WOLFCHILD vs. UNITED STATES

[mdenney]

These are from pacer that I have downloaded on the latest on

WOLFCHILD vs. UNITED STATES

This file posted by the UNITED STATES is posted a little late but I thought you want to read it here it is

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apr. 20,20111 Afidavit by jody Schwartz, and US Objections to
and Response to Plaintiffs Findings..Motion to Defer Judgement

Here is that Apr. 20,2011 Filing from the US and the Affidavit
by Jody Schwartz(Asst. Atty. Gen.)
Those proposed findings of Uncontroverted Fact were filed by the Wolfchild and Group B Intervenors(it is the family trees,etc.) they submitted to the court.

cid-aca2b7c7635ceba3.office.live.com/self.aspx/legal%20wolfchild%20vs%20united%20states/US%20Response%20to%20Plaintiffs%20proposed%20Findings%5E.%5E.pdf

(Note) Please read the brief filed on Nov. 1,2007by Defendents
re. Initial disclosure(s).it has been posted below this thread of documents.

==============================================
This was put on pacer at or about May 7th, 2011

WOLFCHILD PLAINTIFFS` OBJECTIONS AND ADMISSIONS
TO UNITED STATES PROPOSED FINDINGS OF
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

cid-aca2b7c7635ceba3.office.live.com/self.aspx/legal%20wolfchild%20vs%20united%20states/01511084620%20wolfchild%20objection%20to%20US%20Proposed%20Facts%20and%20findings.pdf

-------------------------------------------

DECLARATION OF ERICK G. KAARDAL

cid-aca2b7c7635ceba3.office.live.com/self.aspx/legal%20wolfchild%20vs%20united%20states/01511084623%20Kaardal%20Declaration.pdf


--------------------------------------------

THE WOLFCHILD PLAINTIFFS` RESPONSE TO THE
UNITED STATES MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION
UNDER RULE 56(d)

cid-aca2b7c7635ceba3.office.live.com/self.aspx/legal%20wolfchild%20vs%20united%20states/01511084626wolfchild%20Response%20to%20Us%20Motion%20to%20Deferconsideration.pdf

[hermin1]

Read this first before you read the ones above. it was filed on Nov.1,2007 by the defendents, and is relevant in that they may have,more or less impeached themselves.the briefs filed above will confirm this.

www.mklaw.com/documents/GovernmentInitialDisclosures.pdf

comments from the peanut Gallery:
In addition, here is more background info.
the the December 16,2005 Judge's ruling ordered the Defendents to release to the Plaintiffs, a listing of 1886 lineal descendents known to the government.
it was to be done before or on April 17,2006.
On the dateof the deadline,the govt. filed for an Emergency Extension of this order and also a motion to have the information disclosed under a protective privacy order to protect the identity of the names on the listing from public disclosure under the Privacy Act.

The Defendents noted in their brief that the Wolfchild Plaintiffs would not agree to the govt. requesting the Privacy Act Nondisclosure be included.
The judge did not, as I read his order,allow them any extension, but did order the information sent to the court, and also to the Plaintiffs,who were,at the time: Morhman and Kaardal and Raymond Cermak, under Seal. The judge also ordered that the Privacy Act Order be included.

In the Judge's 2006 ruling(see Kaardal's website)he merely mentions the Dec. 16,2005 order.

Defendents' Initial Disclosure Brief mentioned above, lists quite a vast resource of records, etc. that the defendents possess ,and/or have control of, and sources of genealogical and other documents,records,etc. records,documents,etc. that are not under their control or possession.
those documents,records under Defendents control or possession include:
The defendents have access to the Annuity rolls and Censuses prior to and after the 1862 Uprising, including the Mdewakanton Rolls mentioned many times in this lawsuit.
the Brief also details what the Defendents would be releasing to the Plaintiffs, as the case developed, and what records,etc. the Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Intervenors would need to do to get access to other records,held by the govt, and those from other sources.
They have had almost 4 years to "tap" all these resources to produce the listing that the Judge ordered in 2005.
So much for their argument that their resources are limited.

Now in 2011 the defendents claim they have limited resources to assess the lineal descendency of each of the Plaintiffs.

if you ask me, I would say the govt on the one hand has been stalling in respect to their court ordered duty. But on the other hand they do have a valid argument of sorts. They need to know what Criteria the court will dictate to determine who is a valid plaintiff in this suit, in so far as the Trust Money, and assuming the Plaintiffs have a valid argument,re. the 1863 Acts at issue.

I may be wrong, but the second Act of 1863, in so far as the land to be set aside for the friendlies who helped protect/save the whits,,when the Act was created,the congressmen put in that stipulation that the "friendly Indians" could only claim 80 acres,from one of the two acts,otherwise,the Indians could claim 80 acres each from the two 1863 Acts. I also believe that the two acts pertain only,to the Friendly Indians who are the Ancestors of some of the plaintiffs, but whether this includes the descendents of these ancestors, is a question that I hope the court will address. Thus the requirements of the Govt. in MS Schwartz's affidavit and brief of april 20, 2011 are MOOT to say the least.

[jennifer robinette]

I am inquiring why there are no Robinettes on the plaintiff list? It was my great great grandfathers land in question. I think 80 acres was "given". Albert Robinette had 17.

[hermin1]

Hello jennifer and welcome to ourwebsite.
I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
You need to discuss this with your relatives,they would know the answer.