JAT Order Filed July 6, 1998
In the Judicial Appeals Tribunal
of the Cherokee Nation

WILLIAM PATRICK RAGSDALE, SHARON WRIGHT, GREG CHUCKLUCK,
BRIAN BLAIR, MIKE DAWES, JAMES REDCORN, FRANKY DREADFULWATER AND LEONARD MCMILLIAN (Appellants,)

v.

CHEROKEE NATION (Appellee.)
-AND-
STACY R. EUBANKS (Appellant,)

v.

CHEROKEE NATION (Appellee.)
Case No. JAT-97-42-B
-AND-
Case No. JAT-97-43-B CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

Appellee, Cherokee Nation, filed an instrument styled “Motion for Disqualification of Judges” (sic) on June 20, 1998. In its motion, Appellee claims it fears that it cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial and seeks recusal/disqualification of the entire Court. Pursuant to Rule 38, which a motion is to contain “an affidavit or affidavits, which set forth in detail the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification.” No such documents were attached to the motion.

This case involves an employment matter over which only the Judicial Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to Article XII of the Cherokee Constitution. It appears, therefore, that the Appellee seeks to deprive the Appellants of the only forum in which they can redress for the alleged improper acts and deeds of Appellee, prior to a review and analysis of the merits of the case.

The Appellee cites the United States Constitution as applied through the Indian Civil Rights Act as legal authority in support of its motion. It is clear that the Indian Civil Rights Act, incorporated through Article II, Section 1 of the Cherokee Constitution, protects the rights of the Cherokee people against the tyranny and abuses of the Cherokee government. Do the lawyers for the Cherokee Nation contend that the Cherokee Bill of Rights is intended to protect the government or, said another way, do the lawyers believe that the government of the Cherokee Nation needs protection from itself? If granted, the motion of Appellee would result in Appellants being deprived an opportunity to assert their claims, which would violate the Cherokee Constitution, the Indian Civil Rights Act and the United State Constitution. For this reason and for the failure of the Appellee to adequately present its motion pursuant to Rule 28, THE MOTION IS DENIED. Finally, with this Order, the Appellee’s request for a stay in this cause is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1998

/S/ DWIGHT W. BIRDWELL,
JUSTICE OF THE CHEROKEE NATION