|
Post by denney on Jul 31, 2007 12:02:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Jul 31, 2007 16:08:58 GMT -5
To Denney and Others:
I have a question regarding this PLaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007. Here it goes, I understand the Attorneys named on the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition were Erick G. Kaardal of Minneapolis, MN; Douglas R. Kettering of Yankton, SD; and Sam S. Killinger of Sioux City, IA. Kaardal and Kettering were originally representing the Wolfchild plaintiffs and Sam S. Killinger as representing the Intervenors Group A. Here is the question, why was the name of Gary Montana, who was designated as the contact for the Intervenors Group B plaintiffs not included with this PLaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition..... ? I would just like to know cause the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors are all up against the United States of America in this Wolfchild case. Can any one of you explain what is going on with my latest question?
|
|
|
Post by hyland on Jul 31, 2007 22:20:24 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I think that the plaintiffs under all 3 of these atty's are all on the MKLaw plaintiff list.
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Jul 31, 2007 23:10:36 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I think that the plaintiffs under all 3 of these atty's are all on the MKLaw plaintiff list. From what I have been reading as far as the court documents, Sam S. Killinger, Sioux City, IA was selected by those Attorneys in the Group A Intervenors who were wanting to be identified under the Group A or (1886 or 1889 censuses). And selected under the Group B Intervenors of Attorneys was Attorney Gary Montana to represent the Group B Intervenors in handlings with the Court's logistics for trial preparation. And the way I understood the Court's orders and Attorneys follow through was that there was a Group A and Group B for all the Intervenors and those Attorneys representing the Intervenors in Group A or Group B were identified in the Court's Orders as belonging to Group A or Group B or Both Group A and Group B. That is why I asked the question of why Gary Montana as selected by the Attorneys to be the contact for the Court in the Group B Intervenors did not participate with those other Attorneys of Erick G. Kaardal, Douglas Killinger, and Sam S. Killinger (Group A Intervenors contact) when the filing of the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Oppostion To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007. Denney, do you know? To further substantiate my point look at this: Joint Preliminary Status Report By Intervenors filed June 15, 2007. www.mklaw.com/documents/JointPreliminaryStatus.pdfLook at Page 2, "A draft of a Joint Preliminary Status Report to be circulated to counsel was completed followed by selection of coordinating counsel, assistants to coordinating counsel and alternate coordinating counsel for the A and B Groups as follows: A Group Coordinating Counsel: Sam S. Killinger Assistant to Coordinating Counsel A Group: Kelly H. Stricherz Alternate Coordinating Counsel A Group: Garrett I. Horn Assistant to Alternate Coordinating Counsel A Group: Nicole Nachtigal Emerson B Group Coordinating Counsel: Gary Montana Assistant to Coordinating Counsel B Group: Robin Zephier Alternate Coordinating Counsel B Group: Creighton Thurman Assistant to Alternate Coordinating Counsel B Group: Barry Hogan"
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 1, 2007 21:29:04 GMT -5
There are others that are far more capable of answering this question but although this document doesnt include all of the attorney's names, it doesnt mean that they are involved. It is a good question, but those of Mr Montana's clients who attended the meetings know his position in this matter. If you are represented by one of the attorney in this lawsuit they would be able to explain the process that leads up to the writing of this filing, and it involves much communication by all. Mr Kellinger and Ms Stricherz along with Mr Montana and Mr Zephier have done an excellent job in coordinating for the groups and are in constant contact in these issues even if their names do not appear on the document at this time.
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Aug 1, 2007 22:31:37 GMT -5
There are others that are far more capable of answering this question but although this document doesnt include all of the attorney's names, it doesnt mean that they are involved. It is a good question, but those of Mr Montana's clients who attended the meetings know his position in this matter. If you are represented by one of the attorney in this lawsuit they would be able to explain the process that leads up to the writing of this filing, and it involves much communication by all. Mr Kellinger and Ms Stricherz along with Mr Montana and Mr Zephier have done an excellent job in coordinating for the groups and are in constant contact in these issues even if their names do not appear on the document at this time. Attorney Gary Montana was selected as coordinating counsel for the Group B Intervenors and my question was directed in that regard. Since the Plaintiffs and Intervenors are up against the US, and at this point my only focus was for the Intervenors, both Group A and Group B. Also some of the Intervenors have selected both Group A and Group B for their involvement. So with that, my question was why couldn't Attorney Gary Montana have been included with the last Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007? Remember, Sam S. Killinger of Sioux City, IA was selected as the coordinating counsel for Group A Intervenors and Killinger's name appears on the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007.
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Aug 2, 2007 10:49:27 GMT -5
When the USA filed their Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal on July 16, 2007, does anyone know the timeframe allowed to file a Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal? Again, my question is alluded to for the Intervenors that were under Group B with the coordinating counsel identified as Attorney Gary Montana. Please I think it would be very important for those Intervenors that are claiming lineal descendancy through Group B through other means then the 1886 and 1889 censuses. And since Attorney Gary Montana is the coordinating counsel for Group B Intervenors, then that Attorney would have to initiate the Intervenor's Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal. Thank you?
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 2, 2007 10:52:27 GMT -5
Mr Kellinger and Ms Stricherz along with Mr Montana and Mr Zephier have done an excellent job in coordinating for the groups and are in constant contact in these issues even if their names do not appear on the document at this time.
Key word here for me would be: COORDINATING.
Then again I could be wrong...
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Aug 2, 2007 11:54:39 GMT -5
Mr Kellinger and Ms Stricherz along with Mr Montana and Mr Zephier have done an excellent job in coordinating for the groups and are in constant contact in these issues even if their names do not appear on the document at this time. Key word here for me would be: COORDINATING. Then again I could be wrong... Thank you for your observation. My point is, if you look at the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007 that memorandum does not include the arguments for the Intervenors Group B as they would be arguing their merits of why they feel the Group B Intervenors would be harmed or injured by the Government's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal at this late in the process. And that would be where Attorney Gary Montana as coordinating counsel for the Group B Intervenors would put forth those Group B Intervenor comments for Judge Lettow to consider. Hopefully, I am making myself clear. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 2, 2007 16:06:44 GMT -5
I think that jazzdog is clearly our best hope on this...trust me, with out knowing who is keen in this area I have to say jazzdog is more likely your key at best for right now. In fact I want to see a response by jazzdog, because I know that he will deliver you the best answer.
Sincerely...
by wanblgi
Thank you for your observation. My point is, if you look at the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007 that memorandum does not include the arguments for the Intervenors Group B as they would be arguing their merits of why they feel the Group B Intervenors would be harmed or injured by the Government's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal at this late in the process. And that would be where Attorney Gary Montana as coordinating counsel for the Group B Intervenors would put forth those Group B Intervenor comments for Judge Lettow to consider. Hopefully, I am making myself clear. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Aug 2, 2007 20:55:38 GMT -5
Wanbligi- If you have a question concerning Mr. Montana's position, you would be far better off to take it up directly with him. You know he would be more than happy to explain it to you. You know how to get ahold of me for contact information if need be. Regards, Fancy I believe we/they have alot of individuals who may fall under the category of Group B Internevors under this Wolfchild litigation and this is meant as a general rehearsing for what lies ahead. We all know, all the brilliant Attorneys that are handling all aspects for all Plaintiffs and Intervenors in Wolfchild are far too busy and rushed to answer each and every question that a client may have, so that is where all the outstanding minds that read Oyate Exchange can offer or put forth their understanding of each and every aspect on Wolfchild. And it is no secret for anyone, whether they be connected to Wolfchild or just a curious being can log onto mklaw.com and find all those motions, pleadings, and general news regarding the Wolfchild case. And so to those that read all that is found on the mklaw.com these inquiries are for you too, in hopes that we can share or enlighten any and all regarding Wolfchild and some of you know is now moving in a more concerted effort towards hopeful completion. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Aug 3, 2007 2:56:16 GMT -5
Wanbligi and Jamie
obviously, through the posting, there has been some confusion as to whether or not the Group A Plaintiffs and the Group B Plaintiffs are in support of the Opposition Response that has been filed by the Plaintiffs' group response authored by Mohrman and Kaardahl......it is a good question, but according to my best knowledge and belief now, is that all plaintiffs, including all groups of plaintiffs encompassing the intervenor groups of both the A and B groups are supportive of the filing.....there should be no alarm that the B Group is left out at this point, in that, to my understanding, there is a concerted effort to bring an overall united response to the government's motion for interlocatory appeal, in that all plaintiff groups are opposing the government's motion in unison.......the Group B plaintiffs are willing to join in the motion filed, and despite the fact that there are certain differences in the theories of who is a rightful "lineal descendant" or "trust beneficiaries" under the trust argument, that we do not necessarily need to separate ourselves under those specific issues for purposes of opposing the government's immediate motion to seek interlocatory appeal. The Plaintiffs on this issue of opposing the government's venture to stall the proceedings by seeking an appeal on the trust issue, are all united in the sense that all plaintiff groups oppose that effort. You have probably seen that only group A has signed on to the opposition, but that is apparently, only because not all of the legal counsel had had a chance to review the response in opposition. It appears to me that the joint effort of all groups of plaintiffs to oppose the US is a good sign to show a meaningful sign of joinder within all groups in the face of what the government would hope in an effort to divide us all. It also appears that the opposition to the government's motion for interlocatory appeal, does not require us, in our individual and joint opposition, to lay all the cards out on the table as to the individual theories or options under the Plan of litigation that was set forth by the united groups of plaintiffs. In other words, the fact that what you have seen did not include the group B plaintiffs, should and will include those plaintiffs in the opposition. It is obvious that the group B plaintiffs would oppose the government's efforts to appeal at this stage. Why would it make any sense that they would not? Mr. Montana has already agreed to sign off on the oppositon motion and brief. It is a mere procedural aspect to join in that motion if it has not already happened. Again, my understanding is that there is a unified front to oppose the government in all aspects of their motion for interlocatory appeal at this stage of the proceedings. The Group A plaintiffs are in the same boat as the Group B Plaintiffs in the oppositon. There appears to be no danger in not arguing individual nuances in the differences of the Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, because the Plaintiffs need only to present the arguments in contravention to the government's arguments as to why the US should be allowed to appeal at this stage. It does appear that no one would lose their rights to argue specific points of their claims at this stage as plaintiffs, until the court rules on the issue of whether an interlocatory appeal is even going to be allowed in the first place. If you look closely at the joint status report, you will see that all plaintiffs' positions have been enunciated in that document, including group A and B plaintiffs. It does appear that the upcoming status hearing will not even effectually deal with any final decision on the motion for interlocatory appeal. Since the government's motion for interlocatory appeal has yet to be set for hearing, that the court will not deal with that issue until later once all parties have had a chance to respond under the rules of the court. In fact, it appears, that the unified plaintiffs groups are ahead of the government in setting out a definitive plan to approach the overall litigation, absent the appeal issue. You should all stay tight in the belief that for the time being, it appears that the government's attempt to appeal at this stage is the paramount issue of delay. The plan of the plaintiffs is to move the case forward with the intention of dealing with many important issues that could have a very big bearing upon the ultimate issues and participation of all or many of us. This is pretty much of what I know and believe at this point.
I hope it helps.
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 3, 2007 9:56:31 GMT -5
This is just a part of what I see that is going on but I don't dwell on it...jazzdog you have great skill here on this topic...I only cut out parts that seem to fit, but at the same time I fallow the "Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Opposition To Deafen." I just like to be involved...lol
By jazzdog.
The Plaintiffs on this issue of opposing the government's venture to stall the proceedings by seeking an appeal on the trust issue, are all united in the sense that all plaintiff groups oppose that effort. You have probably seen that only group A has signed on to the opposition, but that is apparently, only because not all of the legal counsel had had a chance to review the response in opposition. It appears to me that the joint effort of all groups of plaintiffs to oppose the US is a good sign to show a meaningful sign of joinder within all groups in the face of what the government would hope in an effort to divide us all.
This is just one part of what jazzdog has to offer in response. He is on the money folks.
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 3, 2007 12:41:23 GMT -5
Thank you for clarifying, informing and encouraging us all, Jazzdog. You are much appreciated here, in fact I am thinking we are as dependant on you as we are on Hermin1! lol Tamara
|
|
|
Post by wakanhotanin on Aug 3, 2007 12:44:29 GMT -5
There is a Leaf Family here at Spirit Lake (ft. Totten). William Leaf was a dance hall owner circa 1900. He was photographed by Wannamaker / Dixton. The photo is at the U. of IN at Bloomington. Louie
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Aug 3, 2007 19:08:15 GMT -5
Jazzdog:
Thank you for explaining the Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Certify Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Dated July 30, 2007. My only question was on the Plaintiffs versus Intervenors titles that have been identified by the Court's Opinions and Orders. As all of the Intervenors are not part of Kaardal and company in the distinction of Group A and Group B of Intervenors. I know down the road when the Intervenors get their day in court to prove their lineal descendancy as Group A Intervenors and Group B Intervenors we will see who opposes the Intervenors and their documentation.
And a further question that came to mind is, if the Government is not successful with Judge Lettow in getting the Orders Certified For Interlocutory Appeal, can the Government appeal Judge Lettow's decision to a higher court?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Aug 3, 2007 22:58:25 GMT -5
Wanbligi
I think the answer to your question is that if Judge Lettow denies the Government's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal, then, the only appeal that can be had, is after the entire case is done. I hope I am right on this, but I think that is correct. Otherwise, you could see how the unsatisfied party could seek interlocutory appeal after interlocutory appeal, in a neverending cycle, and in perpetuity. Wanbligi, thank you for your kind and diligent work on keeping people advised and aware of the important things and concepts on the cutting edge of the news of the case and the historical developments. The more that I see of honest and open discussion of the issues and the research, the more it seems that there is an incentive to recognize the communal strength of joint efforts and joint assertions and ideas, that will help, hopefully, us all, to flex our minds and perceptions, to allow our conscious thoughts to envision how the historical past intertwines with the minute by minute passing of present time. People helping people is contagious....the risk in helping someone in the chain of life, is that one day a random act of kindness may be reaped upon you or a loved one at an unexpected time in unexpected moments, in return. I know Tamara and Jaime understand things of this nature, as they are examples of the same. There are many on this wonderful site that share their wealth of research, information and thoughts, that maybe, someday, will help each one of us, individually, and/or collectively. Thank you all. It appears that for the time being, that all Plaintiff groups in this case, have a common understandable goal......to hold the government accountable for the mistakes and/or intentional deprivations that have occurred over the years that have affected many past, and present, lives. When people, and things, lie and misrepresent the truth, we must stand up together, and join hands in strength, to pull that neglected truth up from the hanging cliff, so as to save or otherwise resurrect her, and to protect her against the evils that would slander and demoralize her in the eyes of those that know no better.
Thanks again. Keep up the good work.
Your friend
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 6, 2007 15:33:27 GMT -5
lol...nice tamara...
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 6, 2007 15:49:02 GMT -5
Nicely put jazzdog....
|
|