|
Post by mdenney on Nov 22, 2006 1:59:23 GMT -5
If you read it... then point made...I don't know what was just said, but Lettow is the KING in this chess game.
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Nov 22, 2006 3:23:23 GMT -5
No you can't vote, but I can!
|
|
terry
Junior Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by terry on Nov 22, 2006 8:43:12 GMT -5
That's right.The judge will decide.
Happy Holidays Everyone!
|
|
|
Post by bazilecreekhusker on Nov 22, 2006 11:12:04 GMT -5
"Terry, you need to read the letter Judge Lettow is citing in the December opinion page 10." Where is the DECEMBER OPINION and where is Page 10? Please publish the link. Thanks, MIKE Is this it Wolfchild II - Opinion and Order Dated December 16, 2005 www.mklaw.com/pdfs/034.pdf
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Nov 22, 2006 12:08:14 GMT -5
The December Opinion used to be posted on the MKLaw website. I may have a copy and at last resort I will beg Mr Denney since he is keeper of all things relevant! lol I reading page 10 it became clear to me that Judge Lettow is saying that things are not so cut and dried and that "there are some that should be on the rolls that arent and some that are that shouldnt be" in the letters cited by Lettow on this page are between Rep McDonald, Commisoner Dennis Cooley, and R Henton. The letters show the fact that there are other variables that affect the overall, such as the statement of Henton that the listing of persons was not an indication of who would receive, it was to show who was there (example: charles goodthunder specifically is explained). Also that the letters are discussing the court order to add other individuals to the rolls. The also say such things as "let us keep in mind intentions of ALL of these acts..." and " This is the THIRD enrollment of indians..." I have wished to see each of the letters that were cited in this section of Lettows opinion since these are not letters that are mentioned in the Wolfchild complaint and points not made by Kaardal. This is where I became very interested in the idea that the Honorable Judge Lettow does his homework and is doing a great job of examining the issues as a whole and not just what is presented to him. I also should mention that in the court transcripts of the most recent DC hearing (I was not as fortunate as some people I know who were able to attend) Mr Montana spoke to the court about the unclear concept of severing ones tribal ties in 1886 and 1889 era. Certainly the concept of tribal affiliation was nothing like we have now and Judge Lettow seemed to understand that and the need to examine that part as well. I think that many people who do intensive genealogical searching have seen members of the 1886 and 1889 rolls on other annuity rolls and tribal census rolls. I can think of three without even trying (and more) that show on the siseton 1887 roll and on the 1886 and 1889 roll. So if ones entitlement hinged on "severing" ones tribal ties, some would have a very weak case. My stongest objection to Terry's post is the implication that "some just dont get it" -since I see so many people very intelligent people make great effort to "get it" and understand all angles in a balanced and fair manner, and " ITS REALLY VERY SIMPLE " -when clearly to Judge Lettow according to the opinons issued from the court, it is not.
(BazileCreekHusker... I will send you what I have on the above. I trust there is much enjoyment in the Husker World... and there is very little in the RaiderNation. I am going to take advantage of my age/gender and pass myself off as a PTA mom, who has very little knowledge or like for the NFL. Not much glory in loyalty and I am a fan to the end... and that is where my raiders jersey will hang in my closet for the rest of this year!)
Tamara
PS Should I have already thought about thawing a turkey??
|
|
|
Post by denney on Nov 22, 2006 18:30:19 GMT -5
Is this what you want ? if not let me know !!!! Wolfchild II - Opinion and Order Dated December 16, 2005 link below- www.mklaw.com/pdfs/034.pdfThe December Opinion used to be posted on the MKLaw website. I may have a copy and at last resort I will beg Mr Denney since he is keeper of all things relevant! lol I reading page 10 it became clear to me that Judge Lettow is saying that things are not so cut and dried and that "there are some that should be on the rolls that arent and some that are that shouldnt be" in the letters cited by Lettow on this page are between Rep McDonald, Commisoner Dennis Cooley, and R Henton. The letters show the fact that there are other variables that affect the overall, such as the statement of Henton that the listing of persons was not an indication of who would receive, it was to show who was there (example: charles goodthunder specifically is explained). Also that the letters are discussing the court order to add other individuals to the rolls. The also say such things as "let us keep in mind intentions of ALL of these acts..." and " This is the THIRD enrollment of indians..." I have wished to see each of the letters that were cited in this section of Lettows opinion since these are not letters that are mentioned in the Wolfchild complaint and points not made by Kaardal. This is where I became very interested in the idea that the Honorable Judge Lettow does his homework and is doing a great job of examining the issues as a whole and not just what is presented to him. I also should mention that in the court transcripts of the most recent DC hearing (I was not as fortunate as some people I know who were able to attend) Mr Montana spoke to the court about the unclear concept of severing ones tribal ties in 1886 and 1889 era. Certainly the concept of tribal affiliation was nothing like we have now and Judge Lettow seemed to understand that and the need to examine that part as well. I think that many people who do intensive genealogical searching have seen members of the 1886 and 1889 rolls on other annuity rolls and tribal census rolls. I can think of three without even trying (and more) that show on the siseton 1887 roll and on the 1886 and 1889 roll. So if ones entitlement hinged on "severing" ones tribal ties, some would have a very weak case. My stongest objection to Terry's post is the implication that "some just dont get it" -since I see so many people very intelligent people make great effort to "get it" and understand all angles in a balanced and fair manner, and " ITS REALLY VERY SIMPLE " -when clearly to Judge Lettow according to the opinons issued from the court, it is not. (BazileCreekHusker... I will send you what I have on the above. I trust there is much enjoyment in the Husker World... and there is very little in the RaiderNation. I am going to take advantage of my age/gender and pass myself off as a PTA mom, who has very little knowledge or like for the NFL. Not much glory in loyalty and I am a fan to the end... and that is where my raiders jersey will hang in my closet for the rest of this year!) Tamara PS Should I have already thought about thawing a turkey??
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 22, 2006 18:35:31 GMT -5
Thanks again Tamara.
I always enjoy reading your posts, I visualize you as you compose your message, thinking beautiful thoughts and how best to phrase a sentence to maximize the message effectivness.
Terry seems to think that the 1886-1889 census were made up of People who “severed” their Tribal ties, they are the only ones who were on the census. That requirement was part of the legislation, but the main idea of the legislation was to protect individual Indians who had helped the Wasicu and faced death at the hands of their relatives if they were sent to SANTEE.
They would surely have paid the price if they had tried to live in SANTEE.
MIKE
The HUSKERS have a shot at TEXAS and a nice BOWL game, the teams preserverance has paid off. NU OWNS CU!!! Go BIG RED!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Nov 22, 2006 18:41:57 GMT -5
MIKE,
Thank you!
MIKE
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Nov 23, 2006 0:06:09 GMT -5
Yeah!!!
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Nov 23, 2006 0:09:29 GMT -5
LOL.. both Mikes. I whole heartedly agree with your summary mr k. I am sending the information I have.
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Nov 23, 2006 2:34:40 GMT -5
speculation in this...I would like to ask jazzdog to confirm just an open conclusion in short on what exactly they are saying to the poeple...
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Dec 6, 2006 2:26:58 GMT -5
Jamie
thanks for thinking of me. I am sorry that I have not posted anything recently as personal matters have kept me out of the loop. I sense that there is a perception out there that the "1886 and 1889 Census names" are the end of all means, and that no other lineal descendancy option is acceptable to the COURT. That belief is shortsighted and not altogether true. Judge Lettow has in fact left the creative thinking door open in his reference in that prior order. Respectfully acknowledging Erick's fine work in getting this case this far to this point, it appears that the Kaardahl clients' have been established as a group of alleged lineal descendants who apparantly have a "recognizable link" to a name on the 1886 or 1889 census, but do not include other deserving and factually ascertainable lineal descendants that may or may not have a "recognizable link" to the census names (under a yet to be fully disclosed criteria determination). This fact should not discourage individuals or groups of individuals who believe that their lineal anscestors had as much right to be beneficiaries under this suit, because of the fact that their lineal anscestors were in fact loyal to the US or settlers during the uprising, who did or may have lost their lands and possessions during the conflict and thereafter, or who were displaced (voluntarily or involuntarily) from their lands, holdings, farms, scrips or otherwise, because of the turmoil that went on in Minnesota STARTING on August 18, 1862 and continuing through the years of suffering and confusion that followed, until the US finally realized that the collective anger over the uprising could nor should result in the outright total extermination and/or destruction of all persons and family units of the Mdewakanton Dakota who did not voluntarily participate in the atrocities that were committed against the white settlers in 1862 (although there were also atrocities that were reaped upon the Mdewakanton Dakota and the mixed and half bloods that were present in Minnesota in 1862, 1863-1886 and beyond). I have stated in some earlier posts what my thoughts were on the issue of "severing of tribal relations". The obvious history can only be interpreted that in order to be a beneficiary of the post 1863 congressional acts intended to (try to) "compensate" the Mdewakanton peoples and their descendants (beneficiaries) as a result of the incredible deprivation of land, life, property, identity and humanity, that occured as a result of the white backlash following the uprising, would be to include all of those known claimants and their descendants, whether or not they were able to or lucky enough to be able to present themselves in Minnesota on certain preprescribed dates in 1885, 1886 or 1889 to have their families recognized by the government at THAT time. Any reasonable person looking at the facts and the actual history of the events and the environment at that time in Minnesota would or should or could realize that it was not safe for any Indian individual (let alone whole families) to return to, or try to reestablish themselves in that then very racist situation in Minnesota, to be able to have their names or their lineage protected by merely appearing at those sites at those times in Minnesota in 1886 or 1889. IT does appear that the severing of tribal relations reference is keyed toward the time of 1862, and not that of 1885, 1886 or 1889. Remember that all of the Mdewakanton peoples were FORCED to make incredibly difficult decisions of life and death, and of survival......whether to stay....whether to flee....whether to assist the "insurgents" in the uprising....whether to assist the settlers....whether to assist the army......whether to resist arrest by the US forces .....whether to revolt against their captivity.....whether to fight for their own land, families or holdings against these conflicting aspects......these were impossible choices. These "choices" were particularly difficult for those of the Sioux mixed and half bloods, who were torn between two cultures and communities at the time.....no matter which choice was made, there were exteme and negative consequences. This is why I truly believe that the issue of "loyalty" is paramount in the intent and eyes of the congress when these various acts of consequence and appropriation were passed throughout the following years. We all know that it is very likely that the 1886 and 1889 lists do not and could not sufficiently include all those true deserving lineal descendants who were entitled to be considered beneficiaries of the congressional acts. It is even highly likely that there may have been some individuals that, through circumstance, found themselves in Minnesota in 1885, 1886 or 1889, who were not truly entitled to be true beneficiaries of the people who were the focus of the intent to be protected by those acts and those acts that surrounded the same. For these reasons, I also believe that those other lists, census documents, etc., that were called for and accomplished by the government agents over the years following the uprising, were an attempt to try to include or identify as many of the rightful beneficiaries as was possible at the time. Those other lists obviously would be focused upon the loyal Mdewakanton people through the Sioux Scouts and Soldiers lists and the later ones. Remember that in the years following the uprising, that people and families were desperately seeking safety and survival......they turned to the communities that were within regional reach and which were in an "Oyate" manner of belief to accept those that needed help and shelter. This is why you see the Mdewakanton people disbursed throughout the Indian communties at Santee, Flandreau, Yankton, Sisseton, Devils Lake, Crow Creek, etc.. I think the Court in this case is open to the parameters of logical and sensible discussion of the true history of our anscestors, and not just that which had been recorded by the "victors". We all know that the victors are usually allowed to write the "official" accounts of history, as they see it. That, is not always the truth of how things occurred. I hope some of what I have said here can generate some more open discussion and a freeflow of ideas on these concepts.
thanks again for this site.......thanks again for the moderators.......above all, though, we need to thank our anscestors for their spiritual drive that is somehow imprinted in our brains and hopefully in our souls.......that is what this is really all about anyway, at least in my mind.
take care
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Dec 6, 2006 6:10:29 GMT -5
Yes I feel the same way...thanking the ones before us is what it all comes down to. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Dec 6, 2006 10:13:22 GMT -5
Good post, Jazzdog!
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Dec 6, 2006 12:12:27 GMT -5
great post
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Dec 6, 2006 15:25:09 GMT -5
webzoom.freewebs.com/oyate/pdf/DOILetter.pdfJazz I am reposting this link as it speaks to some of the things you mention. I find in particular the wording on page 3 to be of interest. the finding that other than the 1886 and 1889 rolls that "this is not to preclude the possibility of using other rolls and materials if their contacts sufficiently prove that the named individual is a descendant fo an 1886 mdewakanton resident of minnesota"
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jun 3, 2011 19:52:49 GMT -5
we are still going...they said we would crumble as a site, but yet our site is made of what bonds a true native...HEART! thank all of u for being here. just lovely,
dakota.
|
|
|
Post by sara on Jun 17, 2011 0:45:02 GMT -5
aww, just sweet.
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Jul 12, 2011 21:43:36 GMT -5
thanks sara...thank all the people for coming here and sharing knowledge and facts. thank you from: oyateresearchcenter...
|
|