Copyright © 1999 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1999 CPA
All Rights Reserved

A federal judge was asked Monday to rule if the chief of the Cherokees is legally liable for using and disclosing the contents of taped conversations between two Cherokees.

Such a ruling, called a summary judgment, is allowed before, during or after trial when pleadings and testimony on file establish material facts alleged.

Principal Chief Joe Byrd, in a Jan. 29 deposition (testimony taken outside of court), denied he authorized the interception of anyone's phone calls.

"I don't think anybody has the right to invade anybody else's privacy," Byrd testified.

Byrd couldn't be reached for comment Monday evening.

Monday's filing is in a civil suit initiated in U.S. District Court in Tulsa on May 5, 1998, by two Cherokee citizens; Marvin Summerfield, publisher of the Cherokee Observer, a newspaper highly critical of Byrd's administration, and Robin Mayes, president of the Cherokee National Party.

Their attorney Chuck Shipley, said the Monday motion is backed up by Byrd's sworn testimony on Jan. 29, as well as the testimony of others in Byrd's administration.

Byrd's civil liability kicked in when he allegedly disclosed the contents of the illegally intercepted phone conversations and then referred to the conversations as proof of a conspiracy to overthrow his administration, Shipley told the court.

Byrd said in his deposition that he told the press in Feb. 1997 of the alleged conspiracy. The FBI has told plaintiffs they found no evidence of a conspiracy from the taped conversations.

Monday's filing alleges the CN Housing Authority used the fed. grant funds to purchase surveillance equipment later used to intercept wire, oral or electronic communications of Byrd opponents during his 1995 campaign for chief.

Shipley alleges that after the election, the electronic monitoring of Byrd's political critics continued under the auspices of "covert operations."

Insurers for the housing authority have settled the case against authority employees for an undisclosed sum. But the case still is pending against other defendants, including Byrd.

Depositions of several Cherokee officials indicate the tape was provided to Byrd and his staff the week of Feb. 27, 1997. Within several days it was given to the FBI and is now in the court's custody.

Summerfield said he first learned of the tape's existence when an FBI agent played a portion of the tape for him in March 1997.

Charles Gourd, the senior administrative liaison for Byrd, testified he advised Byrd in 1995 that the then exec. dir. of the housing authority Joel Thompson, might be illegally intercepting phone calls between third parties without their consent. Gourd said Thompson advised him he was "gathering" information" to protect Byrd and his administration.

Joe Jones, a former tribal sec.-tres., testified when Thompson told him about the tapes, he questioned Thompson about the legality of taping third-party conversations. Jones and Thompson told him the tapes were part of a "covert operation." Jones and Thompson added that Byrd, as chief officer of a sovereign nation, had the right to perform covert operations, just like President Clinton.

During the Sept. 98 deposition in the wiretap case, Thompson took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions.

He has denied to the Phoenix he was involved in any illegal wiretapping or that he made any statement to Jones about such taping falling under "covert operations."

THE LAW: Amendments to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act forbids the non-consensual interception of wire, oral and electronic communications, which includes telephone communications.

The law authorizes civil damages against anyone who intentionally discloses, or tries to disclose, the contents of such communication, knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained through such interception. Damages also are authorized when a person intentionally uses or tries to use the communication.