Post by denney on Dec 20, 2009 20:13:18 GMT -5
Minnesota Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate Litigation
Wolfchild, et al. v. United States
Notes by
Erick G. Kaardal
December 20, 2009
Dear all:
Happy Holidays!
The briefing on the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review is likely completed. Now, the Court will decide whether to grant the petition and review the case.
In the end, five briefs were filed: (1) Wolfchild petitioners; (2) Zephier petitions; (3) the Johnson Law Group response brief; (4) the Oglala Lakota Sioux (South Dakota) amicus brief; and (5) the Shingle Springs Miwok (California) amicus curiae brief. All are linked to this page in the right-hand column.
All five briefs agree that the petition should be granted.
Four additional points should be made regarding those interested parties who chose not to file a response brief despite the seriousness of the matters addressed in the five petitions and briefs referenced above.
First, the United States did not file a response.
Second, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community did not file a response.
Third, the Prairie Island Indian Community did not file a response.
Fourth, the Lower Sioux Indian Community did not file a response.
Why not?
Best regards.
egk
www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm
====================================
Minnesota Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate Litigation
Wolfchild, et al. v. United States
Notes by
Erick G. Kaardal
December 20, 2009
Dear all:
Happy Holidays!
The briefing on the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review is likely completed. Now, the Court will decide whether to grant the petition and review the case.
In the end, five briefs were filed: (1) Wolfchild petitioners; (2) Zephier petitions; (3) the Johnson Law Group response brief; (4) the Oglala Lakota Sioux (South Dakota) amicus brief; and (5) the Shingle Springs Miwok (California) amicus curiae brief. All are linked to this page in the right-hand column.
All five briefs agree that the petition should be granted.
Four additional points should be made regarding those interested parties who chose not to file a response brief despite the seriousness of the matters addressed in the five petitions and briefs referenced above.
First, the United States did not file a response.
Second, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community did not file a response.
Third, the Prairie Island Indian Community did not file a response.
Fourth, the Lower Sioux Indian Community did not file a response.
Why not?
Best regards.
egk
www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.S. Supreme Court On Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari
[09-579, 09-580]
Response In Support Of Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari
www.mklaw.com/documents/JohnsonResponseinSupportofPetitions.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari Sheldon Peters Wolfchild, et al. v. U.S. [09-579]
1886 Mdewakanton Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
www.mklaw.com/documents/22166pdfGrzybek.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court Co-Petition for Writ of Certiorari Harley D. Zephier, Sr., et al. v. U.S. [09-580]
Zephier Petition For Writ of Certiorari To The U.S. Supreme Court
www.mklaw.com/documents/ZephierPetition.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Lakota Sioux of Pine Ridge Reservation Amicus Curiae Brief
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Ogala Sioux Tribe In Support Of Petitioners
www.mklaw.com/documents/BriefofAmicusCuriaeOglalaSiouxTribe.pdf
=======================================
The government's response
U.S. Supreme Court - Government Waiver
U.S. Supreme Court - Government Waiver dated December 7, 2009
www.mklaw.com/documents/U.S.Waiver12-7-09.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Historic Shingle Springs Miwok In Support Of Petitioners
Motion To File Amicus Curiae And Brief of Amicus Curiae
link below -
www.mklaw.com/documents/BriefofAmicusCuriaeHistoricMiwok.pdf
Wolfchild, et al. v. United States
Notes by
Erick G. Kaardal
December 20, 2009
Dear all:
Happy Holidays!
The briefing on the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review is likely completed. Now, the Court will decide whether to grant the petition and review the case.
In the end, five briefs were filed: (1) Wolfchild petitioners; (2) Zephier petitions; (3) the Johnson Law Group response brief; (4) the Oglala Lakota Sioux (South Dakota) amicus brief; and (5) the Shingle Springs Miwok (California) amicus curiae brief. All are linked to this page in the right-hand column.
All five briefs agree that the petition should be granted.
Four additional points should be made regarding those interested parties who chose not to file a response brief despite the seriousness of the matters addressed in the five petitions and briefs referenced above.
First, the United States did not file a response.
Second, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community did not file a response.
Third, the Prairie Island Indian Community did not file a response.
Fourth, the Lower Sioux Indian Community did not file a response.
Why not?
Best regards.
egk
www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm
====================================
Minnesota Mdewakanton Dakota Oyate Litigation
Wolfchild, et al. v. United States
Notes by
Erick G. Kaardal
December 20, 2009
Dear all:
Happy Holidays!
The briefing on the Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review is likely completed. Now, the Court will decide whether to grant the petition and review the case.
In the end, five briefs were filed: (1) Wolfchild petitioners; (2) Zephier petitions; (3) the Johnson Law Group response brief; (4) the Oglala Lakota Sioux (South Dakota) amicus brief; and (5) the Shingle Springs Miwok (California) amicus curiae brief. All are linked to this page in the right-hand column.
All five briefs agree that the petition should be granted.
Four additional points should be made regarding those interested parties who chose not to file a response brief despite the seriousness of the matters addressed in the five petitions and briefs referenced above.
First, the United States did not file a response.
Second, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community did not file a response.
Third, the Prairie Island Indian Community did not file a response.
Fourth, the Lower Sioux Indian Community did not file a response.
Why not?
Best regards.
egk
www.mklaw.com/mdewakanton.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.S. Supreme Court On Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari
[09-579, 09-580]
Response In Support Of Petitions For Writs Of Certiorari
www.mklaw.com/documents/JohnsonResponseinSupportofPetitions.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari Sheldon Peters Wolfchild, et al. v. U.S. [09-579]
1886 Mdewakanton Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
www.mklaw.com/documents/22166pdfGrzybek.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court Co-Petition for Writ of Certiorari Harley D. Zephier, Sr., et al. v. U.S. [09-580]
Zephier Petition For Writ of Certiorari To The U.S. Supreme Court
www.mklaw.com/documents/ZephierPetition.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oglala Lakota Sioux of Pine Ridge Reservation Amicus Curiae Brief
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Ogala Sioux Tribe In Support Of Petitioners
www.mklaw.com/documents/BriefofAmicusCuriaeOglalaSiouxTribe.pdf
=======================================
The government's response
U.S. Supreme Court - Government Waiver
U.S. Supreme Court - Government Waiver dated December 7, 2009
www.mklaw.com/documents/U.S.Waiver12-7-09.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Historic Shingle Springs Miwok In Support Of Petitioners
Motion To File Amicus Curiae And Brief of Amicus Curiae
link below -
www.mklaw.com/documents/BriefofAmicusCuriaeHistoricMiwok.pdf