The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has issued its decision in the Wolfchild case after the October 22, 2010 hearing. It found that the Department of the Interior wrongfully distributed moneys derived from the 1886 lands to the existing communities prior to the passage of the 1980 Act. However, after the 1980 Act, the United States has since held the 1886 lands in trust for the communities and any proceeds from those lands, apparently can be kept by the communities. Nevertheless, the law firm continues to review the decision and other available options before the court-ordered January 21, 2010 hearing pertaining to the court's judgment.
Excerpt from: Madaline Rocque Tatanka-najin-win (Standing Buffalo Woman) – (her) Informational Website clearly explains our current position: freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~madalinerocque/lawsuit10.html The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has issued its decision in the Wolfchild case after the October 22, 2010 hearing. It found that the Department of the Interior wrongfully distributed moneys derived from the 1886 lands to the existing communities prior to the passage of the 1980 Act. However, after the 1980 Act, the United States has since held the 1886 lands in trust for the communities and any proceeds from those lands, apparently can be kept by the communities. Nevertheless, the law firm continues to review the decision and other available options before the court-ordered January 21, 2010 hearing pertaining to the court's judgment. Madaline's Comments: We won, BUT we're not going to like it! Judge Lettow in issuing his December 21, 2010 opinions and orders, concludes that we lineal descendant are entitled to damages, BUT only up to the year 1980. Being that we "won," our attorney's will be reimbursed for their expenses. The amount we "won" is a total of $60,000 plus interest since 1975. Dividing that "unknown final dollar amount" among all eligible lineal descendants probably will cover what it cost us to obtain birth and baptismal documentation at best. I see nothing in this final decision that has to do with changing the status quo at the three communities. That, I believe, would have to be attempted in another lawsuit. I will add a new link [lawsuit 2011] and continue to update and comment into next year on anything that arises after final judgment of this lawsuit. Being that the judge allowed Kaardal's sixth amended complaint (regarding statutory use restriction) I would think he has to issue an opinion/order regarding it as well. Some good (for us) could come of it, but I'd keep the day jobs til we hear something better than yesterday. Take care all. Peace. (End Quote.)
MY TAKE: I continue to believe that the Carcieri ruling effectively prohibits the Secretary of Interior from taking land into trust for the three communities. The Court held: "Because the term ‘now under federal jurisdiction’ in §479 unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was enacted in 1934, and because the Narragansett Tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, the Secretary does not have the authority to take the 31-acre parcel into trust." MY OPINION: Not one of the communities was under Federal jurisdiction in 1934, which puts them in the same condition that the Narragansett Tribe found itself in. The Secretary should not be allowed to hold land in trust for the communities for any reason. A RAY OF HOPE: This is the first time (that I recall) that the first Act of 1863 is referred to by the Judge as a "money-mandating duty under controlling precedent." The reference is found on page 37, under the heading, "Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to amend." (See http:\\www.MKLaw.com) Thus a "new" element in this case appears: "The Julia DeMarce Group and the Harley D. Zephier Group of Plaintiff-Intervenors have filed motions and proposed complaints containing an additional count, which alleges that the government violated its obligation to set aside land under the Act of Feb. 16, 1863 § 7, 12 Stat. 652, 654. (Emphasis added.) The government opposes the motion arguing that the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the second Act of 1863, 12 Stat. 819, superseded the first Act of 1863 means that plaintiff-intervenors cannot base a claim on the first Act of 1863. Def.’s Opp’n at 18. The government also alleges that this claim would be barred by the statute of limitations as "
laintiffs were on notice of their claim six years before filing their complaints, even as early as 1888, when the first of the Appropriations Acts were passed and the land designated under this particular statute was not acquired for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton." Id. at 18-19. Notwithstanding these arguments by the government, the salient threshold question realistically is whether the first Act of 1863 can be read as giving rise to a money-mandating duty under controlling precedent — a question that neither party has addressed. (Emphasis added) The court will grant intervenor-plaintiffs’ motion to amend such that this threshold issue might be addressed."
I believe that Judge Lettow is troubled by the communities benefitting from the literal meaning of the 1980 Act, as it does cut the original Act’s intended beneficiaries out of their intended benefits. I will wait and see what happens to this latest ploy.
They are just playing us. Think about what we are really doing. NOTHING! Our lawyers need a new approach to the bases of this case it has a form to look deeper then they our looking...every time they go to court they are shut down with some words that they already were thinking about before that court session was over...THINK VERY HARD!
LAND+MONEY+LD'S+ACTS+USGOV. I NOTICED A CHANGE IN HOW THEY ARE THINKING...SOMEONE IS STEPPING UP THE RESEARCH FOR THEM...
MY THOUGHTS AND NOTHING MORE.
Last Edit: Dec 24, 2010 23:56:54 GMT -5 by mdenney
DO NOT COPY MY IMAGES WITH OUT MY PERMISSION!! IT IS COPYRIGHTED.
Jamie the case is far from over here the best way I can tell u though one of the attorneys ============================
Wolfchild Class Action Lawsuit Information WOLFCHILD LAWSUIT CLIENT UP-DATES POSTED: December 30, 2010 The Court of Claims issued its opinion on December 20, 2010, regarding our issues surrounding the 1863 Act (violation of statutory obligation) and violation of statutory restrictions. The latter issue of violation of statutory restriction relates to certain monies set aside from land transfers to the Mdewakanton, which were disbursed among the three (3) communites sometime after 1980. The Court ruled that the 1863 Act was a cause of action and if we could prove the money mandating requirements under the law, we would have a viable cause of action against the government and possible liablity. This argument is one my office as made since the beginning of the lawsuit for my clients in 2006 and Court finally agrees that the 1863 Act requirements are a possible viable cause of action against the government. I and Robin Zephier will take the lead in filing a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof on this count. The other issue relating to violation of Statutory Restrictions will continue to be argued. The Court has set the next hearing date of January 21, 2011 in Washington, D.C., at which time a scheduling order will be discussed on further proceedings in this case.
The Court ruled that the 1863 Act was a cause of action and if we could prove the money mandating requirements under the law, we would have a viable cause of action against the government and possible liablity.
Now wait see if it is PROVED...this is interesting...wouldn't that be nice?
DO NOT COPY MY IMAGES WITH OUT MY PERMISSION!! IT IS COPYRIGHTED.
PS...I was going to post a response regarding the JR Brown list that Hermin1 had...was it of the Lake Traverse Reservation or was it at Crow Creek? I didnt see it posted...am I not looking in the right place...how sad..Im lost here...lol I need to come back and sign in more often..lol
mdenney: If you post anything but research info you will get banned
Jan 10, 2020 17:30:51 GMT -5
krys: Does any one know of an official site where I can get info on Jacob Eastmen many lightnings from when he was a boy his father, mother etc and who they were. Thank you
May 21, 2020 6:30:10 GMT -5
mindleaphealth50: Mindleap App - Mindleap is a telehealth platform that connects people with integration coaches and other mental health specialists.
Jun 28, 2020 5:42:35 GMT -5
chadmaloy: Hello, I am new here and wondering of anyone can help with verifying if the information I found is accurate....
Jul 4, 2020 16:04:48 GMT -5
chadmaloy: Wabasha II Necohundah Lefeuille One Eye married to Sister of Ho-Chunk Chief Winneshiek
Daughter-Hazawastewin married to Etarz-e-pah L’Arc
Daughter Zoe Cankuomainwin Roche (1810-1846) married to Lewis Martin (1803-1858)
Daughter Mary Marie Mar
Jul 4, 2020 16:04:52 GMT -5
himes001: I am researching William Baine. He married Maggie Holy Face and possibly someone named Susan. I big on having documentation and haveyfound any for Susan. Any suggestions.
Aug 10, 2020 18:42:53 GMT -5
wyomingcowboy: Hello nightwolf. Did you find answers to your questions? I, also, am a great great grandson of Thomas Flood. My grandmother is Cornelia Louise Stead Penn and is also buried in Rosebud. I would like to connect with you if you're still around.
Aug 20, 2020 14:38:21 GMT -5
himes001: I also need help verifying information that I have found for the William Baine family?
Sept 22, 2020 21:58:20 GMT -5
Sominex: Sorry for the late reply! Are you still there OrangeDeluxe? I don't have much on her (Tateaicagewin), but I do have a few documents I can share with you. Email me at Lori_WalkingEagle@hotmail.com
Nov 18, 2020 19:42:32 GMT -5
joyshoe: I am researching Catherine Sell Delaney. There is a book with information about her son Cyrus. The book is "The Saga of Sully Flats". Can anyone with the book do a look-up for me? TIA
Mar 17, 2021 13:08:25 GMT -5