uous political authority and influence within the 
community, because there was ‘‘insufficient evi-
dence’’ or ‘‘no specific evidence’’ or both to 
demonstrate that political authority and influ-
ence was exercised within the community for 
165 years from 1801 to 1875, 1885 to 1967, 
and 1996 to the present. 
(C) The Proposed Finding concluded fur-
ther concerning criterion 83.7(c) that the State 
of Connecticut’s continuous relationship with 
individuals claiming to be Schaghticoke and liv-
ing on land set aside for them as a reservation 
did not provide additional evidence during those 
periods when there was an absence of specific 
evidence of the exercise of political influence 
within the group within the meaning of the ac-
knowledgment regulations. 
(D) The Proposed Finding raised concerns 
that the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation’s member-
ship list excluded prominent individuals who 
had been ousted from or refused to be a part 
of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation petition, in-
cluding members of the rival Schaghticoke In-
dian Tribe, members of the Coggswell family, 
and former Chief Irving Harris. In addition, the
membership list included newly recruited Jo-
seph D. Kilson descendents who had not had 
any connection with the Schaghticoke group 
throughout the 20th century. 
(3) After further public comment and submis-
sions by the petitioner and interested parties, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a Final Determina-
tion, dated January 29, 2004 and published in the 
Federal Register on February 5, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 
5570), that acknowledged the Schaghticoke Tribal 
Nation as an Indian tribe within the meaning of 
Federal law. 
(4) The Final Determination reached this posi-
tive result only through the following: 
(A) Explicit, premeditated manipulation of 
both the evidence and established acknowledg-
ment standards, as evidenced by the following: 
(i) In a briefing paper dated January 
12, 2004, prepared by the Office of Fed-
eral Acknowledgment and submitted to 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary-In-
dian Affairs Aurene Martin regarding the 
forthcoming Final Determination, the Of-
fice of Federal Acknowledgment requested 
guidance from the Principal Deputy Assist-
ant Secretary-Indian Affairs on whether 
the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation should be 
‘‘acknowledged even though evidence of po-
litical influence and authority is absent or 
insufficient for two substantial historical 
periods, and if so, on what grounds?’’. 
(ii) In the briefing paper, Office of 
Federal 
Acknowledgment 
staff 
rec-
ommended, and the Principal Deputy As-
sistant Secretary-Indian Affairs endorsed, 
an analytic approach that explicitly dis-
carded prior agency precedent and regula-
tions governing the acknowledgment proc-
ess to overcome the absence and insuffi-
ciency of evidence to demonstrate contin-
uous political influence and authority, as 
the regulations require. 
(iii) This approach, according to the 
briefing paper, ‘‘would require a change in 
how continuous state recognition with a 
reservation was treated as evidence.’’. 
(iv) The briefing paper also acknowl-
edged the possibility of declining acknowl-
edgment of the Schaghticoke Tribal Na-
tion, saying that option ‘‘maintains the
current interpretations of the regulations 
and established precedents concerning how 
continuous 
tribal 
existence 
is 
dem-
onstrated.’’. 
(B) Ignoring agency admissions that ‘‘in-
sufficient direct evidence’’ or ‘‘little or no direct 
evidence’’ exists to satisfy the political authority 
criterion for a period of 118 years, as evidenced 
by the following: 
(i) The Bureau of Indian Affairs ad-
mits in the Final Determination that 
‘‘there is little or no direct evidence to 
demonstrate political influence within the 
Schaghticoke between 1892 and 1936,’’ 
and elsewhere that ‘‘there is insufficient di-
rect evidence to demonstrate criterion 83.7 
(c) between 1892 and 1936.’’. 
(ii) The Bureau of Indian Affairs ad-
mits in the final determination that ‘‘there 
remains little direct evidence concerning 
political authority or influence among the 
schaghticoke for this time period [1801–
1875]’’. 
(iii) The Bureau of Indian Affairs ad-
mits in a January 12, 2004, briefing paper