|
Return to Jancita Eagle Deer page Disbarment Opinion
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBAL COURT
ROSEBUD INDIAN RSERVATION
ROSEBUD, SOUTH DAKOTA
SS
IN RE:
DISBARMENT OF WILLIAM JANKLOW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
On October 16, 1974, Dennis Banks, an individual daily admitted o
practice law as an attorney before this court submitted a "Petition for Disbarment of
William Janklow and Affidavit in Support Thereof." This Court subsequently
issued an order to show cause to William Janklow directing that he appear before this Court on
October 31, 1974 at 10:00 a.m., to be heard in connection with Mr. Bank's petition.
On this date, October 31, 1974, Mr. Banks appeared in support of his
petition assisted by associate counsul Larry Leventhal. No appearance was made by
William Janklow or a representative acting on his behalf. This Court received a
Sheriff's return indicating personal service upon Mr. Janklow and is satisfied that
he has received actual notice of the allegations against him and of the hearing
thereupon and that he has chosen not to respond. This Court has not received from
Mr. Janklow at any time a request for a continuance or change of date. There has been no
motions filed or any response whatever. It therefore becomes the duty of
this court to hear and weigh evidence relative to the petition and if the evidence warrants such, to grant the
relief requested in the petition.
The right to appear before this court as an attorney is a privilege based upon character and commitment.
The integrity of those practicing before the court and their commitment to ideals of justice is a basic
prerequisite to a court system which operates fairly and which is entitled to the respect which it must ask if it is to operate effectively.
The Eighth Circuit court of Appeals, in upholding the validity of a conviction by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, has stated that "from time immemorial the
members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe have exercised powers of local self-government, regulating domestic problems and conducting foreign affairs..." Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F 2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956). The history of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is similar.
(page 2)
It is the duty of this Court--a duty that cannot be delegated--to
determine and review the fitness of those admitted to practice before it. Records indicate that Mr. Janklow has taken the oath of an attorney and has practiced before this court in the past. Mr. Janklow has not paid his yearly fees in recent years, but
he is none-the-less still a member and officer of this court and is bond by the attorney's oath he has taken. Mr. Janklow's status before this court prior to the
issuance of this opinion was that of an inactive member. Once an individual is accepted as an attorney to practice before this court and ascribes to the attorney's oath, he remains a member thereof until he resigns, is disbarred, or is otherwise removed.
An attorney admitted to practice before this Court must take an oath that he or she "will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and the ordinances of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe..." and will conduct oneself "with honor towards those whom I represent and with
respect towards the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court." There are provisions of the Revised Law and Order Code of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe for disbarment of those who, like Mr. Janklow, are shown not to live up to
such standards of professional conduct. (See Revised Law and Order Code of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Chapter 8, Rule 2.)
When a tribal attorney's conduct involves several of the deplorable forms of behavior specified in Chapter 8, Rule 2 of the Code, supra, public trust cannot be solicited by maintaining such a person on our roles as an attorney. Mr. Banks in his
petition alleges five reasons listed in Chapter 8, Rule 2, supra, as to why Mr. Janklow should be disbarred. The conduct complained of is categorized as follows: rape, obstruction of justice,
perjury, dereliction of duty, conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct, and conduct discrediting the court and unbecoming of an
officer of the court. This Court has no alternative, in view of the testimony and other evidence heard today, but to find that all particulars alleged in the petition have been established and accordingly herein enters its order to permanently disbar
William Janklow from practicing before the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court and striking his name from those admitted to practice before it.
Testimony and several documents were received into evidence in this matter, including an outrageously arrogant and contemptuous letter from acting area director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs instructing the acting Agency Special Officer for the Rosebud Reservation not to deliver subpoenaed documents in his control.
(page 3)
This Court is very troubled and deeply saddened by what it has heard today concerning Mr. Janklow. Mr. Janklow directed the Legal Services Program on the reservation for several years. The program
offered hope within a legal system that has frequently proved hopeless to many of our Indian people. It now appears that
Mr. Janklow has more than once violated the trust of the people he committed himself to serve. Especially
deplorable and totally detached from any semblance of civilized behavior was the unforgivable act of forcible rape committed against
a fifteen year old girl. The victim has agreed to submit to a lie detector test to corroborate her testimony and the testimony of others.
I am moved to address this issue at greater length, but, will instead deal with the other allegations which, for the purposes of these proceedings and in the opinion of this Court, are considered proven.
Sworn testimony has been received that William Janklow on at least one occasion, rode a motorcycle in a residential area shooting dogs with a gun. The
dog, as well as other animals, is a sacred creature to many of the Lakota people. Other testimony shows that Mr. Janklow advised a number of people not to pay certain
bills based on action he committed himself to take, but which was never forthcoming. This advice subsequently has ruined the obtaining of credit for most of the Indian
community on the reservation. Furthermore, a federal court transcript in light of testimony offered indicates false testimony on his part to the effect that he had resigned from the Legal Services Program before prosecuting a tribal official when Mr. Janklow did not in fact resign.
In the opinion of this Court, Mr. Janklow's unfitness for service as a tribal attorney before this Court is further emphasized in a regrettable aspect of his current campaign for the office of the South Dakota Attorney General. Statements and literature received into evidence show that he has promised to deal with the
American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) and the "Custer Defendants." Such statement and literature show a a disregard on Mr. Janklow's part for the principle of fair trial and indicates further a bias against Indian People. "It is beyond question that a prosecutor's duty is to insure that justice is done, and not simply to seek convictions."
United States v. Banks and Means, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. Nicho. Oct. 9, 1974; Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 87 (1935). Mr. Janklow, in the prosecution of the "Custer Defendants" appears to wish to poison the atmosphere of justice in the State of South Dakota by his
actions so that A.I.M. members and sympathizers cannot hope to receive a fair trial in the courts of the State. Higher ethical standards must be demanded by this court.
(page 4)
In the rape allegation, Jancita Maria Eagledeer, the victim, testified in obvious discomfort at reliving old horrors. She was fifteen when Mr. Janklow gave her a ride home after babysitting the Janklow children. She protested as he drove her down a
deserted road and pushed the button in his Rambler which converted both seats into a large bed. Her testimony reveals that Mr. Janklow threatened to use a gun on her if she did not comply
with his sexual desires. Miss Eagledeer's foster parents, a guidance counselor, the tribal prosecutor, and others, all colaberated portions of her account. Medical records from the Rosebud P. H. S. Hospital shows evidence of the attack against her and quotes her as
corroborate identifying Mr. Janklow as her assailant. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that an obstruction of justice followed the rape. When a complaint was being made to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Special Officer, Janklow was there. No relief or representation was possible through the
Legal Services Program since Mr. Janklow ran it. A former employee, who is now the tribal prosecutor, and another individual testified that Mr. Janklow spent three days brooding about the rape incident. Further, testimony indicates that as recently as two months ago Mr. Janklow offered Miss Eagledeer's grandfather money after inquiring about her.
The depth of the suffering which Miss Eagledeer conveyed in her testimony cannot be reproduced through words on paper. Feeling shame, she left the Rosebud Reservation and returned only once until today. Her foster parents testifyed that her grades and interest in school fell after she was raped. She still feels
frightened and inhibited by the beastly act committed against her by Mr. Janklow. It can only be hoped that she will come to realize that she should hold her head up proud for she has no guilt--she is a victim.
The Court is satisfied that the rape allegations against Janklow are properly proven for the purposes of the hearing held today to warrant disbarment. The Court is, however, shocked and dismayed at the arrogance of certain Bureau of Indian
Affairs officials and their purposeful attempt to sabotage the inquiry of the Court in this matter. The Agency Special Officer has in his files a report on the rape incident, identified by one witness as a file number 66. A former Bureau of Indian Affairs employee testified that she had typed most of the file's contents. This witness also identified at least one
photograph of Miss Eagledeer which she recalled showed "hickeys" throughout the area of her breasts and stomach. This file was subpoenaed and acting Agency Special Officer, Norman Beare testified that he
(page 5)
located the file and had it in his possession, but was ordered by Bureau of Indian Affairs acting director, Harley D. Zephier, not to deliver the same. An arrogant letter by Mr. Zephier was presented to this Court by Mr. Beare
stating that the file would not be produced because a B.I.A. Administrative Procedure Manual directed that such reports were limited to "appropriate officials" and hence are unavailable to this Court. The unanimous decision of the United States Supreme
Court recently rejected the former President's claim of "executive privilege" to turn over evidence relevant to court proceedings in United States v. Richard Nixon, --U.S.--; 94 S.Ct. 3090 (1974). The principles set forth in that case should put the
outlandish contentions of Mr. Beare and superiors to rest. Faced with the further order of this Court to deliver the file requested and the victim's request that it be delivered, both Beare and Zephier persisted in their obstruction of
this Court. Both have been found in contempt.
Two B.I.A. police officers on the Crow Creek Reservation were subpoenaed and one was instructed to bring with him a file allegedly dealing with certain activities of Mr. Janklow involving moral turpitude. They were instructed by their superiors not to obey the subpoenas and did not make an appearance in court today. They have both been found in contempt.
This Court has committed Norman Beare to the tribal jail until the documents in his possession which were subpoenaed are produced, and deeply regrets that this action has to be taken. But in view of the circumstances this Court had no alternative but to take the action that it did.
This Court, which has the duty of enforcing the criminal ordinances of the Tribe and preserving law and order on the reservation, would be derelict in its duty to merely note the evidence and not to consider and act upon it apart from the
proceedings which are the subject matter of the petition filed by Mr. Banks. This Court has heard testimony under oath establishing probable cause that Mr. William Janklow has committed at least two offenses under the Tribal Code, Assault with Intent to Commit Rape in violation of Section 46 and Carnal Knowledge of a Female under Sixteen in violation of Section 45 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, based upon testimony and sworn complaint of Miss Eagledeer, a warrant to apprehend and arrest Mr. Janklow is herein ordered and all officers of the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe are directed to arrest Mr. William Janklow at any time that he may be found on the Rosebud Reservation.
This Court in keeping with its responsibility of administering justice on the reservation is moved to take the action set forth herein.
DATED THIS 31 DAY OF OCTOBER, 1974
Mario Gonzalez
home : mission statement : contact : site map : search : store : links
DLN coalition : DLN issues : DLN nation : related issues Any reprints are under the Fair Use doctrine of international copyright law : See http://www.dlncoalition.org/fair_use.htm.
|
