Is Ms. Crossett on Indian-land, reservation-established, jurisdiction, treaty-rights, tribal-sovereignty, federal-jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Jo Ellen Mary Crossett is an Indian, Native American. She lives on land that was "to be held in common for the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians" in Northern Michigan. A treaty in 1836 set the resevations aside for the Indians, and a treaty in 1855 "guaranteed" and "secured" a homeland for them, after the Indians ceded to the United States government almost 14,000,000. acres. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Indians, a tribe, or the Federal Government has jurisdiction over her, and any other Indian on the reserve land, not the State of Michigan or local police including Emmet County Sheriff. In Ms. Crossett's reply brief, in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, she applied a new case from this court, McGirt v Oklahoma, to her case. The Emmet County et al, consider it a "new" issue, as did the Sixth Circuit, erring by passing over the issue, as did the U.S. District Court. Ms. Crossett expressed her discontent with local police misconduct on Indians and the poor and she "told on them." Soon she was arrested at her home and taken to jail, four times prosecuted and jailed, cummulating in serving three nine-month jail sentences. Respondents retaliated on her, conspired to maliciously prosecute violating her constitutional rights resulting in twenty-four claims for damages. In District Court defendants primary defense was immunity. 1.)Is Ms. Crossett on Indian land, a reservation established in the 1836 and 1855 treaties, not disestablished with intent by congress, and does Little Traverse Bay Bands or Federals have jurisdiction over her. Did the lower courts err in passing over the "new" Indian jurisdiction isssue, resulting in great injustice? 2.)Did Sixth Circuit err in upholding Summary judgment, though respondents violated Ms. Crossett's constitutional rights and state claim, losing immunity? 3.)Is Ms. Crossett's post-incarceration relief for damages barred by the "favorable termination" theory in Heck v Humphrey,? ii ALL