Here is why SITN Choose not to be federally/State Recognized

---

Why Isn’t SITN “State” or “Federally” Recognized?  

_Sovereignty cannot be granted—only acknowledged._

 Fast Facts

- We are already sovereign. U.S. policy states that recognition merely confirms** an inherent independence that tribes hold by birthright.  

- Illinois offers no recognition pathway. There is nothing to “apply” for.  

- Most state programs trade autonomy for jurisdiction.** In states that do have recognition acts, tribes must accept full state civil, criminal, and regulatory control.  

- Federal recognition puts land in federal trust. Permission is then required for major decisions about sacred sites, natural resources, or cultural uses.

 The Recognition Trade-Off

| Benefit pitched | Hidden cost |

| Access to certain grants | Annual reporting & federal policy compliance |

| Land “protection” in trust | Federal agencies can veto land use |

| Gaming revenue | Heavy federal audits & revenue-sharing rules |

 Historical Perspective

Many Sharakhi ancestors were re-labeled in census and land-patent records to erase Indigenous status. Entrusting our future to the same systems would perpetuate that erasure.

Our Path Forward

1. Operate as a sovereign, faith-based nation under customary law.  

2. Build alliances directly with other Indigenous peoples, NGOs, and friendly governments.  

3. Protect and develop our lands through private, trust-based ownership and sustainable technologies.  

4. Educate the public—starting with this page—about why “recognition” is not the yardstick of legitimacy.

> Bottom Line:  

> SITN does not seek status from institutions designed to limit or revoke Indigenous autonomy.  

> Our sovereignty is lived, practiced, and safeguarded every day—no application required.

 Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does refusing recognition mean SITN members lose benefits?  

A: On the contrary, we retain 100 % control over our resources and can still qualify for many grants open to non-profits, faith-based organizations, and sovereign nations.

Q: Could SITN apply in the future? 

A: Any future council could revisit the topic, but only if it would not compromise land rights, legal independence, or spiritual governance.

Q: How can other entities collaborate with SITN?  

A: Via Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), joint-venture trust agreements, or project-specific contracts—exactly as sovereign nations do worldwide.

“When the Department acknowledges an Indian tribe, it acknowledges that an inherent sovereignty already exists.
The Department is not granting sovereign status or powers to the tribe.”
— U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Acknowledgment of Indian Tribes
 

• 1. Sovereignty is older than any government.
  Indigenous nations possessed self-governing authority long before the United States—or its agencies—existed. Federal acknowledgment simply records that fact; it does not create it. 

• 2. Recognition is an administrative act, not a source of power. 
  • The federal process asks a nation to prove its unbroken autonomy since historical times. 
  • Once proven, the United States says, in effect: “Yes, we see that your sovereignty is already there.” 
  • No statute, commission, or agency can “bestow” what is innate. 

• 3. State recognition can contradict inherent sovereignty.
  Many state pathways—including those in South Carolina—require tribes to accept full state civil, criminal, and regulatory jurisdiction. By doing so, a nation relinquishes the very independence it must later demonstrate for federal acknowledgment. 

• 4. SITN’s stance. 
  • We are a sovereign-recognized nation by virtue of our continuous existence, customary law, and living trust structure. 
  • We do not petition for outside recognition if the price is surrendering any measure of our inherent authority, land stewardship, or spiritual governance. 
  • We invite partnerships on a nation-to-nation basis, honoring the mutual respect outlined in international instruments such as UNDRIP (2007) and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016). 

Bottom line: Recognition confirms; it does not confer. Sovereignty lives within the people and the land—and that is where SITN keeps it.

Court-Acknowledged Sovereignty  

Multiple state-court orders and filings have already recognized SITN’s sovereign standing and trust structure.  

These judicial acknowledgements confirm what our people have always known: sovereignty is inherent—no state certificate required.  

IRS-Recognized, Trust-Based Government  

SITN operates as a 508(c)(1)(A) tax-exempt tribal government, formally registered with the IRS.  

• Government Trust: Handles core governance, tribal police, security forces, emergency response, humanitarian, religious and economic policy.  

• Public-Benefit Living Trust 509(A)(2): Manages cultural projects—museums, pyramid research centers, heritage parks, and more—while keeping sacred assets separate from commercial activity.  

1. Core stance 
   • Recognition (state or federal) is optional, not a prerequisite for proving Indigenous identity or exercising inherent rights. 
   • SITN deliberately opt out to preserve full self-governance. 

1. Any state-recognition statute 
   • Any tribe that accepts state recognition is placed under “the civil, criminal, and regulatory jurisdiction” of That state to the same extent as ordinary citizens. 
   • Result: No separate land claims, regulatory exemptions, or special court forums—sovereignty is effectively surrendered. 

1. Conflict with federal-recognition standards 
   • Federal recognition requires evidence of historic autonomy. 
   • But petitioning for state recognition is an admission of subordination, undermining that very autonomy claim. 

1. Risks of federal recognition itself 
   • Land must be held “in trust” by the U.S. government. 
   • Federal agencies gain veto power over cultural, environmental, or economic uses of that land (e.g., tree cutting, ceremonies). 
   • Funding and casinos are the typical incentives, but they come with federal oversight. 

1. Bottom-line critique 
   • Pursuing recognition trades sovereignty, liberty, and cultural integrity for material benefits. 
   • SITN see refusal as the only path to authentic self-determination and self-governing.

1.  State Laws Already Protect Our Lands  
2. Most states where SITN holds or will hold property—Illinois, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and others—codify protections for tribal lands and cultural sites even without formal “state recognition.”  
3. Because those statutes are on the books, SITN lawfully maintains:  
4. Tribal Police & Security – patrol, investigation, and community-safety units.  
5. Emergency & Humanitarian Response – fire, rescue, medical, and disaster-relief teams.  
6. Defensive Readiness – a small military component for perimeter security and mutual-aid missions.  
7. Air & Ground Operations – controlled airspace for drones/medevac and regulated ground-transport corridors.
8. “We decline the state-recognition label even though a state law already protects our tribe and our land.  
9. That fact is permanent and can never be appealed. or diminished”  
10. > — Yamasee Tribal Chief (paraphrased)
11. SITN follows the same model: protected by law, but never surrendered to state jurisdiction.