Post by mdenney on Oct 24, 2010 10:45:54 GMT -5
This is just the view of a person that is willing to share of what he Heard at the Court. So please be nice its all we have till we all get and read the transcripts yourself
The Hearing:
As Judge Lettow prepared to leave the courtroom, he said, “I do not know how long it will take to make this decision, 1 or 2 weeks, 3 weeks or more. This is a very complicated case.”
The 2 major acts this case springs from:
1. The Act of February 16, 1863 is an Act for the Relief of Persons for Damages sustained by reason of Depredation and Injuries by certain bands of Sioux Indians. Section 9. "And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to set apart of the public lands, not otherwise appropriated, eighty acres in severalty to each individual of the before-named bands who exerted himself in rescuing the whites from the late massacre of said Indians. The land so set apart shall not be subject to any tax, forfeiture, or sale, by process of law, and shall not be aliened or devised, except by the consent of the President of the United States, but shall be an inheritance to said Indians and their heirs forever." [Emphasis added]
2. The Act of March 3, 1863 is an Act for the removal of the Sisseton, Wahpaton, Medawakanton, and Wahpakoota Bands of Sioux or Dakota Indians, and for the disposition of their Lands in Minnesota and Dakota. (Nowhere within the text of this Act does it state the Act of February 16, 1863 was superseded or cancelled or by any means made null and void.)
Federal Circuit Decision in Wolfchild: •U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Opinion March 10, 2009, the “Statutory Use Restriction”:
(Page 18-19) Recognizing that the language and legislative history of the Appropriations Acts do not provide compelling evidence that the Acts created a trust, the trial court based its decision principally on the context in which the Acts were enacted and on the contemporaneous and subsequent treatment of the 1886 lands by the Department of the Interior and Congress. Wolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 541-43. We have examined all of the legislative and administrative materials referred to by the court and called to our attention by the parties. While the legal issue is a complex one and untangling the historical materials is difficult, we conclude that the Appropriations Acts are best interpreted as merely appropriating funds subject to a statutory use restriction, and not creating a trust relationship through which the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants obtained beneficial ownership rights in the 1886 lands. (emphasis added)
(Pages 23 and 24)
The Interior Department recognized, of course, that Congress intended the 1886 Mdewakantons to be the specific beneficiaries of the Appropriations Acts. The Secretary of the Interior accordingly sought to ensure that the funds appropriated under the Act would be spent for the benefit of those individuals. With respect to funds that were used to purchase land (as opposed to personal property that was rapidly consumed), the Secretary adopted a policy designed to promote Congress’s intent by assigning the land to individuals from within the group of 1886 Mdewakantons and subsequently to individuals from within the class of the descendants of those Mdewakantons. (Emphasis added.)
The case boils down to this: The Department of Interior has abrogated its duty to the lineal descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton, when it did not comply with the law correctly. This means that the Government is involved in every aspect of the governance of the 3 communities. The government did not protect (an estimated) 95% of the lineal descendants rights, when it allowed the 3 communities to cut off the lineal descendants.
The government is responsible for not sharing equally the benefits derived from the 1886 lands with all of the Loyal Mdewakanton lineal descendants. (Quoting from Erick’s 6th amended motion):
Page 6, Count IV, Line 16. “Through Appropriations Acts in 1888, 1889, and 1890 (“the Appropriations Acts”), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to purchase land and other needed items for the loyal Mdewakanton in such a manner as the Secretary deemed best and to ensure that each Indian beneficiary receive “an equal amount in the value of the appropriation.”
Page 7, Count IV, Line 20. The Appropriation Acts also state that as nearly as practicable an equal value of the appropriation is to be shared among the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants. This is an element of the Statutory Use Restriction.
Page 7, Count IV, Line 23. The Mdewakanton who are statutorily eligible for benefits under the Statutory Use Restriction include the lineal descendants of the 1886 Mdewakanton.”
Page 11, Count IV, Line 41.
The 1886 lands and acquired lands have created economic wealth for the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants before and after 1980. Such wealth includes revenue relating to, but not exclusive to, quarry operations and leases.
Page 11, Count IV, Line 44.
The United States continues to hold certain moneys in the Trust Accounts of no less than $60,000.
You can read the 6th amended motion in its entirety here:
www.mklaw.com/documents/SixthAmendedComplaintFinal7910.pdf
Zephier and Montana are bringing a separate action for 80 acres per the 1863 act.
This person did not take notes on the Government lawyers argument, because she spoke so softly,
============
I mdenney is only posting this because so many has asked about it and this person was willing to share this OK ..
The Hearing:
As Judge Lettow prepared to leave the courtroom, he said, “I do not know how long it will take to make this decision, 1 or 2 weeks, 3 weeks or more. This is a very complicated case.”
The 2 major acts this case springs from:
1. The Act of February 16, 1863 is an Act for the Relief of Persons for Damages sustained by reason of Depredation and Injuries by certain bands of Sioux Indians. Section 9. "And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to set apart of the public lands, not otherwise appropriated, eighty acres in severalty to each individual of the before-named bands who exerted himself in rescuing the whites from the late massacre of said Indians. The land so set apart shall not be subject to any tax, forfeiture, or sale, by process of law, and shall not be aliened or devised, except by the consent of the President of the United States, but shall be an inheritance to said Indians and their heirs forever." [Emphasis added]
2. The Act of March 3, 1863 is an Act for the removal of the Sisseton, Wahpaton, Medawakanton, and Wahpakoota Bands of Sioux or Dakota Indians, and for the disposition of their Lands in Minnesota and Dakota. (Nowhere within the text of this Act does it state the Act of February 16, 1863 was superseded or cancelled or by any means made null and void.)
Federal Circuit Decision in Wolfchild: •U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Opinion March 10, 2009, the “Statutory Use Restriction”:
(Page 18-19) Recognizing that the language and legislative history of the Appropriations Acts do not provide compelling evidence that the Acts created a trust, the trial court based its decision principally on the context in which the Acts were enacted and on the contemporaneous and subsequent treatment of the 1886 lands by the Department of the Interior and Congress. Wolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 541-43. We have examined all of the legislative and administrative materials referred to by the court and called to our attention by the parties. While the legal issue is a complex one and untangling the historical materials is difficult, we conclude that the Appropriations Acts are best interpreted as merely appropriating funds subject to a statutory use restriction, and not creating a trust relationship through which the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants obtained beneficial ownership rights in the 1886 lands. (emphasis added)
(Pages 23 and 24)
The Interior Department recognized, of course, that Congress intended the 1886 Mdewakantons to be the specific beneficiaries of the Appropriations Acts. The Secretary of the Interior accordingly sought to ensure that the funds appropriated under the Act would be spent for the benefit of those individuals. With respect to funds that were used to purchase land (as opposed to personal property that was rapidly consumed), the Secretary adopted a policy designed to promote Congress’s intent by assigning the land to individuals from within the group of 1886 Mdewakantons and subsequently to individuals from within the class of the descendants of those Mdewakantons. (Emphasis added.)
The case boils down to this: The Department of Interior has abrogated its duty to the lineal descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton, when it did not comply with the law correctly. This means that the Government is involved in every aspect of the governance of the 3 communities. The government did not protect (an estimated) 95% of the lineal descendants rights, when it allowed the 3 communities to cut off the lineal descendants.
The government is responsible for not sharing equally the benefits derived from the 1886 lands with all of the Loyal Mdewakanton lineal descendants. (Quoting from Erick’s 6th amended motion):
Page 6, Count IV, Line 16. “Through Appropriations Acts in 1888, 1889, and 1890 (“the Appropriations Acts”), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to purchase land and other needed items for the loyal Mdewakanton in such a manner as the Secretary deemed best and to ensure that each Indian beneficiary receive “an equal amount in the value of the appropriation.”
Page 7, Count IV, Line 20. The Appropriation Acts also state that as nearly as practicable an equal value of the appropriation is to be shared among the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants. This is an element of the Statutory Use Restriction.
Page 7, Count IV, Line 23. The Mdewakanton who are statutorily eligible for benefits under the Statutory Use Restriction include the lineal descendants of the 1886 Mdewakanton.”
Page 11, Count IV, Line 41.
The 1886 lands and acquired lands have created economic wealth for the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants before and after 1980. Such wealth includes revenue relating to, but not exclusive to, quarry operations and leases.
Page 11, Count IV, Line 44.
The United States continues to hold certain moneys in the Trust Accounts of no less than $60,000.
You can read the 6th amended motion in its entirety here:
www.mklaw.com/documents/SixthAmendedComplaintFinal7910.pdf
Zephier and Montana are bringing a separate action for 80 acres per the 1863 act.
This person did not take notes on the Government lawyers argument, because she spoke so softly,
============
I mdenney is only posting this because so many has asked about it and this person was willing to share this OK ..
