NM Supreme Court Grants Political Asylum to Lakota Activist
-by-Mike Adams Correspondent Reporter
February 1998 Publication From
Indian Country Today

On September 9, 1997, the NM Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in which it stated that Little Rock Reed, "while seeking refuge from injustice, is not a fugitive from justice."

The court affirmed a lower court’s decision that the State of Ohio’s extradition demand "is premised on the desire to silence Reed, in violation of his constitutional rights."

Reed had been speaking and writing about abuses against Native American prisoners in state and federal prisons.

Reed spent ten years incarcerated in the Ohio penal system for two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of drugs.

The standard sentence served for such a crime is less than seven years; however, Reed’s extended confinement was the result of his advocacy for Native prisoners’ struggle for religious freedom.

According to uncontroverted NM Supreme Court documents, Reed gained the wrath of prison officials because of this advocacy. Reed helped prisoners in Canada and 29 of the United States to communicate with prison officials and, if all other avenues were exhausted, to prepare litigation.

In December 1986, Little Rock was offered parole so long as he dropped his impending First Amendment lawsuit on behalf of Native Americans incarcerated in Ohio. Reed refused, saying: "The guards have beaten me, spit on me, gassed me, sprayed me with a water hose and left me naked for days on end with no bedding or clothing."

Said Reed, "they ridicule and call me names, have thrown their human feces and urine on me—only because I ask that my Native relatives and I be allowed to pray in accordance with the teachings given our people by God. I mean no disrespect, but I cannot forsake my brothers."

Several years later, in the fall of 1990, Reed was granted parole, which was quickly rescinded before his release date. The reason for rescission according to the chairman of the parole board was: "This inmate said the conditions [of parole supervision] as they stand violate his constitutional rights." Finally, on May 5, 1992, Reed was released.

One week after his release, Reed’s parole officer allowed him to travel to SD to participate in the Sun Dance, which Reed had pledged to do in 1983.

In a call to his mother, Nancy Scull, she confirmed that Reed is part Lakota and that his father came from the White Thunder family.

Last September during a Native America Calling interview, Reed explained his heritage and received a public invitation from Vernell White Thunder to visit Kyle, SD and meet the White Thunders.

Reed has confirmed that he intends to accept the invitation and is looking forward to meeting his Lakota relatives for the first time.

In addition to traveling to SD, Reed’s parole officer allowed him to travel extensively and speak about Native prisoners’ concerns, including a trip to Salt Lake City where he addressed the 43^rd annual conference of the Governors’ Interstate Indian council.

However, in October1992, following a speech at a gathering of Ohio Indian organizations at Ohio State University, Reed was ordered to stop traveling, speaking and writing or his parole would be revoked.

According to NM Supreme Court documents, the Ohio Parole Authority held good on its threat. In violation of both state and federal law, the Authorities attempted to arrest and revoke Reed’s parole without a hearing.

If given a hearing, Reed would have produced irrefutable proof that members of the parole board were using fabricated charges against him in order to suppress his speech activities.

As the NM Supreme Court wrote in its decision, "this case is distinguished from other extradition cases by a unique fact pattern that is supported by compelling evidence."

Fearing violent reprisal by prison officials, Reed fled Ohio. Indeed, according to the NM Supreme Court, the uncontroverted evidence proved that prison officials have expressed an intention to cause Reed serious bodily injury or death.

The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Gene E. Franchini, referring to Ohio’s actions as "conspiratorial," stated: "Extradition laws are intended to bring offenders to justice. They are not intended to be and we cannot suffer them to be a vehicle for the suppression of constitutional rights." Said the Court, "courts in this nation have always been empowered to prevent injustice. Reed is not a fugitive from justice."

Two justices concurred and one justice ‘specially concurred,’ citing Ohio’s failure to provide Reed a preliminary hearing in a timely fashion, usually within 48 hours, as required by law. The only dissenting vote was from Justice Joseph F. Baca, who, "although mindful of Reed’s situation," expressed uncertainty in regard to New Mexico’s authority in this case.

The NM Attorney General, Tom Udall, is now asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the NM Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds that the Extradition Clause of the US Constitution forbids the courts of NM from examining the evidence in this case. What is remarkable about this appeal is that Tom Udall’s office has admitted that the court’s findings of bad-faith motives of Ohio officials and of the clear threat to Reed’s life and well-being, "are supported by considerable…evidence." However, Udall feels that this "considerable" evidence is "improper and irrelevant" in extradition proceedings.

When asked by Indian Country Today why Udall insists on appealing to the US Supreme Court, Kay Roybal, a spokesperson for Udall, replied, "it is nothing personal. We would pursue the same course with any case where the NM Supreme Court had similar findings." Roybal said that the decision violates the Supremacy and Extradition clauses of the US Constitution. When asked about the relevance of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, which states that the Governor may investigate the "situation and circumstances" surrounding an extradition demand, Roybal replied, "well, if that’s what it says, then it’s the law. But it has no relevance to this case."

The first piece of evidence Reed introduced in this case was a letter from Tom Udall’s office addressed to Reed’s attorney in which Udall’s office contended that the Governor has no authority to investigate the situation and circumstances surrounding Ohio’s demand for Reed’s extradition. The letter informed Reed’s attorney that the evidence could only be presented to the court.

In an interview with Reed last Wednesday, he stated that "Udall’s change of horses in mid-stream has the effect of eliminating any course of due process available to me. No public official should be permitted to maintain such a repressive position at the expense of taxpayers.

Reed Continued, "If the Supreme Court agrees with Udall, the message will essentially be that those of us who demand government accountability may be imprisoned, tortured and murdered by government officials without a hearing."

Reed and his wife, Leanna (Navajo), operate the National Center for American Indian Prisoners’ Rights, based in Albuquerque.

While their activities vary, their primary objective at this time is to raise funds with which to enable traditional Native American elders and spiritual leaders to travel to state and federal correctional facilities to conduct ceremonies and to counsel with incarcerated Native men, women and children.

It is their belief that the extraordinarily high per capita incarceration rate for Native Americans has a devastating affect on the Native population as a whole.

Reed says, "By transforming these facilities into places of spiritual, psychological and physical healing through our traditional ceremonies and teachings, we can bring healing to all Native communities because so many men, women and children from our communities are behind the walls."