|
|
Post by denney on Sept 25, 2007 14:25:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Sept 25, 2007 14:27:16 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal September 24, 2007 Dear all: Greetings. Earlier, I posted the government's omnibus memorandum of law addressing the addition of additional plaintiffs and the Court's September 14, 2007 order allowing responses to be filed prior to tomorrow or tomorrow. (Please find these documents under categories of "litigation history" and "joint status reports" in right hand column.) Plaintiffs will be filing a response to the omnibus memorandum tomorrow. As soon as the filing is completed, I will post it on this website. Thank you. Best regards. egk www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm------------------------ Litigation History Pleadings Index Through August 20, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/20070820184208366.pdf----- Order Dated August 28, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/Orderdated8-28-07.pdf----- Order Dated September 5, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/CourtOrder9507.pdf---- Order Dated September 14, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/OrderDated9-14-07.pdf----------------------------------------- Joint Status Reports Joint Preliminary Status Report by Intervenors Dated June 15, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/JointPreliminaryStatus.pdf----- Joint Status Report Dated July 20, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/JointStatusReportFinal.pdf----- Scheduling Order Dated July 30, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/SchedulingOrder.pdf---- Defendant's Omnibus Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Defendant's Motions To Strike And Other Responses To Dkt Nos. 521-522, 524, 528-551, 553-558, 560-562, 564-568 Dated September 18, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/DefendantsOmnibusDated9-18-07.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Sept 25, 2007 15:31:09 GMT -5
What you are asking cannot be answered by no one but the Groups attorney because we would only be guessing the answer. So as we know theres always points of law that fits or the attorneys try to make fit on both sides. So in other words, the September 14, 2007 omnibus memorandum filed by the court is saying that the government is moving to strike the additional plaintiffs that the attorneys for the Rocque, Prescott, etc. group, tried to get added??? Am I interpreting that right? |
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Sept 25, 2007 15:37:07 GMT -5
Who is getting striked?? Now what...denney are we in this strike...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Sept 25, 2007 18:41:10 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal September 25, 2007 Dear all: Please find under the heading Joint Status Report a copy of the Wolfchild Plaintiffs and Intervenors' Supplement to the Joint Status Report. This document was filed today with the Court. With the filing of this document, the Court now has all the documents relating to the party-related issues and the Joint Status Report. As soon as the Court issues its order, we will post it on this website. Thank you for your patience. egk Wolfchild Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Supplement to Joint Status Report www.mklaw.com/documents/SupplementtoJointStatusReportFinal.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Sept 26, 2007 14:17:35 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal September 26, 2007 Dear all: Greetings. The Court issued Wolfchild V today. I have linked the Court's opinion and order under "Court Opinions" in the right hand column. There are three things I want to mention about the opinion. First, the Court has granted in part the government's motion for an interlocutory appeal -- allowing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to determine whether it wants to entertain the interlocutory appeal or later consider the appeal after trial and final judgment. The Federal Circuit will now determine whether an interlocutory appeal will occur. I will keep you updated on developments in this regard. Second, the Court has denied the government's motion for a stay pending the interlocutory appeal. In this regard, the Court has issued a scheduling order for the case through May 30, 2008 -- the deadline for pre-trial summary judgment motions. Presumably, the Court will schedule a trial date at some later date. The Court did indicate, however, that it may grant a stay if the Federal Circuit takes the interlocutory appeal. Third, the Court granted the government's motion regarding newborns in part. The Court has limited the August 20, 2007 amendments to newborns born after January 1, 2006. Those on those amended complaints born before January 1, 2006 will need to initiate another lawsuit. In the near future, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. will be initiating a lawsuit to cover these and subsequent newborns of existing plaintiffs. Thank you again for your patience. Best regards. egk www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htmCourt Opinions Wolfchild V -- Opinion and Order Dated September 26, 2007 download of 1.24mgs www.mklaw.com/documents/CourtOrderDated9-26-07.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Sept 26, 2007 23:08:45 GMT -5
I keep rereading page 4; lower section; 2nd paragraph: The Appropriation Acts were intended as a substantialaddendum to an act adopted in 1863 for....
I LOVE IT!!!
Tamara
|
|
|
|
Post by jazzdog on Oct 2, 2007 2:53:22 GMT -5
Tamara
I was also very happy to see the references in the recent Order to the important 1863 Act. I think it clearly shows where the judge is thinking that the trust status cannot be resolved without a thorough and complete explanation of how the important 1863 Act reflects upon all that followed in the legislation leading up to and encompassing the 1885 through 1890 legislation, and the later 1980 legislation. I see this as a good sign that the court is receptive to learning the real facts of the law and the facts leading up to the 1885-1890 legislation, and how that affects the genisus of the trust that always existed before, and after 1862.
What worries me about the decision, is the certification that was granted on the question of the "trust". This is something that we should be concerned about since it is the bedrock of this case. The decision to certify the first two questions on the trust issue, does allow the government to seek interlocutory appeal of those questions, if the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals chooses to allow the appeal of the government at this time. The judge could have just denied those requests to certify any of the issues that the US sought. But, the Court, in certifying those questions, opened the door for the US to pursue the appeal, and to potentially stay all proceedings, if the appellate court were to agree to accept the appeal on those issues alone.
I think that the 1863 Act is extremely important to the overall case. We should all focus more attention on the ramifications of that aspect in our research. I did like the court mentioning that the trust existed and continued to exist, throughout the time period that is relevant through the history of events. Formal discovery should proceed in light of the decision to certify, and it would be helpful if the facts of history are more developed to benefit the understanding of the overall case, now, so that we all can use the history of events and legislation, before and at the time of the 1863 Act, so that all parties can more accuractely inform the judge as to our point of view on the real history. It appears that the court is ready and open to the development of the facts surrounding that issue now.
Our opportunity is upon us all at this time to do our own individual part to more fully develop the history leading up to, and surrounding the 1863 Act, since that part of history appears to be pivotal to the painting of the overall portrait of the tale of the times. I would encouge all that can, to look at those historical times and records, so that it will help us all to really know more about why this all happened, and who was behind it, so that we can intelligently communicate that needed story through the legal minds that need to know.
I did not mean to dampen any of your enthusiasm as to the wording of the court's recent opinion, but it is helpful if we can all join together to hit it hard, to assist the court in the unanswered questions about those events that the court seems eager to receive.
This is just my take on the recent events, Tamara. Again, I am also enthused about the references in the opinion, but we need to build on that while we can.
thank you for all that you do
your friend
Jazzdog
|
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Oct 2, 2007 18:48:10 GMT -5
Jazz I dont consider your words as dampening my enthusiam. You couldnt if you tried (I know you wouldnt lol) and trust me -others have tried...lol. Yet I remain, solid (that was for you jon), happy, and enthusiastic! I consider your words to be what you are best at -encouragement and direction. I agree very much with your thinking and we need to "promptly" put this together. The court has basically asked us, right? to put it all on record? You bring up a very interesting point and concerns as to the ramification of the recent decision of the court... got me thinking now... Tamara PS Anyone want a kitten? they come in two colors grey and black.. they are named Hota and Hanyetu. They come fully charged, arent picky as they will eat anything (including gum from my purse), easily entertained, (will play anything that moves), very intelligent (drawn like a magnet to the computer keys -not to mention athletic (can climb over any size barrier I put in the laundry room).... WHAT WAS I THINKING?  ?!!!! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Oct 4, 2007 17:23:20 GMT -5
As you have read in ( Wolfchild V ) there is no more adding to this case here . The only way to get into the lawsuit is to start your own as the Judge has said .. Then and if this lawsuit goes forward any before Interlocutory Appeal if taken it will put a hold on it. So as to adding more that was answered in ( Woldchid V ) ... So we now have to try to go forward with the Case and hope everything keeps going forward .. I think that the Judge should put a stop to these attorneys that keep amending their client lists to add more clients. Enough is enough already! When does it stop? What you are asking cannot be answered by no one but the Groups attorney because we would only be guessing the answer. So as we know theres always points of law that fits or the attorneys try to make fit on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Oct 23, 2007 19:56:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Oct 24, 2007 12:43:15 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal October 24, 2007 Dear all: Greetings. I have posted three important briefs you should read under "Federal Circuit Motions and Briefs." Reading the briefs will keep you informed about the case. The first brief is Wolfchild Plaintiffs' Response to Petition for Discretionary Appeal dated October 22, 2007. The second brief is Wolfchild Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion of Amici Curiae Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Prairie Island Indian Community for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief. The third brief was filed by the Group B counsel for intervenors. As soon as we receive the reply briefs (if any), we will link them to this webpage. Thank you for your patience. egk Wolfchild Plaintiffs' Response To Petition For Discretionary Appeal Dated October 22, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/ResponsePetition.pdf---- Wolfchild Plaintiffs' Opposition To Motion Of Amici Curiae Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Prairie Island Indian Community For Leave To File Amici Curiae Brief Dated October 22, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/OppositiontoAmici.pdf ----- Respondents/Plaintiffs/ Intervenors Group B, Supplemental Response In Opposition To The Petition Of Defendant United States Of America For Leave To Appeal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 1292(d)(2) Dated October 22, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/SupplementalResponse.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Oct 25, 2007 15:46:21 GMT -5
I like that part. It was not proper for the United States to seek certification now as there is more facts and history to be looked into...
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Nov 14, 2007 13:05:33 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal November 14, 2007 Dear all: Greetings. The government's petition for a discretionary appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is pending. As the petition is pending, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has not stayed the proceeding. If the Federal Circuit grants the petition, the case in the lower court is stayed. So, the litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims continues. I have linked under "Trial Court Initial Disclosures" a copy of the federal government's initial disclosures. As soon as the Federal Circuit issues its decision, it will be posted here. Thank you for your patience. egk ---- Trial Court Initial Disclosures Defendant's Initial Disclosures dated November 1, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/GovernmentInitialDisclosures.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Nov 19, 2007 15:32:32 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal November 19, 2007 Dear all: Greetings. There is no word yet from the Federal Circuit on the interlocutory appeal. However, the litigation proceeds in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Today, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an amended scheduling order which I have linked under Trial Court Opinions. The Court, pursuant to the government's motion has pushed the deadlines back approximately 15 days. For example, fact discovery now ends on April 14, 2008 -- not March 28, 2008. If you want to follow the case closely, you should read the Amended Scheduling Order and note the new deadlines. These will be dates where there will be heightened activity on the file. Thank you for your patience. Best regards. egk Trial Court Opinions Amended Scheduling Order dated November 19, 2007 www.mklaw.com/documents/AmendedSchedulingOrder.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jan 4, 2008 20:44:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Jan 23, 2008 14:59:17 GMT -5
Notes by Erick G. Kaardal January 23, 2008 Dear all: Greetings. Yesterday, I received copies of two documents filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: (1) United States' Response in Opposition to Motion for Application of Judicial Estoppel and Alternative Motion to Strike; and (2) Motion of Defendant-Appellant United States to Suspend Briefing, etc. I have posted copies of these documents on this webpage in the right hand column under "Federal Circuit Motions and Brief." We are working on responses which we will post here when we file them. Best regards. egk www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm--------------- United States' Response in Opposition to Motion for Application of Judicial Estoppel and Alternative Motion to Strike Dated January 16, 2008 www.mklaw.com/documents/JudicialEstoppelOpposition.pdf--------- Motion of Defendant-Appellant United States to Suspend Briefing, etc. Dated January 18, 2008 www.mklaw.com/documents/Suspend2.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Jan 23, 2008 18:20:58 GMT -5
ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE MEETINGS?
Some Santee Sioux may be eligible for Minnesota casino land
Two meetings will be held Saturday for members of the Santee Sioux Tribe who may be eligible to receive land on three Minnesota reservations where casinos now operate.
The meetings will be from 9 to 11:30 a.m. at the Sanford Center, 1700 Geneva St., Sioux City, and from 2 to 5 p.m. at the Tribal Office Chambers, Frazier Building, on the Santee Sioux Reservation in Santee, Neb.
Erick G. Kaardal, an attorney representing a group of plaintiffs in the federal court case which opens the ownership of some of the land to question, will be present to answer questions. Kaardal will describe the eligibility requirements to join as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The ongoing suit, Wolfchild v. United States, received a partial summary judgment in November in federal court.
Only lineal descendants of the May 20, 1886, Minnesota Mdewakanton census are qualified as plaintiffs. People are encouraged to bring genealogical information, such as their ancestors and their own birth certificates, to the meeting. Mdewakanton is the Santee people's name for themselves.
The November court ruling opens the way for an estimated 1,200 direct descendants of a group that did not participate in the 1862 Dakota Wars near Morton, Minn. An 1886 census identified 208 people as "loyal Sioux." Their land was confiscated by the government, but they -- and their lineal descendants -- were given rights to live on three parcels of land. The land is in present-day Scott, Redwood and Goodhue counties.
Kaardal's law firm, Mohrman & Kaardal, already represents 1,100 of the 1886 Mdewakanton descendants.
The lawsuit is aimed at the Prairie Island Indian Community near Red Wing, Minn., operators of Treasure Island Resort and Casino; the Lower Sioux Indian Community near Redwood Falls, Minn, which operates Jackpot Junction Resort and Casino; and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Community near Prior Lake, which operated Mystic Lake Resort and Casino.
The three communities divide allegedly huge casino profits among a relatively small number of tribal members.
The current federal case puts into question various government decisions since 1888, when the "loyal Sioux" were awarded the right to live on the three parcels. Among other things, it questions whether many of the Indians now living on the so-called 1886 are bona fide descendants of the "loyal Sioux," and therefore entitled to the land.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Jan 24, 2008 6:08:47 GMT -5
Wamblighi:
I believe those meetings were held @3-4 years ago when Kaardal and Buttes put on their dog and pony shows to find potential descendents. what is ironic is that buttes in a letter she wrote to the bIA disclaimed the designation of mdewalanton as the name for the Sioux themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Jan 24, 2008 6:58:22 GMT -5
Wamblighi: I believe those meetings were held @3-4 years ago when Kaardal and Buttes put on their dog and pony shows to find potential descendents. what is ironic is that buttes in a letter she wrote to the bIA disclaimed the designation of mdewalanton as the name for the Sioux themselves.
Well thanks, someone emailed me the article under the Sioux City Journal under the date of January 23, 2008. Thanks for being on top of it, Hermin1. wanbligi |
|
?!!!! LOL
