Can you help clear the confusion?

[hermin1]

mamabear you raised an excellent and pertinent point in this discussion.

[dgberg]

i would like to offer wahachanka my administrator duties simply because he is such an asset to this forum and all of us, don't get me wrong i appreciate the position but i feel he would utilize more positive flow than me so if it's ok with the powers that be i offer something that was awarded to me and i hold dear to wahachanka to share his wisdom and decision making skills with the resources that he deserves.

wahachanka said:

hermin1 said:

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.

[mdenney]

leavemealone said:

Jammie What? and Who are you talking about?

I am talking about that Dr.

[mdenney]

dgberg said:

i would like to offer wahachanka my administrator duties simply because he is such an asset to this forum and all of us, don't get me wrong i appreciate the position but i feel he would utilize more positive flow than me so if it's ok with the powers that be i offer something that was awarded to me and i hold dear to wahachanka to share his wisdom and decision making skills with the resources that he deserves.

wahachanka said:

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.

Hmmmmmmmm! I am going to have to think on this...let you know tomarrow.

[wahachanka]

dgberg said:

i would like to offer wahachanka my administrator duties simply because he is such an asset to this forum and all of us, don't get me wrong i appreciate the position but i feel he would utilize more positive flow than me so if it's ok with the powers that be i offer something that was awarded to me and i hold dear to wahachanka to share his wisdom and decision making skills with the resources that he deserves.

I am honored that you would think so highly of me, dgberg, but I do not think that this would work very well. I have little time available to me that I could devote to this board, and it deserves more than that. I am lucky even now to pop in to check things out every third day or so for a few minutes, and that time will get even shorter soon. I thank you for the offer (quite honestly, I do!), but I think everyone would be better served if you continue in your role, or find someone with more time available to devote to this. Don't worry, I'll still be around from time to time to offer up some "wisdom" if I can. ;D

[dakota20]

Everyone still needs to remember there is still alot of unanswered questions for the Judge to rule on. We want to jump to point D now by talking over everything and then answer the questions for point b and c. The Judge answered point A in that There is a Trust and the Government broke that trust. Now he needs to determine what actually consist of the trust who consist of the trust and how much of a breach of trust was there. Alot of unanswered questions and aquisations. We may think the trust consist of everything and the Government thinks it consist of nothing or next to nothing and the Judge will decide what it consist of and then the government will likely Appeal if its not in their favor. The Judge hasnt ruled on if the casinos are part of the trust or not. We and the government keep asking him to rule on it but he hasnt reached that far.

[hermin1]

Personally, I read her letter to the Dept. of the Interior. My personall impression is that she compounded the confusion surround tig the issue she was complaining about.Plus I think she needs to take a course in Genetics, and a course in Remedial Math.
As far as I am concerned, your ancestors were born Mdewakantons. I don't care where you get resettled, whatever name, ie Santee, or Sisseton they attached to you, you are still Mdewakanton. My folks were born in Greece, and they came here to American, does that make them American and not Greek any more? No . They are 100 percent greek, and naturalized citizens of The USA.You all have a very distinguished heritage, and I know that you are proud Mdewakantons, no matter where you live.

[tamara]

wahachanka said:

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.

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.

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"

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.

my comment is in regard to the first portion of this post and the statement of the land aquisitions being given using only the 1886 and 1889 censuses. Keeping in mind that the idea then is that the census taken were the determining factor of beneficiaries of the land aquisitions, then how can one completely ignore the accompanying letter by Walter S McLeod in which he states that regarding his expiring commission "I would ask that it be renewed until the appropriation can be distributed and the Indians favorabable located and properly cared for. I am personally acquinted with all of the Indians under my charge and know the wants of each and everyone of them, and also the Indians who are not entitled to this benefits, and be of great service to you in making the distribution of the appropriation."

clearly Mr McLeod is stating that the cenus taken was a list of those that were there but that it is not a guarantee of benefits. I have seen no mention of this and am curious what others might feel that McLeod meant in his statement.

[tokakte]

The judge has decided on one issue and only one: That there was an "enforceable trust", and that the US Gov violated that trust when it turned the 1000 acres over to the three communities. Everything else is still "on the table" as far as this part of the litigation is concerned. I firmly believe that he ruled correctly. As to damages, this is where things get even more tricky. The Indian Tucker Act states that damages "must be quantifiable". Usually, this is code for "quantified in monetary terms". Courts don't like to award land or other real property. That has been policy for time out of mind.
Now, we hear that LS litigants want land, not money. While I understand that desire, it puts many of us who are happily registered at other reservations in something of a bind. If the courts award land to the plaintiffs, my read is that we would have to enroll in either Lower Sioux or some other recognized tribe to share in the settlement. We would then have to give up our membership in the tribe where we are now enrolled. If the courts award cash, we share in settlement as linear descendants, but do not lose or original citizenship, since we received money that was awrded for damages and not benefits from another tribe.
If you have different thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks
tokakte

[tamara]

My only thought at this point, in regard to your post is that your knowledge is much appreciated. I am here to learn and that for others like myself, this opportunity will not only educate but create a generation of proactive individuals that will be able to use this knowledge in the future.

I will follow the white man's trail. I will make him my friend, but I will not bend my back to his burdens. I will be cunning as a coyote. I will ask him to help me understand his ways, then I will prepare the way for my children, and their children. The Great Spirit has shown me - a day will come when they will outrun the white man in his own shoes."
-Many Horses

I loved this post from the 1886 Board and am sharing it with all due respect for the poster and with understanding of some persons feelings about this board.

[tamara]

Verb 1. quantify - use as a quantifier
logic - the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference
fix, limit, set, specify, determine - decide upon or fix definitely; "fix the variables"; "specify the parameters"
2. quantify - express as a number or measure or quantity; "Can you quantify your results?"
measure
gauge - measure precisely and against a standard; "the wire is gauged"
scale - measure with or as if with scales; "scale the gold"
meter - measure with a meter; "meter the flow of water"
pace, step - measure (distances) by pacing; "step off ten yards"
clock, time - measure the time or duration of an event or action or the person who performs an action in a certain period of time; "he clocked the runners"
fathom, sound - measure the depth of (a body of water) with a sounding line
titrate - measure by (the volume or concentration of solutions) by titration
plumb - measure the depth of something
convey, express, carry - serve as a means for expressing something; "The painting of Mary carries motherly love"; "His voice carried a lot af anger"
librate, weigh - determine the weight of; "The butcher weighed the chicken"

(Jamie, just wanted you to know I appreciate the dictionary and use it more than you know)

I need to study up a bit on the Tucker Act as it might have some bearing on another related land issues and lineal descendancy I have been interested in. The idea of awarding land would be ideal to some I am sure, but for those beneficiaries who are like yourself, very involved and rooted in your tribal affairs and communities, it presents a problem almost impossible to imagine. The idea of of my own tribe being without some of the persons who work for us, lead us and benefit us in so many ways is a little frightening, as to be without ones tribal status would mean that such an individual would no longer be able to speak in council and would limit them on what they might be able to for their community.


Tamara

[dakota20]

Dr. Buttes or Erick and sheldon want to change history through law and its NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 1 person cant decide who is who and what is what. Dr. Buttes is the con artist using people for her OWN AGENDA. She has authority issues that need to be solved.

[kworldturner]

I would like to know if the question about Dr. Buttes being a plaintiff and being the "expert" certify-er of other plaintiffs being a conflict of interest? Isn't that going to really open the door up for delays when the Gov't decides they want others to verify her findings? How can she be the expert witness for her own case?

[peacekeeper]

kandi
i guess we all have our thoughts on that question. it is an excellent question. however i am not going to get into that one because i think we have an excellent judge and many lawyers out there who are going to take that one on. go back to the other posting you did in the other category. i left you something there. i hope it will help.

jackie

[wazi]

I wonder when this will become an issue. You would think the government would say something regarding her conflicts in this case...but then again what do I know

wazi

[terry]

If there was any (conflict of interest) it would have been dealt with a long time ago,unless of course the govt and all the attorneys involved in this case are not familiar with the term (conflict of interest)Which I'm guessin they are.

wazi said:

I wonder when this will become an issue. You would think the government would say something regarding her conflicts in this case...but then again what do I know

wazi

[wanbligi]

dakota20 said:

Everyone still needs to remember there is still alot of unanswered questions for the Judge to rule on. We want to jump to point D now by talking over everything and then answer the questions for point b and c. The Judge answered point A in that There is a Trust and the Government broke that trust. Now he needs to determine what actually consist of the trust who consist of the trust and how much of a breach of trust was there. Alot of unanswered questions and aquisations. We may think the trust consist of everything and the Government thinks it consist of nothing or next to nothing and the Judge will decide what it consist of and then the government will likely Appeal if its not in their favor. The Judge hasnt ruled on if the casinos are part of the trust or not. We and the government keep asking him to rule on it but he hasnt reached that far.

Dakota20:

I recently came on board, so am late in a response to your comments. Thank you for those. You are right there are alot of unanswered questions for the Judge to rule on. Historically the matter may need a look at when that Trust was broken and when the accounting by Court of those Trust assets involved evolved at those communities. Doesn't it interest you if the Communities were set up in a legal constitutionally based mechanism? Are the Community members as has been mentioned rightfully duly enrolled Mdewakanton members? An opinion who be that the Communities would have an interest in the Wolfchild case cause when an accounting by the Court is ordered those Communities were given by U.S. those very same asset residuals from the breach.

These are only questions and they are not meant to provoke or anger anyone only to provide a good sound means for discussion on this board. If you look at some of the readings submitted to the Court by Plaintiffs, Defendants, their are submissions or documents that make one look at how everything at the Communities transpired. This case brings forth the 1886 and 1889 censuses as a starting point and reasonable people would want matters to be consistent when application is made to people identified as rightful heirs to those dates.

We must understand that the Minnesota Territory which was part of the historical U.S. violations through the Treaty mechanisms. As the movement by the U.S. and settlers towards the west began the Indian lands that the U.S. and settlers wanted were the prime most imperative thought on theirs minds in how to get, remove those lands from the Indian people. During treaty negotiations, it has been said that the interpreters for the U.S. in negotiating with the tribes had the monumental advantage over the tribal people because those interpretations in those Treaties were written in English. Writings have brought that if it benefited the U.S. treaty language was altered or changed even after the negotiations with the Tribes was over. All the U.S. would do was change the language back at Washington if it was in their interest and not that of the Tribes.

My point is that the Indian Tribes have been dealt with negatively by the U.S. in the beginning and now we are trying to sort through some of those dealings in the current Wolfchild case. So as we play out this case with the Court it is only right that we look at it carefully and wisely as to the ultimate jurisdiction of this Court. My friends please go forward with the reality that the U.S. has dealt harshly with the Mdewakanton in the past so we must be careful with this case and work together and see that some semblance of justice is given to those rightful heirs. Only my viewpoint.

This is wanbligi on Jan. 17, 2007 at 10:47 a.m.

[BIG JON]

HEY GUYS, ITS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA TO CLICK LINKS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE POSTER IS...VIRUS...VIRUS...VIRUS!!

JUST SO YOU KNOW(*NOT THAT I THINK ANYBODY IS!)

JON

[denney]

I removed the posts thanks Jon

gorkinoff said:

HEY GUYS, ITS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA TO CLICK LINKS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THE POSTER IS...VIRUS...VIRUS...VIRUS!!

JUST SO YOU KNOW(*NOT THAT I THINK ANYBODY IS!)

JON