|
|
Post by roddickfan on Mar 10, 2009 17:15:41 GMT -5
hello this has just come to my attention today and I was wondering if anyone else has read it. Here is a link to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals. www.cafc.uscourts.gov/ when you go to this website click on the opinions & orders link and you will find second from the top Wolfchild v. US dated 2009/3/10. |
|
|
|
Post by peacekeeper on Mar 11, 2009 1:45:25 GMT -5
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It deeply saddens my heart to see the case has been reversed. We knew that this could happen and it has. Now it will be up to the individual attorneys and clients as to what may or may not happen.
I do want to say that getting involved with genealogy and this site have only been a positive experience for me. I will not give that up and hope that all of you continue to search for and find the histories of your families.
Jackie
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Mar 11, 2009 10:46:38 GMT -5
There is a sad, frantic, exchange in progress among some of the plaintiffs regarding the validity of the online document containing the Appeal Court's decision. "It's a fake!" says one. It's sad because the the facts are that (1) The published decision is genuine, (2) It's a resounding defeat for the plaintiffs, and (3) Any appeal to the to what lawyers call a "review en banc" (by all the judges in the First Circuit Court of Appeals) would be probably be denied given the unanimous decision by the three judges who just rendered their judgement. It's also sad because many of the plaintiff's have convinced themselves that this case involved "trust law" and was not "Indian Law". Nothing could be more wrong. It has been "Indian Law" from the gitgo, and has been decided based on precedents and statutes that form the core concepts of "Indian Law". Finally, I believe that a trust was indeed created and was breached, but that proving that an enforceable trust exists in this and other cases with better facts, i.e., Navajo, is becoming almost impossible. The entire concept of federal responsibility is becoming more and more immune to suit on this issue, while the "trust relationship" as administered by the federal government becomes more and more pervasive and stiffling. They get to play but don't have to pay.
|
|
sav
Full Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by sav on Mar 15, 2009 13:05:07 GMT -5
The existing four Minnesota Sioux communitie(s) would'nt even exist in the first place, if there was no trust created. Forget what the Fed. Circuit Court says, cuz they're so lying.
Sav
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Mar 23, 2009 10:21:18 GMT -5
After reading some truly vicious post directed at people who were discouraged by the Appeals Courts ruling, it may be time for some cool reflection and analysis: My niece who is a practicing attorney in AZ, and a good one, elected to stay out of the suit because she and most of her professional peers (who were sympathetic to the plaintiff's) did not think that Judge Lettow's partial summary judgment would survive an appeal. Now, some four plus years later, we have ruling that by any objective measure is devastating. Devastating because it was based on plaintiff's own arguments and not on the government's rebuttal, and it was unanimous. But is it fatal? Kaardel and Co. think not! They think the judge's ruling in 2004 cut them off before they had used their best arguments. In sizing all this up, we have to remember that Kaardel and Co. believed in this case before anyone thought it had any chance at all. My decision is not to give up on them and our chances until the final ruling is entered.
Their good work up this point has earned them as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanbligi on Mar 24, 2009 19:14:36 GMT -5
It is time for all the Plaintiffs and Intervenors in this Wolfchild case to read the Appeals Court ruling to go over it with a fine toothed comb for any ideas or suggestions on how best to appeal this latest decision. I am sure most of you that are interested in this case, read the court transcript of the December 5, 2008 hearing before the three judge panel in the Federal Court of Appeals. From the get go in that hearing when it was Erick Kaardal's turn to proceed with his allotted fifteen minutes time, one of the justices asked Kaardal if there were any beneficiaries in the case at that hearing. Kaardal was caught off guard and was fumbling for answers that that specific judge was addressing. As the hearing moved on Kaardal did find his feet on the arguments, but I don't think Kaardal totally addressed the beneficiaries aspect to the case and how they would fit into this Wolfchild case.
I think Kaardal needs to understand that he needs to work with the other Intervenors Attorneys, because if this case is lost on appeal to the full appeals panel and the U.S. Supreme Court, ALL of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors will be at the end of this case.
It is better to fight the war in unison instead of trying to partition the Plaintiffs from the Intervenors that Kaardal and Buttes so desperately wanted.
What I would suggest you Intervenors do would be to read that appeals court opinion and take notes or suggestions that you may see in the opinion and write them down with the page number and give them to the Intervenors Attorneys. You need to work together on this and Kaardal and Buttes need to understand this.
You probably see where the U.S., Shakopee and Prairie Island are agreeing with each other in getting this reversal. Time will only tell if the reversal and remand from the Court of Federal Appeals will hold.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
Post by tfeleht2 on Mar 27, 2009 21:47:26 GMT -5
Plaintiffs and Intervenors have 45 days from the date of the appeals court ruling to file an appeal to the full panel of the federal court appeals for the federal circuit. Wanbligi, I think you are correct in saying that the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors need to seriously work together on the appeal because this is the make or break for this Wolfchild case.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Mar 28, 2009 10:47:26 GMT -5
tfeleh2, good point, both you and Wanbligi. As I have noted before, the Cermak estate was probated, meaning that Gov recognized a property right that had been held in trust by gov.
Anyway, what do we have to lose by cooperating?
|
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 30, 2009 5:24:48 GMT -5
Let me just say this. How can all of the intervenors attorneys come and get together and agree about anything? When I guess the attorney that has the most clients close to 4,000 that MKlaw turned down said on his site he will work to discredit MKlaw clients. That is working together? That is just lining his pockets with money and giving false hope to many that can't.... You all know your attorney that I am speaking of.
|
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 30, 2009 5:45:38 GMT -5
Also this attorney that many have paid money too. Fought a case in the 90s and lost in Federal Court because he used Indian law as his basis for tribal membership issues at Shakopee. Not knowing at the time as he should have that the federal Government (BIA) does not get involved in tribal membership issues.
|
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 30, 2009 5:59:49 GMT -5
What happened with this ruling made our suit much stronger.
|
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 30, 2009 6:08:29 GMT -5
The existing four Minnesota Sioux communitie(s) would'nt even exist in the first place, if there was no trust created. Forget what the Fed. Circuit Court says, cuz they're so lying. Sav Thats correct |
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 30, 2009 6:37:58 GMT -5
It is time for all the Plaintiffs and Intervenors in this Wolfchild case to read the Appeals Court ruling to go over it with a fine toothed comb for any ideas or suggestions on how best to appeal this latest decision. I am sure most of you that are interested in this case, read the court transcript of the December 5, 2008 hearing before the three judge panel in the Federal Court of Appeals. From the get go in that hearing when it was Erick Kaardal's turn to proceed with his allotted fifteen minutes time, one of the justices asked Kaardal if there were any beneficiaries in the case at that hearing. Kaardal was caught off guard and was fumbling for answers that that specific judge was addressing. As the hearing moved on Kaardal did find his feet on the arguments, but I don't think Kaardal totally addressed the beneficiaries aspect to the case and how they would fit into this Wolfchild case. I think Kaardal needs to understand that he needs to work with the other Intervenors Attorneys, because if this case is lost on appeal to the full appeals panel and the U.S. Supreme Court, ALL of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors will be at the end of this case. It is better to fight the war in unison instead of trying to partition the Plaintiffs from the Intervenors that Kaardal and Buttes so desperately wanted. What I would suggest you Intervenors do would be to read that appeals court opinion and take notes or suggestions that you may see in the opinion and write them down with the page number and give them to the Intervenors Attorneys. You need to work together on this and Kaardal and Buttes need to understand this. You probably see where the U.S., Shakopee and Prairie Island are agreeing with each other in getting this reversal. Time will only tell if the reversal and remand from the Court of Federal Appeals will hold. Take care. What beneficiaries? From The 1888,89 and 90 acts. That is what the judge asked. You have got to be kidding. How about any congress men form the 1888,89and 90 are they still alive so we can ask them their intent of the acts. |
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Mar 30, 2009 9:28:14 GMT -5
I am amazed that people still don't realize that this has been an Indian Trust Law issue from the beginning:
USGov held title to lands set aside for the exclusive use of LD's of "Loyalist Mdewakantonwans". Gov asserts that the LD's never held anything more than an "usufructory right", and no beneficial title was ever created. "Usufructory" means they had a right to whatever the land produced for as long as they occupied the land. Kaardel et. al. filed suit, pursuant to the INDIAN Tucker Act on behalf of the LD's that asserted that trust had indeed been created based on how Gov managed that land (The"if it quacks and waddles, it's a duck theory). Gov responded, as they do in every case of this kind, that "no enforceable trust" ever existed, a term almost exclusively confined to Indian trust cases. The language that required recipients of land assignments to give up tribal membership is the same language that appears in the Dawes Act that tried to make alottees non members but was never enforced. In sum, this has always been squarely under the crosshairs of an Indian Trust issue and will be decided in large part based on precedents set in other Indian Trust cases. Right now, it's top of the ninth, were at bat, there's a full count, and we're behind 3 to 0.
|
|
|
|
Post by tfeleht2 on Mar 30, 2009 21:18:55 GMT -5
I am amazed that people still don't realize that this has been an Indian Trust Law issue from the beginning: USGov held title to lands set aside for the exclusive use of LD's of "Loyalist Mdewakantonwans". Gov asserts that the LD's never held anything more than an "usufructory right", and no beneficial title was ever created. "Usufructory" means they had a right to whatever the land produced for as long as they occupied the land. Kaardel et. al. filed suit, pursuant to the INDIAN Tucker Act on behalf of the LD's that asserted that trust had indeed been created based on how Gov managed that land (The"if it quacks and waddles, it's a duck theory). Gov responded, as they do in every case of this kind, that "no enforceable trust" ever existed, a term almost exclusively confined to Indian trust cases. The language that required recipients of land assignments to give up tribal membership is the same language that appears in the Dawes Act that tried to make alottees non members but was never enforced. In sum, this has always been squarely under the crosshairs of an Indian Trust issue and will be decided in large part based on precedents set in other Indian Trust cases. Right now, it's top of the ninth, were at bat, there's a full count, and we're behind 3 to 0.
That's why if it's Plaintiffs/Intervenors last bat, they need to work together and come up with either the pinch hitter or a good, sound appeal that will knock it out of the park.  |
|
chaska
Junior Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by chaska on Mar 31, 2009 0:57:30 GMT -5
The Federal Court of Claims saw it as basic trust law for six plus years and five major rulings in the favor of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court has reviewed our suit for the last eight months (7/08 the first motions and briefs started) and in this short period of time three Judges can use an entirely different standard of law(Indian law) and come to a non bias ruling and on only two questions that were asked of them?
|
|
