|
|
Post by santee1961 on Jan 28, 2006 22:12:56 GMT -5
Hello,
I am not an attorney but is it a conflict of interest to be the professional who certifies or approves the LD's regarding or relating to this case and who could possibly be related to you? I would hope such an important and history making legal case such as this would not be jepordized by something of this nature or any other technicality.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 1, 2006 2:25:14 GMT -5
it sure is.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamabear on Feb 16, 2006 15:29:12 GMT -5
I was just wondering if anyone has an answer to my first questions.  we've talked about everything but them.  |
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 16, 2006 19:04:00 GMT -5
We've been confused about the 1886 census and the update of the 1886 done in 1889. Why doesn't the lawsuit go back to 1884? Because as per Barbara Butt's letter to Mr. Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary U.S.D. of Interior, March 6,2000; " In 1884, congress formally recognized them as the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux"(MMS). So between 1884 and 1886 Land was given to the MMS and the reason for the census in 1886 was about the ISSUE OF LAND.Who already had land and who needed land. Two years is a long time to overlook, because Legally the issue of L.D. starts in 1884. **** Another issue is the letter dated Oct. 8,1904 from the Special Indian Agent in MN to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Washington D.C. This letter shows MANY of the allottees SOLD their 1886 lands; Including Harry Bluestone and Samuel Bluestone (just to name two).This letter describes the Legal descriptions of each land plot.***The question now is....How can part of the L.D.'s who have been approved as defendants stake claim to land their family SOLD? .....Another issue is the letter dated Aug. 17,1971 FROM: U.S.D.Interior office of the solicitor, Washington D.C. TO: Field Solicitor , Twin Cities MN.; "The roll or census compiled by Walter S. McLeod was sent to the commissioner of Indian Affairs on Sept.2,1886and did not refer to the Date of May 20,1886 and in itself undated." Also,"some of the older Indians at Shakopee believe McLeod's Roll contained Sisseton,Wahpeton,and Wapakute Sioux." This letter also states" There are allegations concerning Mr. McLeod's reliability due to his participation in Questionable Land transactions with these Indians" Does ANYBODY have this 1884 census or Roll of the MMS taken at the time of the Federal Recognition??? REMEMBER THE ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT THE LAND!!!!!! This has a tail on it and should be fairly answered if we can guess would this be close enough? NO! I would not want the staff or any one here to carry such a deep question like this. What needs to be done is this needs to be answered by some one who really knows the process involving this type of topic. mamabear is asking if we can get our land back even though we sold it a long time ago and other related issues pertaining to the post and to the case. Any one willing to step up and try this one out? Remember you must be realistic and no hogwash to this. This is serious information and no one should be mislead in no way. |
|
|
|
Post by wahachanka on Feb 16, 2006 20:11:22 GMT -5
The land acquisitions made by Congress on June 29, 1888, March 2, 1889, and August 9, 1890 were based SOLELY on the 1886 and 1889 revised censuses. Therefore, ONLY those censuses can be used to determine who has a legal claim to that land.
According to the agreement entered into with the U.S. government, the land cannot be SOLD by any individual. (This is true of any trust, and one reason why Judge Lettow has ruled a trust does indeed exist). Individuals may relinquish their allotments, in which case the alloted land would be transfered to another individual (not SOLD). Descendents of an individual who gave up an allotment are just as entitled to share in the trust land as any other trust beneficiary. A person who relinquished their individual allotment DID NOT and COULD NOT give away their descendents rights to the trust land as a whole.
This letter speaks of hearsay, which carries little to no legal weight in a court of law. In addition, this letter was written by someone 85 YEARS after the fact. Without concrete evidence to back up the claims made in this letter, they are nothing more than baseless allegations. Judge Lettow has ruled that this letter and other "evidence" brought forth by the government in its defense does not in any way affect the existence of the trust, or the rights of those determined to be legal lineal descendents of the original trust beneficiaries. In other words, this letter is meaningless to the lawsuit.
|
|
terry
Junior Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by terry on Feb 16, 2006 20:24:31 GMT -5
Thank you, Sir
|
|
|
|
Post by dgberg on Feb 16, 2006 20:59:33 GMT -5
sir is right, isn't he somethin? i wish i was half as smart as him.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 3:21:43 GMT -5
dgbg: I 'll cite you an example; I have been helpiong one of the Trudell descendants with her conneting to the LD's. she was sent a packet from Kaardal's office last year with a cover letter
explaining the lawsuit, and intimating that she was a lineal descendant of Frank Trudell(on the 1886 census), and explaining what documentation she needed to be confirmed. she has obtained thedocumentation, but now buttes is jacking her around,telling her that herdocumentaion is inadequate.
I am also helping one of the descendants of the Dumarces with his connecting. He told me that his aunt at Sisseton was approached by Buttes herself, and given the same sales talk. LuckHis aunt told her to get lost, diplomatically,he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 3:36:15 GMT -5
bourdeaux69, I checked my copy of the McLaughlin Roll and there is neither name youmentioned on the list. I believe, but am not sure, that my opy that I printed off the microfilmcontains only the Santees who originally settled in Nebraska.
As for sharing this copy, it is 214 pages long, with each page requiring 2 runs of the printing because of the length of each page in the ledger.At 25 cents per copy x 214 pages, it cost me $228.70, plus another 2 dollars to print off the ref. documentation.then I had to rent the microfilm from the Minn. Hist. Soc. for $3.00. it took me a week to copy off every page.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 3:55:13 GMT -5
that quote re. the people who sold their land, I would like to see for myself.
Judge Lettow in his Dec. 2005 ruling, on page 11, footnote 10, states "The 1886 census as supplemented by the 1889 census supplies a presumptive starting point for identifying the loyal Mdewakantons and their descendants, BUT(my emphasis)these census rolls may not be definitive. the court has defferred proceedings on eligibility pending completion of steps to provide notice to potential plaintiffs in this collective action."
The last paragraph on this page also bears noting:"The government has also stated its position that "individuals who had joined a tribe other than the three Mdewakanton Communities would not be eligible because they do not meet the criteriafor severing their tribal relations. Similarly, someone whose parents were members of a different tribe would not meet the criteria either" Id.None of these matters have been addressed in detail by the parties or the court.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 4:04:11 GMT -5
bourdeaux69 what acoincidence you should mention the surname Arpan. I have a record of a Jennie Estes, d/o Benjamin and Madeline(Melissa)Estes, who married an Albert Arpan. They had a son Ernest.I believe they lived at the Lower Brule Reservation ,Lyman County SD. if you have access to a library that provides online Ancestry.com usage, plug in your data on peter Arpan(Halpan) and try plugging in South Dakota for place of birtha nd death. See what you come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 4:35:07 GMT -5
mamabear:The so-called 1886 census was completed in 1885, and Henton submitted to Washington DC in 1886,according to the reference sheet preceding the original list on NARA Microfilm I rented from the Minn. Hist. Society. Accompanying this list was the microfilm of the 1885 Annuity Roll for the Mdewakanton Sioux.
To my understanding of the historybehind this land issue, sometime in the 1880's the govt. underPresident Grant passed legislation, in which in the Indians were to be given land patents in return for becoming citizens of the United States.
The only drawback to this land offer was that even though they were given land, they would not have title to it. In essence they would be like tenant farmers, but not paying any rent. If you abandoned the propety, or died without heirs, the land revert to the govrnment and given to another Native American.
This differs from a homestead grant,in that you have to live on the land for a certain number of years,pay the taxes that are due,for a certain number of years, after which you would have title to it.
then around 1900-1905, legislation was passed in which land was to be given to the Indians in Minnesota where the reservations are now, but the Indians had to agree to never again form a Mdewakanton tribe(s).
From my viewpoint, I feel that this question of lineal descendancy should start with the year 1862,prior to the uprising. Because those Indians who were not put on trial and/or were found innocent, and those who had to serve time in prison, were illegally and forcefully taken with their loved ones, and from their homes and banished from the state of Minnesota.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgberg on Feb 17, 2006 8:09:34 GMT -5
what is dr.buttes basing her theory of "inadequate documantation" and how does it compare with others who have been certified. dgbg: I 'll cite you an example; I have been helpiong one of the Trudell descendants with her conneting to the LD's. she was sent a packet from Kaardal's office last year with a cover letter explaining the lawsuit, and intimating that she was a lineal descendant of Frank Trudell(on the 1886 census), and explaining what documentation she needed to be confirmed. she has obtained thedocumentation, but now buttes is jacking her around,telling her that herdocumentaion is inadequate. I am also helping one of the descendants of the Dumarces with his connecting. He told me that his aunt at Sisseton was approached by Buttes herself, and given the same sales talk. LuckHis aunt told her to get lost, diplomatically,he said. |
|
|
|
Post by wahachanka on Feb 17, 2006 9:18:13 GMT -5
The last paragraph on this page also bears noting:"The government has also stated its position that "individuals who had joined a tribe other than the three Mdewakanton Communities would not be eligible because they do not meet the criteriafor severing their tribal relations. Similarly, someone whose parents were members of a different tribe would not meet the criteria either" Id.None of these matters have been addressed in detail by the parties or the court. Without going back and reading the December '05 decision, I believe this idea comes from the government's defense, not from Judge Lettow. While it may be true that he has yet to rule on this issue, the idea itself is contradictory. If the agreement was to sever tribal relations, why would it be OK to join one of the three Minnesota communities (who are federally recognized as tribes), but not another? In actuality, if the term "sever tribal relations" were taken in its original meaning (i.e. sever ties with the Mdewakanton Dakota), then joining one of the 3 Minnesota communities would be MORE of an excluding factor than joining a different tribe. This is just another example of the government's rather poor attempts to defend its actions or "inactions" in this matter. Since the 3 communities DO exist and HAVE been federally recognized, there is little question that the matter of not severing tribal relations will not be an excluding factor. In addition, since the government accepted the existence of the 3 communities (without severing ties), they have virtually no chance of legally defending excluding anyone else who did not sever tribal relations. In short, while the matter may not have been ruled on as yet, there is little question of the outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 17, 2006 11:09:05 GMT -5
what is dr.buttes basing her theory of "inadequate documantation" and how does it compare with others who have been certified. dgbg: I 'll cite you an example; I have been helpiong one of the Trudell descendants with her conneting to the LD's. she was sent a packet from Kaardal's office last year with a cover letter explaining the lawsuit, and intimating that she was a lineal descendant of Frank Trudell(on the 1886 census), and explaining what documentation she needed to be confirmed. she has obtained thedocumentation, but now buttes is jacking her around,telling her that herdocumentaion is inadequate. I am also helping one of the descendants of the Dumarces with his connecting. He told me that his aunt at Sisseton was approached by Buttes herself, and given the same sales talk. LuckHis aunt told her to get lost, diplomatically,he said. Right on! |
|
|
|
Post by mdenney on Feb 17, 2006 14:35:50 GMT -5
That lady who ever or what ever she claims has got issues big time!! gggggggsus criminys! I thought I was bad!
|
|
|
|
Post by leavemealone on Feb 17, 2006 16:26:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Feb 17, 2006 22:14:00 GMT -5
Who knows? tune in otomprrow for the next chapter of As the World Churns.
|
|
|
|
Post by santee1961 on Feb 19, 2006 14:41:25 GMT -5
I feel like I just gotta throw my 2 cents in here there are several good arguments substantiating Buttes claim. However, there are some issues being ignored or simply not being presented. I'm not going to get into them right now but the Federal Government really, really screwed up the identity of the Indian people because due to the Indian wars and paranoia regarding their accounting for each and every individual Indian person and child. They sent word to the Indian agents to bring in all Indians and account for each and every Indian and child. The Indians were told to go the NEAREST Indian Agency and be counted. In my family we have a split between three tribes because of this. The indians at the time when they expressed concern about being counted in with people who were not their own that there would be no problem and they would still be included with their own tribe. HA HA HA Big suprise it didn't happen that way. I have no doubt that what was presented to Judge Lettow about the count including other tribes is not accurate as we have been trying to fix this exact problem from the time it happened. In our family we have a mother and daughter that aren't of the same tribe as the rest of her family. If a researcher looked at this incident they would probably think the husband and wife were divorced and the child listed did not have the same father. When this all happened my ancestor was told that it was a simple accounting of Indian people it would not affect her tribal affiliation. I hope Buttes and her accurate research accounts for these situations!
|
|
|
|
Post by mamabear on Feb 20, 2006 12:17:50 GMT -5
If indeed it is ruled that the land still belongs to the LD's..who's people sold it ... then it ( the ruling) will affect all lands that the Whites and others have so called bought on all rez's. This might also be a way for the People to get their reservations back. I know here at Santee Most of the land has been bought by the Whites and others; very little is Indian owned or Tribal owned. I know of 120 ac. lost due to a $36.00 bill that was owed.
|
|
we've talked about everything but them. 
thank you for allowing me access to this site.