|
Post by denney on Aug 7, 2007 12:01:36 GMT -5
Monday's Court Conference
Monday's court hearing went well. The only decision Judge Lettow made from the bench was that even if he grants the United States certification for appeal (allows it to take an appeal now), he will not stay the case. In other words, the case will continue if he allows the appeal.
Sam Killinger presented the intervenors belief that the correct burden of proof to establish genealogy should be "preponderance of the evidence." That is the standard used by BIA in probate, paternity and most other Indian cases
Finally, Judge Lettow has granted us leave to add newborns until August 20, 2007. I need you`ll to get YOUR Attorneys the newborn names and birthdates right away to them !
---------------
denney
This is information I am releaseing because I feel this part needs help from all of you to put the word out Ok .
More info will be added as I find it or its gets the ok .
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 7, 2007 13:33:48 GMT -5
No link? PDF...? Is that last part for new borns only or can that include children you were waiting for paper work on?
(Birth Certificates,etc...)
|
|
|
Post by denney on Aug 7, 2007 13:51:13 GMT -5
You need to contact the attorney on that , and I hopes its not to late. Remember only good cause will anyone be added . pm phone number I will call The People needs to remember on other suits that the goverment can get cut off dates on children too . No link? PDF...? Is that last part for new borns only or can that include children you were waiting for paper work on? (Birth Certificates,etc...)
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 7, 2007 14:03:13 GMT -5
I guess as long as I submit mine then that is all...might be to late to add them period. I was having a hard time on name changes with my mine the Hospital made that error! then they said it was my respnseblity to fix what they did wrong on the name...I was like HUH!?!? What do you mean my fault?? You registered that name not me...so I am till in that process of amending that name that was wrong.
I don't know kelly's # peacekeeper does...I could try to add them worse case is they could just reject them....?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 12, 2007 11:28:14 GMT -5
August 6, 2007, Scheduling Hearing The Honorable Charles F. Lettow, Judge Presiding.
Plaintiff and Intervenor Attorneys (present in courtroom): Erick G. Kaardal Sam Killinger Gary Montana Unknown female Kelly Stricherz
13 individuals on the phone
Government Attorneys Laura Maroldy James Porter
Judge Lettow said the hearing would be conducted in 3 parts:
1. Felix Family 2. How to proceed (status) 3. Government requirement for certification (a party issue), CDs submitted, and Privacy Act.
I. PARTY ISSUES A. Felix Family. (1) Maroldy: The Felix family needs a lawyer to continue. They have not filed a complaint. Clarification.
(2) Thurmon: Not a representative for Felix family. No contact.
(3) Johnson: Representative for 220 members. Ms. Francis brought an action last July7 for the whole family. Named the family in November. No lawyer yet. He will file a motion for clarification for representation.
(4) Lettow: 10 months have passed, what do you wish to do?
(5) Johnson: Asks that those who failed last November be allowed in.
(6) Lettow: How many people do you represent?
(7) Johnson: 380 individuals at this time (Felix)
(8) Lettow: You can amend your motion or not or you can drop representation and file a new one by the 20th of August. Ms. Maroldy will file a response by the 27th.
(9) Maroldy: Yes. Does Grandchildren count? That does not count…
(10) Lettow: Grandchildren count, immediate family counts, you do not have CDs from…
(11) Maroldy: Morgan/Johnson do not have CDs.
(12) Johnson: We will have them to you right away.
(13) Lettow: You must have them here by August 20, 2007.
B. Anonymous Plaintiffs
Lettow: Anonymous plaintiffs must be identified by August 20. A list of John Does has been received. August 20 is the absolute deadline to turn in John Doe names.
C. Privacy Act
Kelly: Motion filed on July 19th No. 511, July 20th No. 512
Maroldy: I am fine with it.
D. Number of Intervenors
(1) Killinger: Represented 217 intervenors June 2006, 42 July and August, total 259, 36 with Mr. Kaardal, 106 KITTOs, for a total of 401 individuals represented by Mr. Sam Killinger. Wants to resolve an issue with Ms. Maroldy (2) Lettow: Understands the middle name issue. He strongly urges everyone to finalize the lists by 8/20/2007. (3) Maroldy: Will resolve the Kitto/? co-represented problem. That will be quickly resolved.
(4) Lettow: Good! Work together.
(5) Kaardal: Some representation discrepancy: Total 7550 vs. 7558. (6) Montana: Name discrepancy, will be corrected. (7) Ms. Emerson: Make some corrections by 8/20.
(8) Morgan: Will have the list complete by 8/20.
(9) Maroldy: Let’s make the cut-off date on 8/20.
(10) Lettow: You will have until 8/20, then we will have to cut this off. This is the defined cut-off date.
(11) Morgan: Define to parents by name. (12) Lettow: Minor will be identified by parent and name. No need to file a motion. You have my permission to provide a list to the court and Ms. Maroldy.
(13) Kaardal: What is a new-born…
(14) Lettow: I will not get into that. Those who amend must supply a full roster to the court and Ms. Maroldy. Apply Rule 25 - will be difficult after 8/20, we will deal with this when it happens. Okay to include a young person’s name, who was away at college. (Maroldy: No. Lettow: Yes.)
II. COORDINATING COUNSEL REPORT
A. Status Report.
(1) Killinger: Provided a report was given on the meetings with Kaardal and how the report was assembled.
a. Burden of proof
b. Genealogical proof?? (2) Lettow: Any objections? The court will accept the report of the coordinating counsels. You should:
a. work together,
b. present a common brief, and
c. without precluding a separate counsel from taking a different stand at any time.
(3) Killenger: Yes. We tried for unanimity.
(4) Lettow: Discussed the effect of the 1863 Act upon the 1888, 1889, and 1890 supplemental censuses.
(5) Montana: We worked well together.
(6) Lettow: Coordination will make it easier.
(7) Montana: Ask summary judgment to find out who will be beneficiaries. Issues are DOI administrative practices.
(8) Lettow: No discovery yet. Suggestion: Think about some discovery before you file for summary judgment. Rule 56F may be invoked. Discovery should be accomplished to reach a decision. We need all the help we can get. Case management is a fascinating study.
(9) Kaardal: Spoke on the consequences of Wolfchild 3 and 4. Mentioned that the trial date is 15 months away. The case concerns only Trust management and the court’s ability to order an accounting. He read page 35 letter. Listed the court’s objectives:
a. Breached fiduciary duties? Yes. b. Are we entitled to per cap payments? Yes. c. Distribute common resources? The plaintiffs must be treated fairly and equally to the payments as same as the members. d. Accounting. e. Lands. We are in agreement for disclosure (see proposed schedule order).
Genealogy: Standards proposed: one individual would be brought in and the court would accept the person or reject the person. This will streamline the process.
Damages: The U.S. must provide an accounting of per cap payments immediately. This is not burdensome even if they do not have the records.
(mentioned Table 1 and discussed payments here.) The plaintiffs must be made whole. See the documents by family numbers. It is a good way to coordinate the case.
By limiting the number of plaintiffs. Motions will include genealogy. No one can finish until everyone is accounted for.
Kaardal wishes to know who was alive on what per cap pay day. He suggests that the payments be apportioned out to who was alive on the day the per cap payment was paid. From this point on I became very interested in what the Attorney or Judge was saying so my note-taking suffered. (Sorry)
(10) Killinger: Differences see page 38 for a starting point. Talked about the intervenors (see list.)
a. 39-43 Substantial b. 44-46 Preponderance of evidence. c. 46A-1 for burden of proof. d. 46 A-3 9 items listed i-ix footnote: Baptisms used Indian names e. Use Bureau of Indian Affairs Standards of Evidence.
(11) Kelly: Discussed her method of documenting genealogical information. Software is available with numbering system that uses the decimal system.
(12) Kaardal: His method was a hybrid.
(13) Lettow: 1863 Act. Question, “What does Lineal Descendant mean?” The 1863 Act was a predecessor. “Loyalty and heirs forever.” The 1863 Act will play a part. (Sort that out.) (14) Maroldy: Issues are complicated. (15) Lettow: The issues are complicated because you made them complicated. I will not STAY the CASE. Ms. Maroldy, you are endeavoring to help. You are being extraordinarily good. The gaming revenues. Where do they come in? This is central. If our position is correct: That would streamline the case. (16) Lettow - continues: Let’s stop. What property was remitted to the communities after the Act. The court does not know what happened to the money, land, or personal property. We must delineate the Trust interest of the group. What role does the 1863 Act have on the 1886, 1889, and 1890 Acts? From 1863 to 1890 there was lots of administration by the Bureau. These are very basic issues. (1) the assignment of “Trusts,” and (2) the courts addressed the 1863 Act but still have some to go. (17) Maroldy: These set a date May 20, 1886 and does not go back to 1863. (18) Lettow: You have to look at what happened before the 1886, 1889, and 1890 Acts into legislative context. You wish to go straight to the Court of Appeals on a couple of abstract questions? You want us not to do anything in this court at all.
(19) Maroldy: YES. Genealogy is expensive. One aspect that has yet to be determined is what the court wants to delineate a “Trust.”
(20) Lettow: You need an explanation and definition of the precise property description.
(21) Maroldy: Understanding the land via the Federal Register notice. Addresses that piece. There is a Trust but lots of issues to determine. (She takes a different view on the land, and so forth.)
(22) Lettow: (My questions are) What property is involved? What happened to the property specifically? Who is a lineal descendant? Yes, you can make it as complicated as you want.
(23) Maroldy: This is more complex than anyone can imagine.
(24) Lettow: I thought I said that 15 minutes ago.
(25) Maroldy: Who is a Lineal Descendant for example? What are the criteria? The U.S. point of view is that if the case proceeds, “What is the question of the gaming revenues?”
(26 ) Lettow: “That is the elephant in the room.” What is the precise property involved? What is Trust property?
(27) Maroldy: What does the gaming revenue have to do with it? What does the court include in the Trust?
(28) Lettow: Hold it. You must first decide my 3 questions.
(29) Maroldy: What is the answer to the first question?
B. Certification
(1) Lettow: Does time mean anything to you?
(2) Maroldy: We wish to change dates on the orders adverse to U.S. April order was central issue appropriate to summons community. (3) Lettow: You dug a big hole: Extraordinary reach.
(4) Maroldy: We recognize it is extraordinary reach, but…
(5) Lettow: You are obliged to sort out party issues first.
(6) Maroldy: This is the appropriate time to determine the merits of the issues. The appeal may sharpen the focus of the case.
(7) Lettow: There are real problems for you to ask for a halt.
a. We do not know what happened to the property. b. We do not know what is (central and???) in the Trust. c. We do not know who is a lineal descendant.
(8) Maroldy: The definition of “Trust” does not have to be delineated as yet.
(9) Lettow: The court went as far as it can: Has jurisdiction? Yes. Trust? Yes.
(10) Maroldy: That question should be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. That is inappropriate for this court.
(11) Lettow: (my impression is the Judge said that she has a snowball’s chance in H___.) You have 10 days to petition the appeals court. You have waited to long. No delineation of the Trust 3.5 years now.
(12) Kaardal: WE want our beneficial Trust properties delineated: The land, the reservation, per cap payments, we want the same as the others. Timeliness is not raised. Significant due process problems area raised.
(13) Lettow: We still have not had discovery.
(14) Kaardal: Argues against sending this case to the Appeals Court at this time. This is a 12B6 case. Assess the Trust mismanagement issue then move on. Erick argues against sending this case up in a piecemeal manner to the Appeals Court. He also argues against piecemeal statutory judgment. “Let’s do a full record before going to the Court of Appeals.”
The court was adjourned. I met Mr. Sam Killinger, briefly in the courtroom. I went out into the hallway to converse with Tamara. (She is a very nice person.) Gary Montana, passed by said something in DAKOTA. I said my “good bye” to Tamara and left.
NOTICE: These are my handwritten notes and must be read as such. Anyone quoting these notes must obtain my written permission. Signed: Curtis M. Kitto.
|
|
|
Post by swstwastewiyan on Aug 13, 2007 16:48:25 GMT -5
Who was the unknown female sitting at the table with the attorneys? Do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 14, 2007 5:15:30 GMT -5
I do not know who she is. I missed her name as the roll was being called. Unfortunately she did not speak nor was she called on during the hearing. I just did not write fast enough. Bummer.
|
|
|
Post by weldon11 on Aug 14, 2007 9:01:49 GMT -5
Curtis Kitto, you did a remarkable job in keeping up with what was said. Kudo's to you.
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Aug 14, 2007 11:22:59 GMT -5
Hey Mike-- I want to add my thanks to the "thank-you"s" for your job on the Aug. 6 hearing. One interesting point: This the first time I've ever heard the judge say that tribal income from the casinos might be at risk. I've always thought that only federal bucks would be awarded. Did I read your transcript correctly? tokakte
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 14, 2007 11:51:00 GMT -5
Who was the unknown female sitting at the table with the attorneys? Do you know? Did the unknown persons say or add any thing at all what was her purpose there? Did she just look around or do any thing at all?
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 14, 2007 11:59:40 GMT -5
This is by Mike:
the unknown women may be the one listed in this...IN THE RED??
August 6, 2007, Scheduling Hearing The Honorable Charles F. Lettow, Judge Presiding.
Plaintiff and Intervenor Attorneys (present in courtroom): Erick G. Kaardal Sam Killinger Gary Montana Unknown female <--------MAYBE? Kelly Stricherz
13 individuals on the phone
Government Attorneys Laura Maroldy James Porter
Judge Lettow said the hearing would be conducted in 3 parts:
1. Felix Family 2. How to proceed (status) 3. Government requirement for certification (a party issue), CDs submitted, and Privacy Act.
I. PARTY ISSUES A. Felix Family. (1) Maroldy: The Felix family needs a lawyer to continue. They have not filed a complaint. Clarification.
(2) Thurmon: Not a representative for Felix family. No contact.
(3) Johnson: Representative for 220 members. Ms. Francis brought an action last July7 for the whole family. Named the family in November. No lawyer yet. He will file a motion for clarification for representation.
(4) Lettow: 10 months have passed, what do you wish to do?
(5) Johnson: Asks that those who failed last November be allowed in.
(6) Lettow: How many people do you represent?
(7) Johnson: 380 individuals at this time (Felix)
(8) Lettow: You can amend your motion or not or you can drop representation and file a new one by the 20th of August. Ms. Maroldy will file a response by the 27th.
(9) Maroldy: Yes. Does Grandchildren count? That does not count…
(10) Lettow: Grandchildren count, immediate family counts, you do not have CDs from…
(11) Maroldy: Morgan/Johnson do not have CDs.
(12) Johnson: We will have them to you right away.
(13) Lettow: You must have them here by August 20, 2007.
B. Anonymous Plaintiffs
Lettow: Anonymous plaintiffs must be identified by August 20. A list of John Does has been received. August 20 is the absolute deadline to turn in John Doe names.
C. Privacy Act
Kelly: Motion filed on July 19th No. 511, July 20th No. 512
Maroldy: I am fine with it.
D. Number of Intervenors
(1) Killinger: Represented 217 intervenors June 2006, 42 July and August, total 259, 36 with Mr. Kaardal, 106 KITTOs, for a total of 401 individuals represented by Mr. Sam Killinger. Wants to resolve an issue with Ms. Maroldy
(2) Lettow: Understands the middle name issue. He strongly urges everyone to finalize the lists by 8/20/2007.
(3) Maroldy: Will resolve the Kitto/? co-represented problem. That will be quickly resolved.
(4) Lettow: Good! Work together.
(5) Kaardal: Some representation discrepancy: Total 7550 vs. 7558.
(6) Montana: Name discrepancy, will be corrected.
(7) Ms. Emerson: Make some corrections by 8/20.
(8) Morgan: Will have the list complete by 8/20.
(9) Maroldy: Let’s make the cut-off date on 8/20.
(10) Lettow: You will have until 8/20, then we will have to cut this off. This is the defined cut-off date.
(11) Morgan: Define to parents by name.
(12) Lettow: Minor will be identified by parent and name. No need to file a motion. You have my permission to provide a list to the court and Ms. Maroldy.
(13) Kaardal: What is a new-born…
(14) Lettow: I will not get into that. Those who amend must supply a full roster to the court and Ms. Maroldy. Apply Rule 25 - will be difficult after 8/20, we will deal with this when it happens. Okay to include a young person’s name, who was away at college. (Maroldy: No. Lettow: Yes.)
II. COORDINATING COUNSEL REPORT
A. Status Report.
(1) Killinger: Provided a report was given on the meetings with Kaardal and how the report was assembled.
a. Burden of proof
b. Genealogical proof??
(2) Lettow: Any objections? The court will accept the report of the coordinating counsels. You should:
a. work together,
b. present a common brief, and
c. without precluding a separate counsel from taking a different stand at any time.
(3) Killenger: Yes. We tried for unanimity.
(4) Lettow: Discussed the effect of the 1863 Act upon the 1888, 1889, and 1890 supplemental censuses.
(5) Montana: We worked well together.
(6) Lettow: Coordination will make it easier.
(7) Montana: Ask summary judgment to find out who will be beneficiaries. Issues are DOI administrative practices.
(8) Lettow: No discovery yet. Suggestion: Think about some discovery before you file for summary judgment. Rule 56F may be invoked. Discovery should be accomplished to reach a decision. We need all the help we can get. Case management is a fascinating study.
(9) Kaardal: Spoke on the consequences of Wolfchild 3 and 4. Mentioned that the trial date is 15 months away. The case concerns only Trust management and the court’s ability to order an accounting. He read page 35 letter. Listed the court’s objectives:
a. Breached fiduciary duties? Yes. b. Are we entitled to per cap payments? Yes. c. Distribute common resources? The plaintiffs must be treated fairly and equally to the payments as same as the members. d. Accounting. e. Lands.
We are in agreement for disclosure (see proposed schedule order).
Genealogy: Standards proposed: one individual would be brought in and the court would accept the person or reject the person. This will streamline the process.
Damages: The U.S. must provide an accounting of per cap payments immediately. This is not burdensome even if they do not have the records.
(mentioned Table 1 and discussed payments here.) The plaintiffs must be made whole. See the documents by family numbers. It is a good way to coordinate the case.
By limiting the number of plaintiffs. Motions will include genealogy. No one can finish until everyone is accounted for.
Kaardal wishes to know who was alive on what per cap pay day. He suggests that the payments be apportioned out to who was alive on the day the per cap payment was paid. From this point on I became very interested in what the Attorney or Judge was saying so my note-taking suffered. (Sorry)
(10) Killinger: Differences see page 38 for a starting point. Talked about the intervenors (see list.)
a. 39-43 Substantial b. 44-46 Preponderance of evidence. c. 46A-1 for burden of proof. d. 46 A-3 9 items listed i-ix footnote: Baptisms used Indian names e. Use Bureau of Indian Affairs Standards of Evidence.
(11) Kelly: Discussed her method of documenting genealogical information. Software is available with numbering system that uses the decimal system.
(12) Kaardal: His method was a hybrid.
(13) Lettow: 1863 Act. Question, “What does Lineal Descendant mean?” The 1863 Act was a predecessor. “Loyalty and heirs forever.” The 1863 Act will play a part. (Sort that out.)
(14) Maroldy: Issues are complicated.
(15) Lettow: The issues are complicated because you made them complicated. I will not STAY the CASE. Ms. Maroldy, you are endeavoring to help. You are being extraordinarily good. The gaming revenues. Where do they come in? This is central. If our position is correct: That would streamline the case.
(16) Lettow - continues: Let’s stop. What property was remitted to the communities after the Act. The court does not know what happened to the money, land, or personal property. We must delineate the Trust interest of the group. What role does the 1863 Act have on the 1886, 1889, and 1890 Acts? From 1863 to 1890 there was lots of administration by the Bureau. These are very basic issues. (1) the assignment of “Trusts,” and (2) the courts addressed the 1863 Act but still have some to go.
(17) Maroldy: These set a date May 20, 1886 and does not go back to 1863.
(18) Lettow: You have to look at what happened before the 1886, 1889, and 1890 Acts into legislative context. You wish to go straight to the Court of Appeals on a couple of abstract questions? You want us not to do anything in this court at all.
(19) Maroldy: YES. Genealogy is expensive. One aspect that has yet to be determined is what the court wants to delineate a “Trust.”
(20) Lettow: You need an explanation and definition of the precise property description.
(21) Maroldy: Understanding the land via the Federal Register notice. Addresses that piece. There is a Trust but lots of issues to determine. (She takes a different view on the land, and so forth.)
(22) Lettow: (My questions are) What property is involved? What happened to the property specifically? Who is a lineal descendant? Yes, you can make it as complicated as you want.
(23) Maroldy: This is more complex than anyone can imagine.
(24) Lettow: I thought I said that 15 minutes ago.
(25) Maroldy: Who is a Lineal Descendant for example? What are the criteria? The U.S. point of view is that if the case proceeds, “What is the question of the gaming revenues?”
(26 ) Lettow: “That is the elephant in the room.” What is the precise property involved? What is Trust property?
(27) Maroldy: What does the gaming revenue have to do with it? What does the court include in the Trust?
(28) Lettow: Hold it. You must first decide my 3 questions.
(29) Maroldy: What is the answer to the first question?
B. Certification
(1) Lettow: Does time mean anything to you?
(2) Maroldy: We wish to change dates on the orders adverse to U.S. April order was central issue appropriate to summons community.
(3) Lettow: You dug a big hole: Extraordinary reach.
(4) Maroldy: We recognize it is extraordinary reach, but…
(5) Lettow: You are obliged to sort out party issues first.
(6) Maroldy: This is the appropriate time to determine the merits of the issues. The appeal may sharpen the focus of the case.
(7) Lettow: There are real problems for you to ask for a halt.
a. We do not know what happened to the property. b. We do not know what is (central and???) in the Trust. c. We do not know who is a lineal descendant.
(8) Maroldy: The definition of “Trust” does not have to be delineated as yet.
(9) Lettow: The court went as far as it can: Has jurisdiction? Yes. Trust? Yes.
(10) Maroldy: That question should be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. That is inappropriate for this court.
(11) Lettow: (my impression is the Judge said that she has a snowball’s chance in H___.) You have 10 days to petition the appeals court. You have waited to long. No delineation of the Trust 3.5 years now.
(12) Kaardal: WE want our beneficial Trust properties delineated: The land, the reservation, per cap payments, we want the same as the others. Timeliness is not raised. Significant due process problems area raised.
(13) Lettow: We still have not had discovery.
(14) Kaardal: Argues against sending this case to the Appeals Court at this time. This is a 12B6 case. Assess the Trust mismanagement issue then move on. Erick argues against sending this case up in a piecemeal manner to the Appeals Court. He also argues against piecemeal statutory judgment. “Let’s do a full record before going to the Court of Appeals.”
The court was adjourned. I met Mr. Sam Killinger, briefly in the courtroom. I went out into the hallway to converse with Tamara. (She is a very nice person.) Gary Montana, passed by said something in DAKOTA. I said my “good bye” to Tamara and left.
NOTICE: These are my handwritten notes and must be read as such. Anyone quoting these notes must obtain my written permission. Signed: Curtis M. Kitto.
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 15, 2007 20:35:22 GMT -5
The unknown woman was attorney Elizabeth Walker.
T
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 15, 2007 20:59:41 GMT -5
Thanks, Tamara!
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Aug 16, 2007 2:52:22 GMT -5
Tamara
were you there in the courtroom on August 6th? If you were, I think it might be important to all of us as to what you personally observed when the Judge was talking about the important role of the 1863 Act, and the government's reaction to that matter. If you were not there, I obviously understand how you could not comment on that aspect.....
Despite that fact, the mere fact that the judge was so focused upon the role of the 1863 Act, in my mind, is compelling and enlightening. I am one of those that have always believed that the real thrust of this important case, is if, and when, the court could or would focus on the events that preceeded the 1885 through 1890 time period in the legislative history. If the court is now focused upon learning more about the history and intent of the 1863 Act, that, to me, means that the court is wishing that more discovery and argument and legal theories are presented that encompass the issues that take the discussion back before 1885-1890, so as to more thoroughly decipher the true events of our peoples and of the important governmental moves and conduct that surrounded the tribes of the Minnesota Sioux historically from the treaties and acts that occurred in 1815, 1825, 1837, 1851, 1858 and 1863.........which, all were affected significantly by the events of the so called uprising of 1862, when, thereafter, all things changed, and led to the subsequent piecemeal effect of the following legislation of which the period of 1885- 1890, was only a part of the big picture. If the judge in this case wants to learn more of the real history, it is our obligation to do our best to supply that to the court to the best of our abilities within the truth and within what can be competently proven under present court standards....... I see this situation as a light at the end of the tunnel. If the judge is hungry for historical information about the 1863 Act, we need to be the ones that provide him with it. We can do that with a knowledgable view and concept to develop the timeline and reality of what our anscestors faced in those pre-1862 years and in the post 1862 years........so much of life, the way of life, the means of life, the hope of life, the continuity of life, the balance of life, the sanctity of life, the value of life, the will for life.......and the very physical lives, were lost in that small flash of history in the grand time continuim......from August 1862......forward...... If you sit back and think about the big picture, it does appear that so much of our anscestors' lives, were lost, along with their rights and remedies, and their hope, in those terrible moments of time between 1862 -1863. This part of the history is incredibly important for anyone that looks upon those times, now, that we really need to do what we can, each of us, to show the real history, and not just that that has been written by some that did not have a stake in flesh and soul in the loss that occurred. I hope somehow that my words on this will strike some kind of a chord of human caring amongst the talented group of caring individuals and intelligent researchers that know how to approach these things, so that it is motivating enough to aggressively seek that truth. When someone thirsts, we seek to quench their thirst.....when someone hungers, we seek to feed them so they no longer hunger....... the court in this case, is asking us for help to quench the thirst and satisfy the hunger for further facts on the 1863 Act.......I think this means that we need to work together to accomplish that goal, if we can. This is what I feel. I do not profess to speak for many, but I hope that what I say, may make some sense to some of you out there enough to take action.
thanks and I am sorry, Tamara, for going on so long......
your friend
Jazzdog
|
|
bellatrix
Full Member
I love babies!
Posts: 31
|
Post by bellatrix on Aug 16, 2007 4:41:33 GMT -5
Why do you call yourself Jazzdog? Is it because you like Jazz and dogs? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Aug 16, 2007 12:38:25 GMT -5
lol...ballatrix your funny...I got one for the public eye yesterday a person I work with said the case was won and that the recent session had talked about the certification process and that the intervenor's are to use what Buttes and kardall started out to use...meaning that not any or all documents could be used. Is this true?
One more thing on this subject...it was said that this December is the deadline for turning in your documents. Is this true?
People are saying this and that and I am arguing in the middle on it. We should share our information instead of hiding it. Who cares if some one reads what your ancestry line is. remember you went through that when you went out to search for that information your self, people not wanting to give you information on your family now that we have it, we hide most or all of it...does not make sense to me. I don't care if Buttes or anyone else know any thing about our ancestry. If we find information we should share it even though some one may say things about it, don't care about that either. I care that we show humanity and courteous concerns for those in need of information that is RED TAPED...when Natives need it. People time is running out and there are still people looking and holding information back just hurts them and us.
"UNITY IS A GROUP THING."
POST INFORMATION TO HELP OTHERS, THAT IS WHY WE ARE ON HERE.
|
|
|
Post by ironday on Aug 16, 2007 12:59:52 GMT -5
Thanks, Jazzdog, for your insight. I totally agree that the pre-1886 timelines are extremely important and have all bearing on what culminated in the 1863 removal Act where our ancestors (primarily the fullbloods I might add) were banished from their homelands. How else can one find the truth without learning what precipitated our peoples' need to fight for their families' lives. I think the judge knows there's much more to the story than the 1886-89 censuses and that is why he said they are a "presumptive starting point". I just know most of our ancestors would still be in Minnesota, in the lands where they were born, had it not been for the devious 1863 removal act. All the treaties preceding this time gives credence that our ancestors were willing to share, but never leave, their homelands. I think this is an important point; I also think this challenge will test the lawyers' skill in convincing the judge to look at the case and righteously decide from a nobler viewpoint. (can one use "noble" re judges?) l0l In any case, I agree with the more expansive viewpoint you are trying to instill in us all. I will ask, being that we are all so dispersed, how can we come to one point with our ideas and strategies to possibly make this happen? I know nothing is promised in this case but we can
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Aug 16, 2007 15:14:48 GMT -5
Bellatrix
Yes.
Jazzdog
|
|
|
Post by scararm on Aug 23, 2007 15:20:21 GMT -5
Hello
Just a few comments in 1862 a lot of these Indians were allotted land and given English names and got citizenship from these allotments. So if they were Citizens and they had deeds to land they had rights too. So these were violated and they were uprooted and land foreclosed on and sold. When they were pardons and released and president freed the slaves. When they came home other people were living on their land in their houses they were being shot at. The journey home was long and hard and then they came home to nothing
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 23, 2007 16:59:19 GMT -5
So true, so very sad...
|
|