The Red Bear Pembina Chippewa Indians are a tribal nation who has acknowledgement and recognition under four United States Treaties: 1789 Treaty of Fort Harmar, 1863 Pembina Treaty of Old Crossing,1864 Supplemental Pembina Treaty at Old Crossing and the 1892 McCumber Agreement.

Understanding that Federal Recognition comes from any of the Three Branches of U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative or Executive, as all branches are CO-EQUAL.

In the 1950s and 1960s Pembina, Turtle Mountain, Red Lake, and Little Shell Indians initiated filings into the 1964-1965 United States Court of Claims case “Red Lake & Pembina Bands v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians” (United States Court of Claims December 17, 1965, Decided Appeal No. 7-64).

The United States Court of Claims is a United States court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government to include longstanding accounting claims that had been before the Commission by Indian Tribal Nations. One of the most famous of these cases was United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians.

The United States Court of Claims in ruling declared, the Pembina Band, Little Shell Band, Red Lake Band and Turtle Mountain Band were separate entities in claim and award of all Pembina Chippewa longstanding issues, and recognized the rights of those groups who were either not upon reservations, were integrated within reservations, were pending reservations (Red Bear), or were considered landless but did not lose rights (Little Shell): “A group of descendants of a once-organized tribe or band is a proper identifiable group. Peoria Tribe of Indians v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 1009 (1965); Thompson v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 348, 357-58, 359-61 (1952), cert. den., 344 U.S. 856. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 161 Ct. Cl. 258, 315 F. 2d 906 (1963)”

The 1964 U.S. Court of Claims ruling as well as the 1965 Appeal decision upheld prior case law related to Thompson v. United States, 122 Ct. Cl. 348, 357-58, 359-61 (1952), which declared claims by inheritance are equal in standing to recognized entities despite modern recognition by the Bureau of Interior Affairs or Secretary of the Interior, as the Executive Branch lacks the Jurisdiction to remove what has been granted by the Legislative Branch (2020 Sharp v. Murphy and 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma) as many tribes and reservations were wrongly dissolved or simply unrecognized between 1953 and 1964 under the 1953 Indian Termination Act (House Concurrent Resolution 108 of August 1, 1953 and the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 whereby tribes, bands and reservations were simply unrecognized and members forced to relocate to inner cities. Famed Cherokee Grand Chief Wilma Mankiller’s family was affected by laws that forced Native Americans to relocate as they were forcibly moved from the Cherokee lands of Oklahoma to San Francisco California.

The United States Court of Claims, ruled that we remain recognized as it was affirmed under policies of the “as long as the individual members or the members of the group can be identified as members or descendants of members of a tribe or band previously”.

This ruling matched that of the 1899 Jones v. Meehan where ruling declared the neither the Secretary of Interior or BIA can divest a Treaty Signatory of their prior recognized Treaty rights.:

“The title to the strip of land in controversy, having been granted by the United States to the elder chief Moose Dung by the treaty itself [1863 Pembina Old Crossing Treaty] and having descended, upon his death, by the laws, customs, and usages of the tribe, to his eldest son and successor as Chief Moose Dung the younger, passed by the lease executed by the latter in 1891 to the plaintiffs for the term of that lease, and their rights under that lease could not be divested by any subsequent action of the lessor, or of Congress, or of the Executive Departments. The construction of treaties is the peculiar province of the judiciary, and, except in cases purely political, Congress has no constitutional power to settle the rights under a treaty, or to affect titles already granted by the treaty itself. Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. 83, 73 U. S. 89; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160; Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, 77 U. S. 327; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211, 84 U. S. 247.

Furthermore: “The congressional resolution of 1894, and the subsequent proceedings in the Department of the Interior, must therefore be held to be of no effect upon the rights previously acquired by the plaintiffs…”