|
Post by mdenney on Dec 1, 2007 2:08:47 GMT -5
Enrollment lawsuit dismissed Nearly three dozen people say they have been unfairly denied a shot at membership in the Table Mountain Rancheria of California. • Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68D9D0ACE4700969882573A2000B4D1A/$file/0615351.pdf?openelementAppeals court rejects enrollment lawsuit Friday, November 30, 2007 Filed Under: Law | National | Politics A group of California Indians seeking membership in the Table Mountain Rancheria were rejected by a federal appeals court on Thursday. Nearly three dozen people sued the tribe in federal court in hopes of getting on the membership roll. The plaintiffs also wanted the Interior Department to force the tribe to take action. Most membership cases are dismissed by federal courts due to tribal sovereign immunity. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it didn't even have to address that issue. Instead, the 9th Circuit said the plaintiffs failed to cite a source of law that authorizes the federal court system to hear their membership claims. So the three-judge panel dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "To confer subject matter jurisdiction in an action against a sovereign, in addition to a waiver of sovereign immunity, there must be statutory authority vesting a district court with subject matter jurisdiction," Judge Arthur L. Alarcón wrote in the unanimous opinion. The decision means it would probably take an act of Congress to address what has become a hot button issue in California. Upwards of 2,000 California Indians have been kicked off the membership rolls while countless others, like the plaintiffs in the Table Mountain case, have been prevented from seeking membership for various reasons. A group called the American Indian Rights and Resources Organization, which was created by former members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, is trying to resolve the controversy. AIRRO wants Congress to amend the Indian Civil Rights Act to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts for tribal membership disputes. In July, the Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution in support of the cause. But the proposal came under heavy attack from other California Indian leaders when the state party met the weekend before Thanksgiving. The resolution "will undermine the rights of tribal governments," Ron Andrade, a member of the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, said an e-mail to Indian Democrats earlier this month. Despite the highly-charged atmosphere, the 9th Circuit has appeared sympathetic to membership claims. In a 2005 decision involving some of the same plaintiffs in yesterday's case, the court acknowledged that the tribal membership process can be unfair. "Although their claim to membership appears to be a strong one, as their father is a recognized member of the tribe, their claim cannot survive the double jurisdictional whammy of sovereign immunity and lack of federal court jurisdiction to intervene in tribal membership disputes," the court said in September 2005. But the 9th Circuit has effectively closed off every avenue to pursue tribal membership claims. The court has rejected cases based on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the California Rancheria Act and Public Law 280, which granted civil and criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country to the state. The Table Mountain Rancheria was terminated by the California Rancheria Act. In a lawsuit during the Reagan administration, the tribe was restored to recognition and the Interior Department oversaw the re-establishment of the tribe's governing body and its membership roll. The plaintiffs in yesterday's case tried to reopen the old lawsuit in hopes of adding themselves to the roll. But the 9th Circuit said federal court jurisdiction expired in 1984 under a settlement between the tribe and Interior. The court also said nothing in federal law requires Interior to intervene in membership disputes. Members of the Table Mountain Rancheria are entitled to a share revenues from the successful Table Mountain Casino in Fresno County. With fewer than 100 on the roll, each person receives an estimated $350,000 a year indianz.com/News/2007/006127.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Dec 5, 2007 15:26:03 GMT -5
Interior again shifts duty to account for Indian trust Wednesday, December 5, 2007 Filed Under: Cobell indianz.com/trust/cobell/In February 2002, former Interior Secretary Gale Norton took the stand in the Indian trust fund case to reject the Clinton administration's attempts to limit the historical accounting. Norton, an attorney, said a federal appeals court "clearly threw out" a limited accounting. "I wanted to reject the idea that we only had to do things back to 1994," she testified. indianz.com/News/show.asp?ID=pol02/02202002-1Before her arrival, government attorneys filed motions to base the accounting on the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 and not on the historical trust, which dates to the late 1800s. Shortly after taking the stand, Norton formally withdrew those arguments from the court record. Five years later, Norton's successor has something else in mind. Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who has been on the job for more than a year but hasn't taken a visible role on trust reform, has gone back to 1994 in hopes of limiting the Interior Department's workload and the cost of the accounting. In a 200-page brief filed last Friday, the 1994 date comes up dozens of times as attorneys for Kempthorne seek to justify the limits that the Bush administration has imposed on the accounting again. According to the government, Interior's duty to account is based on the 1994 trust reform act and not on its historical fiduciary obligations. "The 1994 Act does not require accountings for accounts closed prior to its enactment," the brief states. "The Act does not mandate an accounting for all funds that 'were' or 'have ever been' deposited or invested." As a result, Interior argues it does not have to account for: • Accounts that were closed as of October 25, 1994 -- the date Congress passed the trust reform act. • Closed accounts belonging to deceased Indian landowners because their funds "are" no longer held in trust. • Transactions earlier than June 24, 1938 -- the date of another Indian trust fund act. • Landowners who received direct payments from energy companies and other developers because those funds were never "held" in trust by the government. Despite the limits, the government calls the accounting plan "generous" because it goes as far back as 1938 for certain transactions. The brief claims Interior doesn't even have a duty to account for transactions prior to October 1, 1984. The 1984 date comes from the general six-year statute of limitations imposed on lawsuits against the government. Interior claims the clock started running in 1990 because Congress included "toiling language" on Indian trust claims in an appropriations act that year. In a trust case involving two Wyoming tribes, the Bush administration asked indianz.com/News/2005/007479.aspthe Supreme Court to rule that the rider bars claims prior to October 1, 1984. The justices, however, declined indianz.com/News/2005/007684.aspto take the case. The Cobell plaintiffs filed their own briefs on Friday that called on Judge James Robertson to reject Interior's attempts to limit the accounting. In a statement, lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana called the plan flawed. "The government's proposal is nothing more than a cruel hoax: a plan that would give most Indian trust beneficiaries little of the information that a true accounting would provide," Cobell said. In October, Robertson heard 10 full days of testimony about the accounting. He has questioned some of the limits being imposed by the Bush administration but has not made any rulings on the issue. This December marks the eighth anniversary of Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling that Interior must account for "all funds" in the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. The Bush administration got him removed from the case over claims of bias. indianz.com/News/2007/006198.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Dec 20, 2007 13:39:36 GMT -5
Judge refuses to delay tribal trust fund suits Thursday, December 20, 2007 Filed Under: Law | Trust A federal judge on Wednesday denied the Bush administration's attempt to delay 37 tribal trust fund lawsuits. The administration asked for a six-month delay in order to work on historical accountings for the tribal plaintiffs. A motion stated the Interior Department would "define and complete" the accountings. But Judge James Robertson said the truth was a little bit different. Another motion filed in court stated that Interior would use the delay to "prepare a historical accounting plan" for the tribes and even for those who haven't filed a lawsuit. "This court cannot and will not dictate the details of any tribal trust accounting plan," Robertson wrote in a 12-page order. "However, it is the court's obligation to define the trustee's legal duties and resolve the various charges raised in plaintiffs’ complaints." The tribes are asking for an accounting of their trust funds and assets. The cases are similar to the Cobell lawsuit over the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. Robertson was assigned the Cobell case after Judge Royce Lamberth was removed. He is also handling the tribal cases, some of which had been assigned to Lamberth. Court Decision: Assiniboine & Sioux et al. v. Kempthorne (December 19, 2007) ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003cv1603-48Case Materials: Assiniboine & Sioux et al. v. Kempthorne Materials (Turtletalk) turtletalk.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/assiniboine-sioux-et-al-v-kempthorne-materials/all from here indianz.com/News/2007/006446.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Dec 20, 2007 14:14:57 GMT -5
Lakota Freedom Delegation withdraws from US Thursday, December 20, 2007 Filed Under: National indianz.com/National/ | Politics indianz.com/Politics/A group called Lakota Freedom Delegation is withdrawing from the treaties their ancestors signed with the U.S. and is setting up their own independent nation. Four activists, including Russell Means, were in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday to announce their plans. They said the federal government has failed to abide by 33 treaties that promised land, health care, education and other services. "Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots," Phyllis Young said, Agence France-Press reported. Members of the new nation won't pay taxes. The new nation's territory covers western parts of North and South Dakota and Nebraska and eastern parts of Wyoming and Montana. Get the Story: Lakota group pushes for new nation (The Sioux Falls Argus Leader 12/20) www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200347/1001Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US (AP 12/20) afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KMTOgwiSoMQyT2LwZc9HyAgALakota group declares sovereign nation status (The Rapid City Journal 12/20) www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/12/20/news/top/doc476a99630633e335271152.txtRelevant Links: Lakota Freedom Delegation - www.lakotafreedom.com from this link below- indianz.com/News/2007/006449.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jan 5, 2008 21:42:45 GMT -5
Column: Minnesota baptized in Indian blood Monday, December 24, 2007 Filed Under: Opinion "This isn't an ancient story. It is the story of Minnesota's original sin. And as we prepare for next year's 150th anniversary of statehood, we should remember history is a living and often painful thing. Some Minnesotans already are arguing -- on opinion pages and in letters to the editor -- over the Dakota War. If you thought the Sesquicentennial was going to be a Whiz Bang party celebrating Wheaties and Scotch Tape, you have been eating bad lutefisk. I mean, really bad lutefisk. Minnesota was baptized in blood, and reminders are scattered across a vast landscape: A monument in a cornfield that marks the spot of a small settlement whose settlers -- all of them -- were surprised and killed on the first day of the war. A marker in a woods where more than 1,000 Indian women and children were imprisoned in a pen. A barren place on the Missouri River where hundreds died of starvation and disease after being "deported" by a new state that exiled the people whose language gave the state its name. At the time of our Centennial in 1958, the story was reduced to Manifest Destiny skits about brave pioneers and wild Indians. Fifty years on, how do we talk like grown-ups about the war that made Minnesota at the same time we are celebrating the Eelpout Festival Get the Story: Nick Coleman:As Minnesota turns 150, how will it face up to its original sin? www.startribune.com/local/12759742.htmlfrom link below- indianz.com/News/2007/006472.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jan 7, 2008 13:54:12 GMT -5
Nick Coleman:As Minnesota turns 150, how will it face up to its original sin? By Nick Coleman, Star Tribune Last update: December 22, 2007 - 3:53 PM History is not just in books. It's also found in tears. Twenty years ago, I watched a group of Dakota Indians stand by a trench dug in the prairie dirt alongside St. Cornelia's Church on the Lower Sioux Indian Reservation in Redwood County. There were men I had known for years: Ernest Wabasha, Dave Larsen and the late Amos Owen, a Dakota spiritual leader. They had come to bury 31 Minnesotans -- their relatives -- who died almost 125 years earlier, in a prison after the Dakota War of 1862. The anonymous remains -- labeled only as male or female, adult or child -- had been placed in cardboard boxes, which were laid above the grave. The bones had been kept for decades by a museum. Once they had been men, women and children. Few, if any, had taken a major part in the war that cost the lives of hundreds of white settlers and was the last desperate act of a people whose culture and land were being taken from them. But they were all punished. They were all Dakota. This isn't an ancient story. It is the story of Minnesota's original sin. And as we prepare for next year's 150th anniversary of statehood, we should remember history is a living and often painful thing. Some Minnesotans already are arguing -- on opinion pages and in letters to the editor -- over the Dakota War. If you thought the Sesquicentennial was going to be a Whiz Bang party celebrating Wheaties and Scotch Tape, you have been eating bad lutefisk. I mean, really bad lutefisk. Minnesota was baptized in blood, and reminders are scattered across a vast landscape: A monument in a cornfield that marks the spot of a small settlement whose settlers -- all of them -- were surprised and killed on the first day of the war. A marker in a woods where more than 1,000 Indian women and children were imprisoned in a pen. A barren place on the Missouri River where hundreds died of starvation and disease after being "deported" by a new state that exiled the people whose language gave the state its name. At the time of our Centennial in 1958, the story was reduced to Manifest Destiny skits about brave pioneers and wild Indians. Fifty years on, how do we talk like grown-ups about the war that made Minnesota at the same time we are celebrating the Eelpout Festival? 'A lot to work on' "Part of the idea is to take a sober look back," says Jane Leonard, executive director of the Minnesota Sesquicentennial. "Minnesota has a lot to celebrate, and a lot to work on," says Leonard, who has met with tribal representatives to discuss ways to make sure the story gets told. "There's a lot to put our arms around. We want to learn from the past as we also look ahead to the future." For many American Indians, the past is always present. On the day after Christmas, there will be, as usual, a small gathering in Mankato on the anniversary of the mass execution of 38 Dakota men. They were sentenced to die by an Army tribunal that devoted mere minutes to the convictions of hundreds of Indians who admitted participating in the war. The hanging was ghastly. At least one warrior was hanged by mistake -- authorities had a difficult time distinguishing between Indian prisoners with similar names. Others were guilty of nothing more than fighting in a war they had seen as a last chance to save their people. When the platform dropped -- hushing a crowd estimated at 10,000 -- 37 men died. The 38th man's rope broke. He was hanged again. Doctors wanted the corpses Most of the bodies were dug up from shallow graves along the Minnesota River by frontier doctors who wanted corpses for anatomical studies. One was taken by Dr. William W. Mayo. The Mayo Clinic owned that skeleton of 1862 until it vanished in the 1960s or 1970s, only to be quietly returned to tribal hands a few years ago. And returned to the earth. We are still burying the past. Twenty years ago, as I witnessed the reburial of the 31 unnamed Dakota who died in prison, I shared the common belief that history is old. Then my eyes were opened. As Ernest Wabasha and the other men lowered the boxes of bones into the trench and Amos Owen prayed in Dakota, the men began to sob, and to bend in grief. It wasn't an ancient wound that had brought us all to a mass grave. It was a deep one. As Ernest Wabasha and the other men lowered the boxes of bones into the trench and Amos Owen prayed in Dakota, the men began to sob, and to bend in grief. It wasn't an ancient wound that had brought us all to a mass grave. It was a deep one. P1. www.startribune.com/local/12759742.htmlp2. www.startribune.com/local/12759742.html?page=2&c=yNick Coleman • ncoleman@startribune.com
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jan 21, 2008 15:02:41 GMT -5
BLACK HILLS THIEVERY ATTEMPT by Wanbli Sapa Hau Mitakolapi! Wopilatichelo tanka to all who have written asking for more info so that you might help us with the plea that follows below the update. Thanks to some of you, I found an article about the situation in the latest edition of Indian Country Today, which is below. Hopefully this will help some of you who are looking to find this info for us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tue, 13 Feb 1996 Update: According to the Feb. 8, 1996 issue of "Indian Country Today": -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: So as to eliminate any possible confusion re the use of the phrases Docket 74-A and Docket 74-B. Docket 74-A funds refer to monies linked to compensation for land stolen from the entire Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota Nation. Docket 74-B funds refer to monies paid to offset the illegal taking of the Paha Sapa (Black Hills). BILL PENDING ON DOCKET 74-A MONEY Most Sioux Tribes are Still Unaware of Draft Legislation RAPID CITY, SD - Three Sioux tribes are moving to get the Docket 74-A money released, and many Sioux tribal members fear such a move brings the Sioux tribes one step closer to termination. "The Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe and the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe asked legislators to introduce legislation releasing Docket 74-A monies. Draft legislation is now pending with the Department of Interior's Office of Legislation that would provide for the release of Docket 74-A funds for the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. "The Fort Peck Sioux Tribe is seeking the release of the award money through separate avenues according to Fort Peck Black Hills Sioux Council Representative Raymond 'Abby' Ogle. "Other Sioux tribes involved in the land claim have opposed the awarding of Docket 74-A money and were unaware that legislation was pending to get the award money released. "Representatives from both the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe said they would ask the Flandreau Santee Sioux and the Nebraska Santee Sioux tribes to withdraw their resolutions asking that the award be released. "'We will certainly take issue with that in council and ask that they withdraw those resolutions,' Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Chairman Gregg Bourland said. "The Oglala Sioux Tribe's Fifth Member Philop Under Baggage said he is now calling meetings with elders and treaty people and will take every step possible to stop the awarding of any Docket 74-A money. "'I'm doing a cover letter that I'm going to fax out to other Sioux tribes. These smaller tribes, their share is very small, something like 1.27 percent, but the overall picture, historically, is we feel Docket 74-A has not been fully resolved. I will be meeting with treaty people and elders and make them aware of this matter, and we will be taking steps to address this issue', he said. "Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman Richard 'Chuck' Allen said his tribe needs the money to help tribal members and therefore the tribal government has decided to request the award. "'Virtually it is not doing the tribe any good. From where we are sitting now, we need the money. The casino is not doing that good, looking at the ones in metropolitan areas, we are not doing as good as they are. We have a lot of expenses here that we have to try to get covered. If you need it, you got to get it. We have programs we have to cover, and we need the money,' Chairman Allen said. 'Right now our tribe is looking at the financial part of it. We would like to have the money here to support our people. Where it is sitting at right now, it is not doing us any good. We need it.' "Some Nebraska Santee Sioux Tribal members said they are also opposed to asking for the release of the award and said a group of tribal members are taking steps to block the release of the award. "Patty Running, a Santee tribal member, said she is circulating petitions opposing the acceptance of the award. 'I want to stress that there has been no referundum vote on this. There has been alot of closed door meetings, and only 12 councilmen are making this decision on our behalf. We became aware of it on Jan. 16, and it sounded like the money was so close everyone panicked. We then called a meeting in Sioux City, Iowa, because a majority (of tribal members) live in Sioux City. We have petitions going out asking people to oppose the sale of the Black Hills, and people are hand carrying it to Omaha, Neb., and I want it to go into Indian Country Today that where they (tribal members) are they should send a notarized letter to me opposing the sale of the Black Hills because it means termination. We are also asking that all the Sioux nations get involved to stop this sell-out.' Ms. Running asked that tribal members write to her at RR2, Box 27, Niobrara, NE, 68760. "Opposition to acceptance of the award does not end there however. Some question whether the tribes asking for release of the award should be included in the Docket 74-A land claim at all. "After reviewing historical documents relating to the land claim, Mario Gonzalez, an attorney working on the Black Hills land claim, said, 'The Santee Dakota are not entitled to any Docket 74-A monies because they were not parties to the 1851 Treaty and didn't even file a claim for the aboriginal title area. "'If the Teton Lakota and Yanktonai Dakota want to include the Santee Dakota in Docket 74-A, they can do so,' Mr. Gonzalez continued. 'The confusion was caused by the Lazarus, Sonosky, Payne team who should have separated the Santee Dakota's interests out of Docket 74-A. The tribes on the eight reservations should sit down and resolve these issues. I personally support including the Santee Dakota in Docket 74-A even though I believe they have no legal claim to the 48 million acres in dispute, but they should work with the Teton and Yanktonai tribes to resolve the claim in a fair and honorable manner.'" -by Avis Little Eagle, Indian Country Today, Week of Feburary 8, 1996, p. A1 to A2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above article was accompanied by the following sidebar explanation: BACKGROUND OF DOCKET 74-A "Docket 74-A is a 48-million acre claim for 14 million acres of Aboriginal title land east and 34 million acres of recognized title land west of the Missouri River, which, before it was illegally confiscated by the U.S. Government, was known as the Great Sioux Nation. "In 1970, the Indian Claims Commission awarded $25 million for the lands west of the Missouri River and $20 million for the lands east of the Missouri River. The $45 million was reduced to $40 million based on $5 million in government off-sets allowed by the Indian Claims Commission. The $40-million award ws rejected by the Teton Lakota and Yanktonai Dakota. "Docket 74-B is an award allowed for the compensation of the illegal taking of the Black Hills in 1877 and is separate from the Docket 74-A. "Docket 74-A and Docket 74-B monies had reached a total of $356.6 million as of June 1995. The Office of Trust Funds Management in Albuquerque, N.M., will no longer release the award figures saying the office is exempt from releasing that information under the Freedom of Information Act so a total figure for Docket 74-A monies to date could not be calculated." -by unknown author, Indian Country Today, Week of Feburary 8, 1996, p. A2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And my original request for assistance - Dated 96-02-09: Hau Mitakolapi (hello my friends)! My elders have made an urgent request of the highest priority, and I am asking you for your assistance. Apparently there is legislation being drafted within the Department of Interior that will release Docket 74a monies to several bands of Dakota and Lakota. These monies were authorized as "payment" to my people for the U.S. Government's theft of the Black Hills from us. We rejected these monies at the time they were offered because we want the Black Hills back, not bribery money to accept their theft. The monies have been left in an interest-bearing account by the U.S. Government since then. Periodically, the U.S. Government tries again to get us to accept this bribe, and apparently this current effort is the latest attempt. When my elders contacted me last night with this, they indicated that this was a "proposed bill in the Department of Interior". This morning, searching, I have found no bill with the words "Docket 74a" or "Black Hills" in it via Thomas, various Web search engines in their government sections, or in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I NEED YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP!!!! Can you please help me track this down? We cannot let the U.S. Government succeed in its current attempt just because we cannot find the bill/resolution or whatever it is. I am hoping that some of you are more sophisticated in your knowledge of how to find such information and that your help will result in a copy of this material. TIME IS CRITICAL. MY ELDERS MUST HAVE THIS INFORMATION IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE STEPS TO STOP THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FROM CLEARING ITS CONSCIENCE FOR THE THEFT BY PAYING US OFF. Wopilatichelo tanka (a great deal of sacred thanks)! Mitakuye Oyasin (All Are My Relations)! Wanbli Sapa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign the Petition... Stop Nebraskan Barretts' Attack on the Lakota Black Hills Thievery, Part Two Black Hills White Justice...a reference tome How Wasichu Justifies The Taking of First Nations Land Wasichu's Approach to Sovereignty Lakota Declaration of Sovereignty Wounded Knee Home Page First Nations Page from link below- www.dickshovel.com/74-A.html
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 4, 2008 14:57:16 GMT -5
Judge calls Cobell historical accounting 'impossible' Thursday, January 31, 2008 Filed Under: Cobell After 11 years of litigation in the courts and debate in Congress, a federal judge on Wednesday declared a historical accounting of the Indian trust "impossible." In a 165-page decision, Judge James Robertson said the Interior Department is "unable to perform an adequate accounting" of the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. The government "has not" and "cannot" cure its breach of trust to hundreds of thousands of Indian beneficiaries who have never been told how much money they are owed for the use of their land, he wrote. "Indeed, it is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible task," said Robertson, who describe the breach of trust as "irreparable." The decision, which came after a 10-day trial last October, brought immediate praise from Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the long-running case. The Blackfeet woman from Montana filed the lawsuit in June 1996 and has contended that a true and accurate accounting was not possible. "This is a great day in Indian Country," Cobell said yesterday. "We've argued for over ten years that the government is unable to fulfill its duty to render an adequate historical accounting, much less redress the historical wrongs heaped upon the individual Indian trust beneficiaries." But Robertson didn't base his conclusion on the plaintiffs' assertion that the government has destroyed or has not preserved trust documents. He said the record was "inconclusive" on that issue. Instead, he said Interior is unable perform a satisfactory accounting due to budget constraints imposed by Congress. "In its refusal to appropriate enough money to pay for such an accounting, Congress has not amended that demand or the common law of accounting," Robertson observed. "What it has done, instead, is to render a real accounting impossible -- or, perhaps, to recognize that such an accounting is impossible, unless it is 'nuts' enough to pay more than $3 billion to hunt down perhaps $3 billion of unexplained variances in the government's accounts." Despite recognizing Congressional limits, Robertson did not let Interior off the hook. The department's May 2007 accounting plan -- the third since the start of the Bush administration -- "falls short of its promise to provide beneficiaries reasonable assurance that their account balances are accurate," he said. The main problem with the accounting is that Interior won't confirm opening balances for any of the IIM accounts, Robertson noted. "If I demand an accounting for funds in my non-interest earning checking account ... I would have firsthand knowledge that the account was indeed opened with, for example, a $500 deposit," he said. "By contrast, IIM plaintiffs who receive HSAs containing a list of transactions, however accurate, will have no ability to contextualize those transactions," he wrote, referring to the historical statements of account (HSAs) that Interior wants to provide to beneficiaries. Robertson also said Interior's failure to tie land -- the corpus of the trust -- to the revenues generated by activities on the land makes it "utterly impossible" for a trust beneficiary to determine whether the department is fulfilling its fiduciary duties. "Beneficiaries are provided no records indicating their historical ownership interests," he said of the accounting plan. Regarding the actual scope of the accounting, Robertson agreed that beneficiaries who receive direct payments are not included because said their funds are never "held" in trust by the government. Similarly, beneficiaries whose trust funds are managed by tribes -- there are two known cases -- are not owed an accounting by the government. On a second scope issue, Robertson said the department cannot exclude administrative fees and Youpee interests -- named for a U.S. Supreme Court Case -- from the accounting. Fees charged by the government and unconstitutional escheatments of Indian land to tribes must be part of the plan, he said. Special deposit accounts, however, can be excluded, Robertson concluded. He said Interior's method for dealing with the accounts -- by going after the high-dollar ones first -- is reasonable. But he said Interior's decision to exclude IIM accounts that were closed before the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act became law and to exclude predecessor interests is "not sanctioned by the common law of trusts or the plain terms of the 1994 act." "The rationale for including predecessor accounts in the historical accounting process is simply that beneficiaries are entitled to know where their money came from," he noted. Robertson plans a hearing in about 30 days to discuss the next step in the case -- how to "remedy" the situation. Cobell said the plaintiffs look forward to resolving the case. "Instead of truthfully seeking to remedy the government's admitted historical mismanagement, the government elected to fight plaintiffs every step of the way," she said. "Judge Robertson has settled the debate in favor of plaintiffs and found that an adequate historical accounting is, in fact, impossible." Robertson, a Clinton nominee, is the second judge on the Cobell case. He was assigned in December 2006 after Judge Royce Lamberth was removed when the Bush administration raised questions of bias and impartiality. In April 2007, Robertson surprised both sides in the case when he ordered a trial on the historical accounting. The plaintiffs had long sought one but the government resisted and asked to be left alone to complete its accounting project. Court Decision: www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20080130OctTrial.pdffrom link below www.indianz.com/News/2008/006921.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 4, 2008 15:08:12 GMT -5
Editorial: Settle the Indian trust fund lawsuit Monday, February 4, 2008 Filed Under: Cobell | Opinion "The federal government took a healthy slap on the wrist last week from a judge for having its hand billions of dollars deep into Indian trust accounts. We hope the latest in a long line of rebukes will spur a righting of financial wrongs to Indian landholders that now stretch from the late 1880s into the 21st century. U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the Interior Department has unreasonably delayed an accounting of how many billions it owes. He also noted considerable effort by Interior, and blamed Congress in part for failing to provide adequate funding for the difficult research. An election year could complicate the question, but the Bush administration knows the issues. An early government effort to reach a fair, generous settlement agreement would be an act of justice worthy of the term "legacy." More important, a settlement would begin to rebuild hundreds of thousands of Americans' true legacies." Get the Story: Editorial: Indian Trust Funds: It's broke, so fix it (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2/4) Indian Trust Funds: It's broke, so fix it The federal government took a healthy slap on the wrist last week from a judge for having its hand billions of dollars deep into Indian trust accounts. We hope the latest in a long line of rebukes will spur a righting of financial wrongs to Indian landholders that now stretch from the late 1880s into the 21st century. U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the Interior Department has unreasonably delayed an accounting of how many billions it owes. He also noted considerable effort by Interior, and blamed Congress in part for failing to provide adequate funding for the difficult research. Robertson plans to hold a hearing on how to remedy the lack of proper federal accounting. As he also said in his ruling, "The time has come to bring this suit to a close." The suit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, who called Robertson's ruling "a great day." Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., told The Associated Press, "Ultimately the question is going to be for the administration and the Justice Department, are they willing to settle for all of these years of mismanagement." Let's not forget that the problems stretch back generations, through administrations and Congresses controlled by both parties. An election year could complicate the question, but the Bush administration knows the issues. An early government effort to reach a fair, generous settlement agreement would be an act of justice worthy of the term "legacy." More important, a settlement would begin to rebuild hundreds of thousands of Americans' true legacies seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/349738_trusted.html============ Court Decision: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (January 30, 2008) www.indiantrust.com/_pdfs/20080130OctTrial.pdf-------------- from link below- indianz.com/News/2008/006954.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 10, 2008 2:37:17 GMT -5
Kempthorne reiterates $7B Indian trust offer Friday, February 1, 2008 Filed Under: Cobell Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne reiterated the Bush administration $7 billion offer to settle the Indian trust when asked about the Cobell case on Thursday. Half of the money would be used to end the Cobell case and pay for future damages claims arising from the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. The other half would be used to settle more than 200 tribal trust claims. In both instances, the federal government would extinguish its trust liability to Indian landowners and tribes. "It's the first time there's been an offer made by the administration," Kempthorne said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Kempthorne said the Interior Department received Judge James Robertson's 165-page decision in the Cobell case around 5pm on Wednesday. Though he declined to comment in detail about the ruling -- which calls an historical accounting "impossible" -- he managed to quote two passages that painted Interior in a favorable light. Robertson plans to hold a hearing in 30 days to discuss a remedy for the case. "I don't know where this ultimately goes," Kempthorne said in response, "but it is time for it to be resolved." www.indianz.com/News/2008/006930.asp
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 11, 2008 13:48:44 GMT -5
Opinion: The Indian land grab in Minnesota Monday, February 11, 2008 Filed Under: Opinion "Alexander Ramsey - first Minnesota territorial governor, a recently elected U.S. senator and the man who negotiated the 1863 Old Crossing Treaty - was a consummate negotiator. His methods included duplicity, innuendo, divide-and-conquer tactics, lies and bribery. The treaty period was a land grab by the white man. Old Crossing was part of that. The Red Lake and Pembina bands of Ojibwe ceded 11 million acres of fertile land that would become known as the breadbasket of the nation. American Indians viewed themselves as stewards, not owners, of the land. Therefore, it was not their prerogative to sell the land itself, but only the use of it. Ramsey's goal was acquisition of the land, but he insisted that all he wanted was a “right-of-way” for the growing numbers of settlers and tradesmen to cross it. The Dakota Uprising had distracted the authorities, but with the suppression of that rebellion and the mass hanging of 38 Dakota men in Mankato on the day after Christmas 1862, Ramsey was ready to pursue his goal. He repeatedly told the Ojibwe that the land was “worthless to them” and “entirely valueless to a civilized people.” They “may not be making the best use of the lands which the Great Spirit has given them. They have broad lands here, occupied by about a thousand men, that the system of cultivation and settlement adopted by the white race would support a thousand times, and perhaps 10,000 times, that number. . . . “It is probable that the Great Spirit had in view the mutual advantage of both races in bringing them together. They have lands here which many of them never see, and from which they derive nothing whatever, which, if occupied by white men, would yield them abundant food, blankets and whatever else they need.”" indianz.com/News/2008/007080.asp========================================== Get the Story: David Thorstad: Old Crossing' land grab: Ramsey vs. the Indians (The Grand Forks Herald 2/10) === VIEWPOINT: ‘Old Crossing' land grab: Ramsey vs. the Indians By David Thorstad, Published Sunday, February 10, 2008 In the Old Crossing Treaty of 1863, several Ojibwe bands ceded most of what is now northwestern Minnesota to the U.S. The treaty was signed at what is now Old Crossing Treaty Park, which is located just west of Red Lake Falls, Minn. Originally, the site was where settlers crossed the Red Lake River on their way to the Northwest. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the signing. In commemoration, an anthology titled “The Story of Old Crossing: A Manual” is being compiled. The compilation is being sponsored by the state of Minnesota, the Red Lake County Historical Society and the University of Minnesota-Crookston, among others. The book will be available this summer. The following is an abridged version of a piece that'll appear in the anthology. WHITE EARTH INDIAN RESERVATION, Minn. - Alexander Ramsey - first Minnesota territorial governor, a recently elected U.S. senator and the man who negotiated the 1863 Old Crossing Treaty - was a consummate negotiator. His methods included duplicity, innuendo, divide-and-conquer tactics, lies and bribery. The treaty period was a land grab by the white man. Old Crossing was part of that. The Red Lake and Pembina bands of Ojibwe ceded 11 million acres of fertile land that would become known as the breadbasket of the nation. American Indians viewed themselves as stewards, not owners, of the land. Therefore, it was not their prerogative to sell the land itself, but only the use of it. Ramsey's goal was acquisition of the land, but he insisted that all he wanted was a “right-of-way” for the growing numbers of settlers and tradesmen to cross it. The Dakota Uprising had distracted the authorities, but with the suppression of that rebellion and the mass hanging of 38 Dakota men in Mankato on the day after Christmas 1862, Ramsey was ready to pursue his goal. He repeatedly told the Ojibwe that the land was “worthless to them” and “entirely valueless to a civilized people.” They “may not be making the best use of the lands which the Great Spirit has given them. They have broad lands here, occupied by about a thousand men, that the system of cultivation and settlement adopted by the white race would support a thousand times, and perhaps 10,000 times, that number. . . . “It is probable that the Great Spirit had in view the mutual advantage of both races in bringing them together. They have lands here which many of them never see, and from which they derive nothing whatever, which, if occupied by white men, would yield them abundant food, blankets and whatever else they need.” Little Rock, in one of his eloquent, poetic speeches, referring to his grandfather, said: “Now, that which he has given to his children for an inheritance has been shaken to the winds. You have trodden it under your feet. . . . This is what was spoken by my great-grandfather at the house he made for us. He was the one who spoke it: . . . "'At some time, there shall come among you a stranger, speaking a language you do not understand. He will try to buy the land from you, but do not sell it; keep it for an inheritance to your children.'" His eloquence did not deter Ramsey from referring to his Indian interlocutors as “these ignorant savages.” “I cannot afford to spend my time in listening to all Little Rock's old-womanish nonsense,” Ramsey said. On the ninth day of negotiations, Ramsey ratcheted up the pressure: “Tell them I find all this counciling comes to nothing. It is all talk, talk, talk and no business.” Ramsey stressed the economic potential of the cession in his report to William Dole, commissioner of Indian affairs: “The whole of this area may be regarded as ultimately available for agriculture and settlement, the soil being generally of extraordinary fertility and finely adapted to the production of the small grains, though portions of it along the banks of the Red River are imperfectly drained and are subject to occasional overflow. “It embraces all the present paths of commercial travel, and the designated routes of projected railroads and telegraphs between the settlements of Minnesota and the British colonies of northwestern America. . . . The position of the ceded tract . . . renders the extinction of the Indian title thereto a matter of the first consequence to the people of this State, and essential, indeed, to the development of the northwest.” Mon-si-moh (Moose Dung) played the main role in finalizing the terms of the treaty. He was rewarded with a 640-acre tract of land (the “Chief's Section”) at Thief River Falls. By 1904, the Red Lake Band had ceded all the rest of its lands, except for the much-diminished present-day reservation - and part of that (the northeast third of Upper Red Lake and the surrounding area, including Waskish) was stolen outright from them, given that they never ceded it. Thorstad is a student of Ojibwe language and culture and lives in the White Earth Indian Reservation. www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=66781&freebie_check&CFID=4082185&CFTOKEN=64573465&jsessionid=8830d09cb19c22402f50
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Mar 7, 2008 14:19:23 GMT -5
Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in Indian trust fund case. File Photo © NSM. Cobell case set for resolution Federal judge sets June 9 hearing to determine how much money, if any, Indian beneficiaries are owed. \ • Indian Trust: Cobell v. Kempthorne Government Myth-weaving Something dramatic and important has happened in the class action lawsuit I filed 11 years ago over the government's admitted mismanagement of the Indian Trust. It should trouble everyone in Indian country because it signals a 180-degree turn in the way the Interior Department plans its long-promised accounting. Gone are the government's initial, frank admissions of bungling the trust. In their place are new and troubling claims that the trust was actually well-managed. What losses the government says it can find are relatively small, perhaps several million dollars, since the trust was imposed in 1887. Only the most unsuspecting rube could listen to such an about-face without skepticism. Thankfully, in Washington and in Indian country, there are not many left. And, for the few that remain, they need only examine the government's bountiful record of lies, misrepresentations, fraud, thievery and outright villainy in all matters involving Indian people. The evidence our lawyers presented to U.S. District Judge James Robertson in October shows that the problems continue. Indians have been robbed of billions - not millions - of dollars; and the malfeasance continues today as Interior contractors get hundreds of millions of dollars to do little more than perpetuate a myth. Despite the payment of a king's ransom in taxpayer dollars to the largest accounting firms in the nation, not a single one will provide any assurance that any trust account balance is fairly or accurately stated. One may (properly) inquire how a firm engaged in the practice of rendering opinions and assurance can be paid hundreds of millions of dollars to not render an opinion and not provide the Indian beneficiaries any assurance about the historical management of their trust assets. Everyone else will recognize the government's artless weaving of another dishonest myth. The sad truth is that more than a billion trust records have been systemically destroyed. Records over several generations across all Indian country have been destroyed. And the evidence indicates that the destruction of trust records continues. It should come as no surprise then that the government's accounting plan downplays the importance of records. ''The absence of supporting documentation does not imply an error,'' the plan asserts. Contractors are permitted to ''reconstruct missing transaction records'' as they deem appropriate. In other circumstances, the government assumes that disbursements from the Individual Indian Trust were paid to beneficiaries despite the fact that the trust's records systems were not tested and negotiated checks were destroyed, at least for the first 100 years of the trust. The government assumes that oil and gas production and revenue data is accurate notwithstanding that the inspector general has identified fraud in the Minerals Management Service audit process and a Senate Special Committee on Investigations has found pervasive fraud in Indian oil and gas programs. Instead of preparing a proper accounting plan, the government has prepared a plan that it has captioned the ''Litigation Support Accounting,'' the principal purpose of which is to limit the liability of the government. There is no mention of the government's fiduciary duty to provide a fair and accurate accounting to all beneficiaries for all their trust funds. So, just what does the government's accounting plan entail? Fully implemented, the Litigation Support Accounting entails the reconciliation of 6,600 transactions. That's it; there's nothing else planned. And, on this point, the government appears to be truthful because reconciliation work on the 6,600 transactions was completed in 2005, more than two years ago, and there's been no discernible reconciliation activity since. It is difficult to articulate just how meaningless the reconciliation of 6,600 transactions is to this class of all past and present individual Indian Trust beneficiaries, but the government's witnesses during the October trial provide valuable insight into some of the ways this accounting falls far short. Of the approximately 500,000 current Indian Trust beneficiaries who are covered by our lawsuit (no one knows how many deceased beneficiaries are in the certified class), 268,000 will receive a statement under the government's plan. The balance of the 232,000 beneficiaries will be told nothing. As noted above, 6,600 transactions are to be reconciled. This means that no more than 1.3 percent of the certified class of plaintiffs will have any reconciliation activity in their account. If you are lucky enough to be one of the 1.3 percent of beneficiaries to have one of the transactions in your account reconciled, you should know that the transaction was not reconciled according to any professional standards used by any licensed professional anywhere in the world for any purpose. If you are a potential recipient, you should know a few more things. You should also know that there is no assurance that the statement you receive is even relevant to your trust funds because the government has not devised a way to test whether all revenues are properly posted to your account. You should know that the government has not tested the accuracy of your contemporaneously recorded land ownership interests. You should know that the opening balance in your account was never verified. You should know that the government did not verify that the interest earnings in your account were correct. You should know that the government did not verify that your ancestor's trust assets, which you inherited, were properly and accurately transferred to you. You should know that if the government failed to collect your trust funds or deposited your trust funds in a different account that it will not be reflected in your account. And, of course, no independent certified public accountant is willing to provide you any assurance whatsoever. They know the so-called accounting work is a sham. Many will express shock or dismay that the executive branch has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on favored accountants and statisticians with nothing to show for it while we, as a nation, are at war overseas. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am outraged. However, as an Indian Trust beneficiary engaged in a decades-long fight against this government, I can no longer express surprise, just disgust. The Interior Department is engaged in myth-making of historic proportions and it continues to be laid bare in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. -Elouise Cobell www.indiantrust.com/
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Mar 7, 2008 14:24:07 GMT -5
Thursday March 6, 2008 Indian trust trial could lead to big U.S. payout by Chris Casteel Washington Bureau The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City WASHINGTON — Committed to ending a long-running and contentious lawsuit, a federal judge Wednesday ordered a June trial that may determine whether the federal government owes billions of dollars to American Indians for mismanaging their trust accounts. "It is time to bring this matter to a close with a decision of one kind or another,” U.S. District Judge James Robertson said at a hearing. Robertson, the second judge to preside over the class-action lawsuit filed in 1996, gave the Indian plaintiffs two weeks to file a claim detailing how much money has been lost by individual Indians since 1887 because of the government's breach of its trust duties. He gave government attorneys a timetable for responding and said he would begin a trial on June 9. "I am absolutely committed to getting this case resolved with something like a final judgment this summer,” Robertson said. Dennis Gingold, the lead attorney for the Indians, said after the hearing on Wednesday that he didn't know how much money the Indians would seek but that it would be in the billions. When Congress was working to resolve the case legislatively two years ago, the Indians said that they would accept $27.5 billion. Gingold said he didn't know whether the claim now would be more than that. Background on the case The lawsuit filed in 1996 has taken many a winding trail since the Indian plaintiffs first accused the government of mismanaging their trust accounts and asked for a proper accounting of their funds. The trust accounts were created to hold the proceeds from oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber cutting and other uses on individual Indians' land. There are about 300,000 individual account holders, an estimated 53,000 in Oklahoma. After decades of complaints about mismanagement, Congress passed a law in 1994 requiring reforms in the trust system and an accounting of how much money Indians should have. The Indians sued under that law, claiming the government was not complying. Robertson ruled in January that accurate re-creations of accounts going back more than a century would be impossible and said it was time to end a case that has seen several trials, top government officials held in contempt of court, numerous appeals and the removal of the first judge in the case. His ruling was a victory for the Indians, who had long claimed that an "historical accounting” couldn't be done because millions of records had been lost or destroyed. U.S. Justice Department attorney Robert Kirschman told Robertson on Wednesday that the Indians weren't entitled to "damages” in the case because they didn't seek them when they filed the case. look here on this link if link doesnt work copy paste to address bar in internet explorer www.indiantrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Articles.ViewDetail&Article_id=473&Month=3&Year=2008
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Mar 7, 2008 14:25:50 GMT -5
Tribal trust trial could lead to big U.S. payout By Chris Casteel Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — Committed to ending a long-running and contentious lawsuit, a federal judge Wednesday ordered a June trial that may determine whether the federal government owes billions of dollars to American Indians for mismanaging their trust accounts. It is time to bring this matter to a close with a decision of one kind or another,” U.S. District Judge James Robertson said at a hearing. Robertson, the second judge to preside over the class-action lawsuit filed in 1996, gave the Indian plaintiffs two weeks to file a claim detailing how much money has been lost by individual Indians since 1887 because of the government's breach of its trust duties. He gave government attorneys a timetable for responding and said he would begin a trial on June 9. "I am absolutely committed to getting this case resolved with something like a final judgment this summer,” Robertson said. Dennis Gingold, the lead attorney for the Indians, said after the hearing on Wednesday that he didn't know how much money the Indians would seek but that it would be in the billions. When Congress was working to resolve the case legislatively two years ago, the Indians said that they would accept $27.5 billion. Gingold said he didn't know whether the claim now would be more than that. Background on the case The lawsuit filed in 1996 has taken many a winding trail since the Indian plaintiffs first accused the government of mismanaging their trust accounts and asked for a proper accounting of their funds. The trust accounts were created to hold the proceeds from oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber cutting and other uses on individual Indians' land. There are about 300,000 individual account holders, an estimated 53,000 in Oklahoma. After decades of complaints about mismanagement, Congress passed a law in 1994 requiring reforms in the trust system and an accounting of how much money Indians should have. The Indians sued under that law, claiming the government was not complying. Robertson ruled in January that accurate re-creations of accounts going back more than a century would be impossible and said it was time to end a case that has seen several trials, top government officials held in contempt of court, numerous appeals and the removal of the first judge in the case. His ruling was a victory for the Indians, who had long claimed that an "historical accounting” couldn't be done because millions of records had been lost or destroyed. U.S. Justice Department attorney Robert Kirschman told Robertson on Wednesday that the Indians weren't entitled to "damages” in the case because they didn't seek them when they filed the case from link below- newsok.com/article/3212603/1204779962
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Apr 14, 2008 15:59:10 GMT -5
Tim Giago: CBC goes after Cherokee Nation Monday, April 14, 2008 Filed Under: Opinion The Congressional Black Caucus, in attacking the sovereign status of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, is placing in question and in jeopardy, the sovereign status of all Indian nations. At least that is the conclusion drawn by many tribal leaders across America. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the CBC, of which Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is member, demanded that he support their efforts to deny federal funding to the Cherokee Nation. The letter reads: When H. R. 2786, the Native American Housing and Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007, was considered and passed the House Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others insisted that the bill include a provision that would prevent the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma from receiving any benefits or funding under the bill until the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is in full compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and recognizes all Cherokee Freedman and their descendants as tribal citizens. We understand that the Senate may be considering a version of this bill that does not include these critically important requirements. We are writing to advise you that the members of the CBC will not support, and will actively oppose, passage of a NAHASDA bill that does not include this limitation. We must send the unequivocal message to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma that failure to provide full citizenship rights to the Cherokee Freedmen will have severe consequences. This is probably the first time in history that a Congressional Black Caucus, or any other Black organization for that matter, has severely threatened not only the sovereign status of an Indian nation, but also the withholding of funds that could cause widespread damage to the citizens of an Indian nation. The people of the Cherokee Nation exercised their democratic rights when 70 percent of them voted to extinguish the tribal citizenship to the Cherokee Freedmen. The Freedmen are former Black slaves that became a part of the Cherokee Nation under the provisions of the Treaty of 1866. The bill was introduced by Representative Diane Watson (D-CA). Tribal leaders across America feel that this bill could threaten Indian housing nationwide. They also believe that this action by the Congressional Black Caucus could set a precedent where any Indian legislation could be threatened by any special interest group. In a memo sent out by Indian activist Ron Andrade it was noted that Obama is also a member of the CBC. “Someone needs to ask him how he can reconcile his support of the Congressional Black Caucus and his rhetoric about supporting the sovereign status of tribal governments,” Andrade wrote. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina met on Wednesday of last week in a joint tribal council meeting. At the meeting they denounced legislation that would cut federal funds to the Cherokee Nation unless the Freedmen are restored to citizenship. The Eastern Band of Cherokee would not be affected by the legislation. A joint resolution issued after the meeting reads, “This alarming, inappropriate and unacceptable overreach could set a precedent that undermines the sovereign tribal governments throughout Indian country. These proposed legislative actions threaten to turn back the clock on hard-won rights and to cease a nation’s right to exist.” It should be noted that California is one of the worst states in the Union where tribes are systematically removing and denying citizenship to members. Rep. Watson represents a voting district in that state. What has she done about this problem in her own district? And what about the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus? Are they not concerned that Indian people are often removed from tribes in California without even a democratic vote? Or will they only speak up when Black Americans are involved? And the final question: What gives the Congressional Black Caucus the right to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign Indian nation? These are all questions that every Native American leader and citizens should be asking every member of the CBC including presidential candidate Barack Obama who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. And isn’t ironic that the very word “Caucus” is derived from the Algonquin Indian language and meant, “A group of people united to promote an agreed –upon cause.” When the CBC begins to use its power to go after some of the tribes of California for ejecting and denying citizenship to their members then, and only then, will their actions against the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma have the appearance of justice or otherwise their objectivity will always be in question to the sovereign people of the Indian nations. Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, was born, raised and educated on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the Class of 1991. He can be reached at najournalist@msn.com. More Tim Giago: www.indianz.com/News/2008/008139.asp
|
|