Deposition of Charles A. Gourd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOUR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SWIDLER & BERLIN, CHARTERED )
3000 K STREET, N.W. )
SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil Action
) Number
PAULA HOLDER ) CIV-97-676-B
TROY POTEETE )
BARBARA SCOTT )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________.

DEPOSITION OF CHARLES A. GOURD,

Taken on behalf of the Defendant Holder, pursuant to
agreement of the parties under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, at 8:30 a.m., on the 19th day of
March, 1998, at the U.S. Courthouse, 101 North 5th
Street, Muskogee, Oklahoma, before Linda Fisher,
Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and

Page 3

1 I-N-D-E-X

Page
Direct Examination by Mr. Shipley……… 4

DEFENDANTS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS – PREVIOUSLY MARKED

Deposition Exhibit Number 1………….21
Deposition Exhibit Number 5………….18
Deposition Exhibit Number 6………6,15,17,18,20
Deposition Exhibit Number 20………..42,43

Page 4

CHARLES A. GOURD,
after having been first duly sworn to testify the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHIPLEY:
Q. Would you state Your full name for the record,
please sir,
A. Charles Allen Gourd.
Q. All right. And Mr. Gourd, how long have you
worked for the Cherokee Nation?
A. This time, since Joe Byrd became the Chief. I
worked there before when Bill Keeler was the Chief
and for a short while while Mr. Swimmer was the
Chief.
Q. And in what capacity did you serve under Keeler
and Swimmer?
A. With Mr. Keeler it was primarily a volunteer
writing Federal grant application and stuff
because there was no — very little Federal
program money. Then under Mr. Swimmer’s
administration it was in program management and
evaluation and planning department again writing
Federal grant applications and kind of overseeing
some of the management of and internal evaluations

Page 5

of activities and programs.

Page 22

Q. (By Mr. Shipley) Okay. Looking at the next page
in that document, there’s an invoice dated April
30 which refers to Mr. Hamilton’s time on the
third of March, 1997 where he again calls you on
the — what’s been named the search warrant issue.
What is it that Mr. Hamilton is doing for the
Cherokee Nation here?
MR. LIPPS: Particularly on that entry,
3-3-97
MR. SHIPLEY: Yes.
A. I don’t recall the nature of that specific phone
call.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) Okay. Well, since you were
probably talking to him in late February and early
March, what sorts of things did you anticipate
that this gentleman was performing, what sort of
services was he performing under the search
warrant issue topic for the Nation?
A. Late February, early March?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Probably it would most likely have to do with how
to provide for the safety and security of people
in the Cherokee Nation, Indian and non-Indian,
because of the mature of the armed camps on both
sides and threats and accusations and public

Page 23

perceptions, the peace and security of the public
is primary concern.
Q. What sorts of facts gave rise to a concern for
peace and security in late February or early March
1997 in the Cherokee Nation?
A. What sorts of facts?
Q. Yes, what incidents can you tell us about which
support the concern you’ve described?
A. For me personally it was the manner in which the
search warrant was executed.
Q. Tell us.
A. I felt personally threatened by people that show
up heavily armed to recover documents which are
easily available upon request but to have folks
show up heavily armed, I feel and
immediate threat.
Q. And by this you’re talking about the marshals that
appeared on the 25th of February to carry out the
search warrant?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they heavily, heavily armed with?
A. I’m not a weapons expert —
Q. Did you see anything besides —
A. — but they had —
MR. LIPPS: Let him finish.

Page 24

Q. (By Mr. SHipley) Sorry, sir.
A. They had pistols on. They had those, I guess you
call them night sticks, those big flashlights you
can beat the heck out of people with. I had heard
that, you know, within easy getting there to back
them up, people with machine guns, shotguns. It
goes on from there.
Everything but heavily — I mean, by the time
the rumor mill started that day, I wouldn’t have
been surprised if somebody would have said a tank
was coming down the road. The level of fear that
was injected, introduced and forced on the people
who worked there, but more importantly the people
who come there for basic human service needs, was
inexcusable.
Q. You said they were “heavily, heavily armed” and so
far you’ve told me they had a flashlight and a
pistol in their holster.
MR. LIPPS: Objection to the form of the
question.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) Was there any other arms that
these folks had when they cam in the building?
A. If you are unarmed, anybody with a pistol and a
night stick is heavily armed.
Q. The answer is no, they had nothing, other than

Page 25

what you’ve told me, with them when they came in
the building, correct?
A. It was enough to threaten me.
Q. Did anyone remove their flashlight from the holster?
A. Not that I observed.
Q. Did anyone remove their flashlight from their
belt?
A. No.
Q. Did anone threaten to use their — make any
statement to you, did anyone make any statement to
you that they would use their flashlight on you or
their pistol on you?
A. No.
Q. Let me ask you to turn, please, sir, to the
invoice under the search warrant topic, April 28,
pardon me, May 28.
MR. LIPPS: That’s the line entry?
MR. SHIPLEY: That’s the invoice date.
The line entry is the 12th of April, 15th of
April, 16th of April.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) You may note here, sir, that on
the 12th of April you spoke with Mr. Hamilton and
you spoke with him again on the 15th of April, and
again on the 16th of April and on the 16th you
spoke a couple of times with wilson Pipestem.

Page 26

What was all this activity about?
A. Jim Hamilton’s primary concern, as ours was, was
the perception of the possibility of violence,
what is the public thinking about this, what is
the press saying about this, do people feel
threatened. His was a basic human concern about
people’s health and and safety and that was mine.
Q. What was he supposed to do about this, what was
his assignment?
MR. LIPPS: As reflected in these phone
calls? Counsel, let me impose an objection based
on the attorney-client privilege to the extent
you’re questioning as to communications between
this witness and mr. Hamilton.
As I understand the Court’s order, you are
entitled to ask as to what activities Mr. Hamilton
engaged in. And I would direct this witness to
answer those questions fully and completely. But
unless I misunderstand the question, Counselor,
you are asking here directly about attorney-client
privilege communications.
MR. SHIPLEY: Oay. I will try to make
it clear that I am not.
MR. LIPPS: Okay
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) I’m asking what was your

Page 27

understanding, Mr. Gourd, of what the law firm was
doing with repect to this joint concern of yours
that you described? Do you understand the
question?
A. Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you were — I don’t
understand the question. What was the law firm
doing about what now? I’m sorry. I thought you
were going to — you were still thinking to finish
the question, I’m sorry.
(Whereupon, the preceding question was read by
the reporter.)
A. Trying to figure out the most appropriate way,
given all the parties involved, to insure safety
of the public.
Q. What did they do to accomplish that?
A. Most of the — my discussions were not involved
with the specific details because I do not have as
thorough a knowledge of all the provisions in
regulatory and legal things within 25 CFR, Code of
Federal Regs dealing with Indians as other people
do. There were other people talking about and
dealing with the strategies on the specifics of
law and what was available or not available and
decisions were made about those kinds of things of
which I was not a party to the conversation.

Page 28

(Whereupon, the preceding question was read by
the reporter.)
Q. Can you anser that questin?
A. I don’t know what specifically, I couldn’t say
anything specific. There was a whole bunch of —
specifically I couldn’t answer that question.
Q. Okay. Well, generally, answer the
question.
A. That as a very general outcome question, the
health and safety and protection of the public
ended up being secured, nobody got hurt.
Q. What role do you know that they played, “they”,
the law firm, played in having this happen?
MR. LIPPS: If any.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) If any.
A. I really don’t know.
Q. Weren’t you in a meeting on the 17th of April with
the Chief and Pipestem and Ada Deer and Hilda
Manuel at the BIA in Washington, D.C.?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Well, tell me about it, please, sir.
A. Tell you about that meeting?
Q. Uh-huh.
A. The discussion centered around what is the degree
of possibility, porbability of violence occurring.

Page 29

The perception of those assembled was it was
pretty high.
Q. I’m very interested not in the perception but in
the facts that were stated by everybody in the
room.
MR. LIPPS: Council, don’t interrupt
Once you’ve asked the question. He said the
discussion centered around certain matters and
he’s describing them. Let him finish his answer
and then you can ask the next one.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) I apologize. Mr. Lipps is
exactly right.
MR. LIPPS: You may continue.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) I thought you were through and I
apologize.
A. There was discussion that you have heavily armed
camps, the Bureau people already had copies of all
the newspaper articles which were rather
inflammatory. The only thing worse about being
scared of what you read was having been there and
knowing what was really going on.
So the whole focus of that meeting was what
is the highest calling of those assembled, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs with their fiduciary of
trust reponsibility and the leadership of the

Page 30

Cherokee Nation to insure the health and safety of
the public. That was the focus of the meeting.
And there was discussion.
Q. Who was present?
A. Let’s see, Ada Deer was there. There were two
ladies in the Bureau.
Q. Hilda Manuel?
A. Hilda Manuel and Debra Maddox may have been there.
Michael Anderson was in there, George Thomas who
was then chief of staff, myself, Chief Byrd. I
remember Wilson was there and there were just
other — there may have been — and other Bureau
people were in and out. I think, and I’m not
sure, it seems to me that surely to goodness
somebody would have been there from the
solicitor’s office somebody should have been from
there from justice but that was the —
Q. Jennie Battles was there, was she not?
A. Probably was, yes.
Q. And Rex Earl Starr?
A. I don’t know if Rex was there yet or not. I
really don’t remember Rex being there.
Q. Okay.
A. I really don’t. That may have been and probably
was before Rex was hired as general counsel. I

Page 31

could be wrong but I don’t remember him being
there. I don’t.
Q. Okay. Was Darrell Jordan there?
A. What’s his position?
Q. Assistant solicitor.
A. I don’t remember all of the names. Like I said,
surely somebody would have been there from the
solicitor’s office and surely somebody should
have, if they weren’t, should have been there from
the justice department. As far as the exact
names, I know Ada and Hilda and Michael Anderson
and Debra Maddox and that’s about it.
Q. Well, what did you tell the BIA about the dangers
in the Cherokee Nation at this meeting?
A. I expressed to them essentially the same sentiment
that we’ve already discussed is that I felt that
there was a tremendous potential for violence at a
very high level because it was a very explosive
situation. And as an example of the perception of
the public as to the problems and to the threat to
them at the offices of the Cherokee Nation at that
time, I had a little office with a window that
opened to the front door of the place where people
come in for information to go for services.
One of the things that has always bothered me

Page 32

about sitting there is a constant stream of people
for basic human necessities. That had trimmed
down to a trickle. And I distinctly remember
telling Ada Deer and those assembled, but Ada Deer
in particular, that I would like to have thought
that somehow the economy improved or something
happened out there in the world that all of a
sudden that many people did not need help.
But my sister, as another example, my mother
had just prior to that recently passed away and we
had some land issues that needed to be taken care
of. My sister would not even come out there to
help or to sign papers in the realty office
because she was afraid to come out there because
she might get caught in the cross fire.
Q. What cross fire? We haven’t even seen —
A. Well, my point is is the public, as I’ve said, the
public perception of a threat of danger and
violence to their safety. It’s the public
perception that I’m talking — I’m telling you
about that you read about it in the papers. This
one said that, that one said that. And ther was
this real public feeling, this public thought,
this perception that there was a high degree of a
potential for violence.

Page 33

And that was the nature of the discussion in
Washington and I assumed that was the reason the
Bureau stepped up and did what they did was to
make the assurance of a third party not involved
in the fray on this taking sides kind of thing to
at least make an effort to provide for the public
safety. And I for one am glad they did it.
Q. I don’t doubt that. I’m just interested in any
facts which would support a finding of imminent
jeopardy.
And outside of news articles and policemen
wearing their guns and holsters and having their
night stick on their belt, I haven’t head any.
And if I have missed some example to support your
concern, I would like for you to point it out to
me.
MR. LIPPS: Now, Counsel, I object on
this ground. You are entitled to ask that
question. You are not entitled to make a speech
which suggested he didn’t answer a question
because your last question was what did you tell
the BIA, period. And this witness has tried as
best he can to advise you what he told the BIA.
You did not ask him what facts support a
particular finding. You are welcome to do so now.

Page 34

And my objection was to the comment or the
implication of the comment that somehow he had not
answered your question when what you asked him, he
has responded to.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) Were there any other more facts,
other than those that you’ve already related to
us, which you transmitted to the BIA in this
meeting on April 17, 1997?
A. None that I spoke of.
Q. What did the Chief tell the BIA?
A. None that I spoke of.
Q. What did the Chief tell the BIA?
A. I don’t specifically remember his comments.
Q. Did he speak?
A. I’m sure he did.
Q. But you don’t remember anything that he said which
sounded alarming enough to remember?
MR. LIPPS: Objection to the form of the
question.
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) But you can answer it.
MR. LIPPS: Yes.
A. Do I recall any specific — I could comment in a
very general nature to the types of comments he —
it was pretty much a consensus opinion of those
talking with the Bureau that there was a very high
degree of a potential for violence and we were
there to seek the Bureau’s assistance for the

Page 35

public safety and that was it.

Q. (By Mr. Shipley) But you don’t remember any facts
which the Chief gave which supported that?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember any facts that Jennie Battles
offered up in that meeting?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember any fact that Wilson Pipestem
offered up in that meeting?
A. No.
Q. What questions were you asked by BIA personnel in
that meeting?
MR. LIPPS: Him personally or the group
in general?
Q. (By Mr. Shipley) In your presence what was anyone
in your group asked by the BIA personnel?
MR. LIPPS: Thank you.
A. Their questions would have generally centered
around why we felt there was an imminent threat of
violence or the potential for violence to occur
and why we felt that their participation, their
involvement was neccessary.

Page 36

Q. (By Mr. Shipley) That’s exactly the question that
I would hope they would ask. And what was told
them, read the newspapers?
A. Well, I could — I can specifically address, as I
have already stated, what I told them directly was
that it’s the feeling of the people that work out
there, it’s the feelings and perception of the
people who come there for services that they’re
simply afraid.
Q. Okay. On the 21st of April there is a notation in
Wilson Pipestem’s work for the Nation that day
that he had a telephone conversation with you or
conferences with you regarding Ada Deer’s meeting
with Wilma Mankiller. Were you telling Mr. Wilson
(sic), I mean, Wilson Pipestem about that or was
he telling you about that? Do you see the
reference?
A. Yes, “telephone conferences with Charlie Gourd
Re:” Does that mean “about”?
MR. LIPPS: Uh-huh, yes.
A. About Ada Deer meeting with WIlma Mankiller. As I
recall, when Ada Deer was leaving the meeting, —
MR. LIPPS: Let me first answer that
question so I can pose, perhaps, appropriate
instruction to you.

Page 36

More to come…