无码视频

Pop singer Britney Spears鈥�  that handed control over her finances and health care to her father demonstrates the double-edged sword of putting people under the legal care and control of another person.

A judge may at times deem it necessary to appoint  to protect a vulnerable person from abuse and trickery by others, or to protect them from poor decision-making regarding their own health and safety. But when put into the hands of self-serving or otherwise unscrupulous conservators, however, it . 

Celebrities like Spears may be particularly susceptible to exploitation due to their capacity for generating wealth, but they are far from the only people at risk. As  representing poor and marginalized people and a scholar of tribal and federal Indian law, I can attest to the way  may exacerbate these potentially exploitative situations, especially with respect to women and people of color.

Perhaps nowhere has the impact been so grave than with respect to Native Americans, who were  due to a system of federal and local policies developed in the early 1900s purportedly aimed at protecting Native Americans receiving allotted land from the government. Members of the 鈥擟herokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Nations鈥攚ere particularly impacted by these practices due to the discovery of oil and gas under their lands. 

Swindled by 鈥淔riendly White Lawyers鈥�

A , or a related designation called a guardianship, takes away decision-making autonomy from a person, called a 鈥渨ard.鈥� Although the conservator is supposed to act in the interest of the ward, the system can be open to exploitation, especially when vast sums of money are involved.

This was the case between 1908 and 1934, when  of Native communities out of their lands and royalties.

By that time, federal policy had forced the  from eastern and southern locations in the United States to what is presently Oklahoma. Subsequent federal policy converted large tracts of tribally held land into 鈥攁 move that fractured communal land. Land deemed to be 鈥渟urplus to Indian needs鈥� was sold off to white settlers or businesses, and Native allotment holders could likewise sell their plots after a 25-year trust period ended or otherwise have them taken through tax assessments and other administrative actions. Through this process  from 鈥�138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres by 1934 when allotment ended,鈥� according to the Indian Land Tenure Foundation.

During the 1920s, members of the Osage Nation and of the Five Civilized Tribes were deemed to be  due to the discovery of oil and gas underneath their lands.

However, this discovery turned them into the victims of predatory schemes that left many penniless . 

Reflecting on this period in the 1973 book 鈥�,鈥�&苍产蝉辫;, a lawyer and member of the Kiowa Tribe, and  wrote that members of the Osage Nation 鈥渂egan to disappear mysteriously.鈥� On death, their estates were left 鈥渘ot to their families, but to their friendly white lawyers, who gathered to usher them into the Happy Hunting Ground,鈥� Kickingbird and Ducheneaux added.

Lawyers and conservators stole lands and funds before death as well, by getting themselves  with full authority to spend their wards鈥� money or lease and sell their land.

Congress created the initial conditions for this widespread graft and abuse through the . That Act transferred jurisdiction over land, persons, and property of Indian 鈥渕inors and incompetents鈥� from the Interior Department to local county probate courts in Oklahoma. Related legislation also enabled the Interior Department to  based on its assessment of the competency of Native American allottees and their heirs. 

Unfettered by federal supervisory authority, local probate courts and attorneys seized the opportunity to use guardianships to steal Native Americans鈥� estates and lands. As described in 1924 by , a  commissioned by the Secretary of Interior to study the issue, 鈥淲hen oil is 鈥榮truck鈥� on an Indian鈥檚 property, it is usually considered prima facie evidence that he is incompetent, and in the appointment of a guardian for him, his wishes in the matter are rarely considered.鈥� 

The county courts generally declared Native Americans incompetent to handle more than a very limited sum of money without any finding of mental incapacity.  and Congressional testimony documented numerous examples of abuse. Breaches of trust were documented in which attorneys or other appointed conservators took money or lands from Nation members for their own businesses, personal expenses, or investments. Others schemed with friends and business associates to deprive 鈥渨ards.鈥� 

鈥淧lums to Be Distributed鈥�

One such woman in 窜颈迟办谩濒补-艩谩鈥檚 report was Munnie Bear, a 鈥測oung, shrewd full-blood Creek woman 鈥� [who] ran a farm which she inherited from her aunt, her own allotment being leased.鈥� Bear saved enough money to buy a Ford truck and livestock for her farm, with savings remaining in a bank account. Once oil was discovered, however, the court appointed a guardian, who appointed a co-guardian and retained a lawyer, each of whom deducted monthly fees that depleted Bear鈥檚 funds. During the period of her guardianship, she was unable to spend any money or make any decisions about her farm or livestock, nor did she control her bank investment.

窜颈迟办谩濒补-艩谩鈥檚 report displays the extent of this practice:

鈥淢any of the county courts are influenced by political considerations, and 鈥� Indian guardianships are the plums to be distributed to the faithful friends of the judges as a reward for their support at the polls. The principal business of these county courts is handling Indian estates. The judges are elected for a two-year term. That 鈥榚xtraordinary services鈥� in connection with the Indian estates are well paid for; one attorney, by order of the court, received $35,000 from a ward鈥檚 estate, and never appeared in court.鈥澛�

Wards were often kept below subsistence levels by their conservators while their funds and lands were depleted by the charging of excessive guardian and attorneys鈥� fees and administrative costs, along with actual abuse through graft, negligence, and deception.

Reports like that of 窜颈迟办谩濒补-艩谩鈥檚 resulted in Congress enacting the . This put the Indian land that had not fallen into non-Indian hands during the federal policy of allotting plots back into tribal ownership and secured it in the trust of the United States. It also ended the potential for theft through guardianship.

But the lands and funds lost as a result of guardianships were not restored nor did descendants of those swindled ever enjoy the benefit of their relatives鈥� lands and monies either.

This article was originally published by聽. It has been republished here with permission.