Post by mazadidi on Aug 20, 2011 16:17:26 GMT -5
In the Wolfchild Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief (Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL Document 1046 Filed 05/04/11 Page 2 of 36) Wolfchild Plaintiffs’ Response and Reply Memorandum to Defendant United States Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Summary Judgment, Mr. Kaardal began his motion by stating: “The Plaintiffs’ ancestors were entitled to 80 acres of land in Minnesota under the February and March 1863 Acts. The 1863 Acts have never been repealed; and, therefore, the government breached its obligations under the 1863 Acts having failed to provide this land to the plaintiffs’ ancestors.”
All parties agree that 12 sections of land were set aside for the Friendly Sioux, by the Act of February 16, 1863, Section 9. The status of the land changed in 1865 from “reservation land” to “privately held land.”
I contend the terms contained in Section 9 instantly and became forever attached to the 12 sections, once the land was “set aside.” Because the terms contained in Section 9 instantly attached to the land, the land could not be, “aliened or devised…an inheritance to said Indians and their heirs forever.”
Subsequent to the land being "set aside," once a person is identified as a "...individual of the before-named bands [the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Mdewakanton, and Wahpakoota of the Dakota or Sioux Indians] who exerted himself in rescuing the whites from the late massacre [by] said Indians," that person and his descendants could never lose the land. (Which was the intent of the legislation.)
I assert that Judge Lettow did not resolve the primary question of ‘who actually owns the land,' because he did not take into consideration that the 12 sections of land were “privately-held,” from 2 years before, during, and after the proclamation was issured.
According to William J. Stewart, Settler, politician, and Speculator in the Sale of the SIOUX RESERVE, page 88, 3rd paragraph, “…the Sioux Reserve issue was hopelessly muddied by confusion over the settlers who had already pre-empted lands there but had delayed making payment on them. If the settler’ lands were to be included in those thrown open to public auction, the struggling farmers would be forced to pay up immediately or risk losing their claims.” Privately held lands not paid for were kept in the possession of settlers who had “pre-empted lands,” but had not paid for the land. (Italics added).”
i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt240/kouklamu/SetlerPoliticianSiouxReserve-4.jpg
Because the land was privately held (before and during the sale; and after the sale), the land was not and could not be affected by the terms of Andrew Johnson’s Presidential Proclamation No.723, unless the 12 sections were uniquely identified and mentioned in the proclamation. The land belonged to the Friendly Sioux who had the right to live on the land so set apart. Further, the terms (stated in section 9) renew with the advent of each new generation.
The usual weapons e.g., taxes, poverty, and inheritance, which the government uses to steal the land from Indians are effectively blocked. Why? The land was given in "severalty." The 12 sections, could not be taxed, sold, or alienated, in any way and, thus never lost. The land was stolen and must be returned to the rightful owners - the lineal descendants of the Friendly Sioux.
Please note: I have not read President Andrew Johnson's Proclamation No. 723, because I cannot find a copy on the internet. So, I am sending a request to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the proclamation, "By the President of the United States. PROCLAMATION For the sale of valuable lands in the part of the Sioux Indian Reservation on the Minnesota River, Minnesota, lying within the limits of the district of lands subject to sale at St. Peter" No. 723 (Referenced below)
i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt240/kouklamu/SetlerPoliticianSiouxReserve-5.jpg
President Andrew Johnson’s proclamations are included in the President Andrew Johnson papers, at the Library of Congress on microfilm:
REEL 49 Series 7, Executive Documents, 1865-1869
REEL 49 Subseries 7A, 1865-1868
Two volumes, the first consisting of drafts, broadsides, printed copies with corrections and annotations, and copies of Johnson's proclamations in other forms, 1865-1868. Arranged chronologically. The second volume is indexed and consists of transcripts of many of the same proclamations in the same arrangement.
All parties agree that 12 sections of land were set aside for the Friendly Sioux, by the Act of February 16, 1863, Section 9. The status of the land changed in 1865 from “reservation land” to “privately held land.”
I contend the terms contained in Section 9 instantly and became forever attached to the 12 sections, once the land was “set aside.” Because the terms contained in Section 9 instantly attached to the land, the land could not be, “aliened or devised…an inheritance to said Indians and their heirs forever.”
Subsequent to the land being "set aside," once a person is identified as a "...individual of the before-named bands [the Sisseton, Wahpeton, Mdewakanton, and Wahpakoota of the Dakota or Sioux Indians] who exerted himself in rescuing the whites from the late massacre [by] said Indians," that person and his descendants could never lose the land. (Which was the intent of the legislation.)
I assert that Judge Lettow did not resolve the primary question of ‘who actually owns the land,' because he did not take into consideration that the 12 sections of land were “privately-held,” from 2 years before, during, and after the proclamation was issured.
According to William J. Stewart, Settler, politician, and Speculator in the Sale of the SIOUX RESERVE, page 88, 3rd paragraph, “…the Sioux Reserve issue was hopelessly muddied by confusion over the settlers who had already pre-empted lands there but had delayed making payment on them. If the settler’ lands were to be included in those thrown open to public auction, the struggling farmers would be forced to pay up immediately or risk losing their claims.” Privately held lands not paid for were kept in the possession of settlers who had “pre-empted lands,” but had not paid for the land. (Italics added).”
i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt240/kouklamu/SetlerPoliticianSiouxReserve-4.jpg
Because the land was privately held (before and during the sale; and after the sale), the land was not and could not be affected by the terms of Andrew Johnson’s Presidential Proclamation No.723, unless the 12 sections were uniquely identified and mentioned in the proclamation. The land belonged to the Friendly Sioux who had the right to live on the land so set apart. Further, the terms (stated in section 9) renew with the advent of each new generation.
The usual weapons e.g., taxes, poverty, and inheritance, which the government uses to steal the land from Indians are effectively blocked. Why? The land was given in "severalty." The 12 sections, could not be taxed, sold, or alienated, in any way and, thus never lost. The land was stolen and must be returned to the rightful owners - the lineal descendants of the Friendly Sioux.
Please note: I have not read President Andrew Johnson's Proclamation No. 723, because I cannot find a copy on the internet. So, I am sending a request to the National Archives and Records Administration for a copy of the proclamation, "By the President of the United States. PROCLAMATION For the sale of valuable lands in the part of the Sioux Indian Reservation on the Minnesota River, Minnesota, lying within the limits of the district of lands subject to sale at St. Peter" No. 723 (Referenced below)
i615.photobucket.com/albums/tt240/kouklamu/SetlerPoliticianSiouxReserve-5.jpg
President Andrew Johnson’s proclamations are included in the President Andrew Johnson papers, at the Library of Congress on microfilm:
REEL 49 Series 7, Executive Documents, 1865-1869
REEL 49 Subseries 7A, 1865-1868
Two volumes, the first consisting of drafts, broadsides, printed copies with corrections and annotations, and copies of Johnson's proclamations in other forms, 1865-1868. Arranged chronologically. The second volume is indexed and consists of transcripts of many of the same proclamations in the same arrangement.
