Principal Chief further declares and directs the Citizenship Office to

maintain the status quo by continuing to accept, process, and issue determinations for

applications for new Mvskoke citizens in accordance with current law and policy.

All departments are hereby directed to maintain the status quo in daily operations by

continuing to follow the established policies and procedures for services they provide and,

also, such department heads should begin reviewing such policies and procedures to

propose necessary amendments to be consistent with the Order.

2.04

2.05

When the necessary reviews are complete, we will follow the normal processes established

by the Executive Branch to review and approve prior to the setting forth the adoption of

changes.

Where necessary changes require National Council approval, each department will submit

those changes to the Office of Principal Chief, in accordance with established procedures,

and the Principal Chief will submit the changes to the National Council for its review and

approval.

Distribution of the Executive Order:

Copies of this Executive Order will be distributed to the National Council, Supreme Court,

District Court, Office of the Attorney General, Office of Administration, Departments of

the Administration, Managers, Independent Agencies, Boards, Commissions, and

Chartered Communities within the organizational structure of the Muscogee (Creek)

Nation.

Effective Date:

This Executive Order shall become effective immediately and continued until further

notice.

David W. Hill

Principal Chief

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2025

24

25

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION

OKMULGEE DISTRICT

RHONDA GRAYSON AND JEFFREY

KENNEDY,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

vs. ) CV-2020-0034

)

CITIZENSHIP BOARD OF THE }

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION OF )

OKLAHOMA, )

Defendant. )

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ON HEARING, taken before

The Honorable Denette Mouser, on the 1st day of February,

2023, before Michael A. Bailey, Registered Professional

Reporter, at Muscogee (Creek) Nation Tribal Court,

Okmulgee, Oklahoma.

Michael A. Bailey, CSR-RPR-CLVS

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ms. Geri Wisner Mr. Damario Solomon-Simmons

Mr. Clint Wilson 601 South Boulder Avenue

P.O. Box 580 Suite 600

Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

ATTORNEY FOR CHIEF HILL: Mr. David Riggs

502 West Sixth Street

Mr. O. Joseph Williams Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

P.O. Box 1131

Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447

COPY

Bailey Reporting & Video, Inc.

Registered Professional Reporters

P.O. Box 690153 - Tulsa, Ok 74169

(04Q\481.099N

EXHIBIT "E"

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-43]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]