Daniel Del Brumit v. David Rogers, Warden

In 2020, this Court decided McGirt, and as a consequence, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA hereafter) “recognized that several other Indian reservations in Oklahoma had likewise never been properly disestablished.” See McGirt v. Oklahoma 591 U.S. 894 (2020) Okla, v. Castro Huerta 597 U.S. 629. 634 (2022) citing Matloff v. Wallace 497P.3d 686 (OCCA. 2021) In the instant case, the OCCA wrongfully employed a State retroactive bar against the immunities of a Choctaw descendant based on McGirtbeing a new procedural rule. In effect, in order to deny an Indian’s 14 Amendment immunities in the course of post­ conviction proceedings, the OCCA usurped Congress to reestablished the effective date of the Choctaw Treaty from 1830 to 2021. Since the OCCA decided Matloffs retroactive bar, nearly four (4) years of challenges to the State common law have come to nothing. On habeas review, the Federal Courts have unjustly neglected Oklahoma Indian Treaty obligations and statuses. In Mr. Brumit’s case, the U.S. Western District Court of Oklahoma (WDOK hereafter) liberally construed his attack on the State retroactive bar as an attack on his conviction and sentence! and they failed to harmonize the AEDPA with the terms of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek Art. 4 (hereafter only Choctaw treaty). 28 U.S.C.A. $ 2254. Treaty ofDancing Rabbit Creek, Sept. 27., 1830, Art. IV, 7Stat. 333-334 Additionally, without explanation, the Tenth Circuit opined that the Choctaw Treaty was barred after one year! thereby, in effect, they n