What is going on in the Cherokee Nation courts now is merely legal arguments to try to divest U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. of the District of Columbia of his right to do anything, Velie said.

The Cherokee Nation District Court on March 14 restored the Freedmen to tribal citizenship. The order reopened registration for Freedmen only beginning at 8 a.m. May 21 and ending at 4:30 p.m. June 1.

The court order was negotiated between the tribe’s attorney general, the tribe’s election commission and Nate Young III, a Cherokee attorney appointed by the tribal court to represent 270 Freedmen appealing their March 3 ouster to the tribal court. It also included that Freedmen automatically would be sent absentee ballots, even though Cherokee Nation Attorney General A. Diane Hammons argued against that, said Cherokee spokesman Mike Miller.

Hammon argued Monday against the automatic mailout, saying it could cause confusion and election laws don’t allow someone to vote at the precinct if they have requested an absentee ballot.

Hammons also argued Monday she feared what ruling Kennedy might make if the Freedmen weren’t allowed to vote in the June election. She mentioned the judge might possibly cut off federal funding to the Cherokees and stop any government-to-government relationship, which Kennedy had been asked to do.

Kennedy has ruled consistently that the Freedmen have full citizenship rights, Velie said.

“The Cherokees want to get it out of Kennedy’s court and into a court where they can get a different decision,” Velie said in a Tuesday phone interview.

“The whole purpose of Nate is so they can negotiate these deals — he’s going to do whatever to try to stop our lawsuit,” Velie said.

“It’s very obvious they (Cherokees) want to get rid of the (federal) case we’re dealing with right now.”

Young said he doesn’t know what Velie’s motivation is, but assumes it is what his is ... that Freedmen’s permanent and full citizenship in the Cherokee Nation be fully restored. Nothing else is satisfactory.”

Velie said the question is what is the impact of the BIA’s Monday decision.

“To me — it’s nothing,” he said. “They don’t recognize the amendment. They didn’t recognize it before.”

Nedra Darling, spokeswoman for the BIA, said she does not know what possible ramifications the Monday decision will have.

Smith said the BIA decision has little practical effect, as tribal courts have ordered the Cherokee Nation to implement the amendment, and it has been effective for nearly a year.

“As Cherokee people, we must stand behind the order of our own Supreme Court,” Smith said.