🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Ruby <rubyanch@alaska.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote
>
>> Venetie, for example, has been a legal reservation for decades.
>
>While it was a reservation for many years, all reservations in Alaska
>(except Metlakatla in SE) were eliminated by ANCSA.  Under ANCSA, they had

That is correct.  I wasn't being pedantic enough.  The Venetie
reservation and status as an Indian Tribe were granted in the
early 1940's, which made the Venetie Tribal Government a
recognized sovereign entity by almost anyones definition.  ANCSA
disolved the reservation status of the land (which meant that the
1.4 million acres had been held "in trust" by the Federal
government), and deeded the land to the Venetie Village
Corporation.  The Venetie Village Corporation deeded the land to
the Venetie Tribal Government, which still exists as a sovereign
entity under the terms recognized in the 1940's.  (In other words,
what ANCSA changed was that the Federal government owned the land
and held it in trust for the tribe before ANCSA, and after ANCSA
the tribe directly owns title to the land.)

I think we both agree that the comment I was responding to,

   Basically until the courts get thru with it all, no
   matter what Venetie/Arctic Village/Tyonek and many
   other villages, they are not reservations/indian country.

is exactly what the court has said is an invalid statement, and
in the case of Venetie in particular it is because of the
previous status as a reservation wherein the land was "set
aside" specifically for that tribe.  The Venetie Reservation
lands, now owned by the Venetie Tribal Government, are indeed
Indian Country under US law.

What isn't nearly as clear is if the Venetie Village Corporation
is also a sovereign entity because it is a Native village
corporation which owned land as a direct result of ANSCA.  If
that is true then virtually all of the Native village tribal
governments and the Native village corporations are also
sovereign entities.  The 9th Court gave a pretty broad hint that
it would likely rule that it is, but until that actually happens
it certainly is open to debate.  State courts have ruled both
ways at different times.

Obviously my personal hope is that they are recognized as
sovereign entities.


[Here is the context that the following discussion related to.]

    They are lands owned by the state, since the corporations
    are last I heard Incorporated thru the State of Alaska laws
    dealing with Corporations (Incorporated bodies).

To which I responded with a discussion of State mandated corporations
intended to perform the business of the State of Alaska, and ended 
with:

>> Village corporations and Alaska Native Regional corporations do
>> not fit that category as they are not mandated to perform tasks
>> for the State of Alaska.
>
>Yes they do fit under this category.  Both Village and Regional
>Corporations were required to form under state corporate statutes.  As with

They are Federally mandated to form under State statutes, but
not as sub-entities of the State for the purpose of doing the
business of the State of Alaska.  Non-profit corporations, such
as the Interior Region Emergency Medical Council, Inc. which I
used as an example of a corporation mandated to do the business
of the State, must operate as if they are a part of the State
government in relation to such things as the open meetings law
(the Board of Directors cannot meet in secret, etc.).  If that
corporation is dissolved its property is already owned by the
State of Alaska.  That is not the case with either the Regional
or Village corporations.

>any corporation, when it dissolves, it has to have a plan for distribution
>of its assets, they don't automatically go to the state.  If a corporation
>does not file it annual or biannual reports, it can be involuntarily
>dissolved by the state.  After a period of 7 years, if the involuntarily
>dissolved corporation has not distributed its assets, then they would
>escheat to the State.

In other words the state eventually, if no other claim is filed,
ends up with the property as a last resort.  That is very
different than the example I'm citing, where the State does
indeed own the property of the corporation and if dissolved that
property _immediately_ reverts to control of the State
government itself.  Anyone with a claim must file against the
State.

In any case, we both agree that the original statement's concept
that the state actually owns any real property deeded to the
Regional or Village corporations is not true.

>  The main difference between a normal corporation and
>village/regional one is that there are additional federal
>protections/restrictions placed by ANCSA and ANILCA on the corporations.

Very true.  They are a step in the other direction from a State
mandated corporation doing the business of the State.  The
differences are that for one type it protects the people from
the corporation, and for the other it protects the corporation
from the people.


Floyd
-- 
Floyd L. Davidson          Salcha, Alaska         floyd@tanana.polarnet.com