FREEDMAN CASE OF B. RIGGS

APPEAL DENIED!!

The case of Mrs. B. Riggs was recently announced.  The Tribal Court denied citizenship to the plaintiff, who was born a member of the nation, who, is a descendant of both Cherokee Freedmen, and Cherokees "by blood".  Note that having ancestors on the Freedmen Rolls does not mean that one did not have Indian Blood. In addition, this same nation adopted Delawares and Absentee Shawnees who had 0% Cherokee Blood.

The plaintiff is a descendant of Ike Rogers, who served in the Union Army, in the 79th U.S. Colored Troops and who also served as a US Deputy Marshall in Judge Parker's Court in the Western District of Arkansas. Her ancestor was also a descendant by blood of the Vann line in the nation.  The family was prominent in both the Freedman and the general Tahlequah Cherokee community. Coming however, from a family with African ancestry, in spite of the Treaty of 1866, she has been denied citizenship in the nation of her ancestors.  One can surmise that the presence of her African ancestors in her blood line is the reason.

At the hearing, it was noted and recorded in the court record that the person who hears the case for the appeal is the same individual who typically rejects the applicant, based on the inability to provide a CDIB card.  The registrar for the nation admittedly served on a "committee" of several persons where she is the only active voter. Hopefully since that date in 1998, when this was pointed out, has changed.

However, in this case the suit was filed in the Cherokee court and was being decided by the justices who heard the case.

The circumstances of her history did not serve to assist this elderly lady whose ancestors were of the nation, were enslaved by persons in the nation and who remained in the nation. The plaintiff lives in the same community in the Cherokee Capitol where she was born, and has never left. However, the Nation chooses not to see her, since her African blood, running alongside blood cells of Cherokee composition, somehow makes her ineligible to be what she is.  Others are admitted with 1000th of a percent of Cherokee blood, but they are lacking African blood,---thus eligible for citizenship.

There were some odd factors to be noted at the hearing:

1) The case was heard on June 12, 1998, in Tahlequah, Oklahoma in the Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation. Mrs. Riggs, the plaintiff was not present, and had not been notified of the case being heard, so her input was not sought by neither attorneys representing her, nor the nation. (A year later, upon speaking with Mrs. Riggs, she was quite astonished to have learned that her case had been heard, and insisted that had she been notified, she would have been present.)

2) Genealogist Angela Walton-Raji was contacted by the attorney for the plaintiff to research the plaintiff's background and history and to testify on the plaintiff's behalf on the data that was found. She mentioned information of the plaintiff's parents being on the 1880 Roll of Authenticated Cherokee Freedmen, and other pieces of information. She presented files to the attorney regarding the ancestry of Mrs. Rigss, her parents, and her grandparents and their ties to the Cherokee Rogers and Vanns. These files were not used in the hearing.  Walton-Raji performed her services for the client without charge, and was surprised that the plaintiff was not present.

3) The notification of the Riggs case was never made by the attorney to genealogist Walton-Raji, who made a special trip to Tahlequah to assist with the case,  Ms. Walton-Raji is concerned that perhaps the lack of personal attention to the plaintiff may have contributed to the case not being pursued vigorously enough, and subsequently being brushed aside.  There is no clear understanding why it took 3 years for the case to be decided.

The Nation has ruled that:

"1.  The Cherokee Nation has a sovereign right to determine its citizenship eligibility criteria, and this was done in passage of the original Constitutional  language in 1974 which says that  one must trace kinship to a person on the "Cherokee Blood" roll.

The Tribal Court ruled that:

2.  Future such cases will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

It is not known at this time whether the plaintiff has been notified of the outcome, although efforts will be made in the near future to speak with her.