VERNON, N.Y. – The Oneida Nation of New York announced action to remove 20,000 landowners from a land claims lawsuit.
In a press conference Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said the landowners were never in jeopardy of being evicted or paying rent to the nation, but to prove it he put it in writing.
“We want to make sure the landowners who are innocent are protected. We’ve always said they were protected,” Halbritter said.
“They actually were always protected because we’ve always said they were, but that isn’t good enough for everyone.”
The lawsuit that named the 20,000 landowners was filed in federal court Dec. 8, 1999, as an amendment to a 1985 lawsuit. That suit asked for compensation for or return of 250,000 acres of land it claimed were taken illegally by the state of New York in the 18th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Oneida’s favor. Since that time tensions between the non-Indian landowners and the nation increased with threats and broken-down negotiations between the nation, the state and Madison and Oneida counties.
The announcement met with mixed reactions from state and county and U.S. officials and a citizens group criticized the move. Susan Galbraith, a spokeswoman for the Upstate Citizens for Equality, said it may mean the tribe won’t ask landowners to hand over their deeds next week, but she cautioned the tribe may pass laws that require all residents to abide by while living within boundaries of the reservation.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer also issued a skeptical statement as he posed a question about what the nation wanted in return for removing the landowners from the lawsuit. He also said if the Oneidas were “really going to remove the landowners from the suit,” it would lessen the tensions.
Two documents were filed with the federal court. One is a legally binding agreement in which the nation agrees to not seek any damages from the landowners, including rent and eviction. Madison and Oneida counties also would have to agree not to use this agreement in court to argue the nation abandoned its land claims. The state and the counties must sign the stipulation agreements to become binding.
The second document asks U.S. Judge Neal McCurn to separate the proposed defendants in the case and let the case against the state take precedent and proceed first. If he agrees, the landowners would not be added as defendants at this time, the nation states.
The goal of the request is to receive restitution from the state for “depriving the Nation of its federally guaranteed reservation,” reads a prepared statement from the Nation.
The proposal from the Nation met with disappointment from Madison and Oneida Counties.
“While we wholeheartedly support all efforts to remove the landowners from this case, the proposed stipulation does nothing of the sort,” the two counties said in a prepared statement.
“First the proposed stipulation only removes certain remedies against private landowners who are not even parties to the suit.
“Second, the proposed stipulation includes only the Oneida Indian Nation of New York. In order for the stipulation and order to be meaningful, it must include all of the parties, including the other two Oneida Indian plaintiffs and the United States,” the county boards stated.
“We strongly agree that we need to get back to the table,” said Ralph Eannace, Oneida County executive, and Rocco DiVeronica, chairman of the Madison County Board of Supervisors.
“There is no question that the settlement process affords the best way for us to truly lift the cloud of a threat to people’s title to their lands. At the same time, we will encourage the court to set in motion a litigation schedule with out any further delay,” the county leaders said.
Both counties rejected the idea of placing the state lawsuit first. County officials said the landowners and the counties would not be involved in the decision. The proposal as laid out by the Oneida Indian Nation was rejected earlier during settlement negotiations, officials said. They added the counties have opposed any decision to amend the original complaint and, on April 25, county officials reiterated the opposition to any amendment.
“The best protection for private landowners is the stipulation agreement, because it would protect them no matter what happens in court,” Halbritter said.
“The Men’s Council and Clan Mothers have an obligation to the Oneida people to preserve our rights in court.
“Throughout the negotiations that began last year, we made it clear that we did not want to force people from their homes or even collect rent from them. Now we are making our position clear to the court. The landowners in this region have endured nearly a year and a half of uncertainty over their future. We hope that the steps we have taken today will end that uncertainty.”