SUPREME COURT

[dgberg]

does anyone see this case going before the Supreme Court, why or why not? and are we, or some, being over-ambitious to say (back in '04) "we have won and we have won big" should'nt we step back and say isn't that a little (or lot) overconfident? i am not trying to be negative but let's not count the chickens before they hatch. everything is going good but nothing is for sure.

[hermin1]

Dgbrg; You are not being pessimistic or negative about this issue; I believe you are being realistic. As the old saying goes,"It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

[dgberg]

i appreciate your input hermin1, would anyone else like to comment on this?

[wazi]

UHHMMM...WHAT SONG WOULD U LIKE TO HERE? ;D

hermin1 said:

Dgbrg; You are not being pessimistic or negative about this issue; I believe you are being realistic. As the old saying goes,"It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

[wazi]

I hear u dgberg;

I have asked this ? also but have gotten the answer that this is an open and shut case....Unfortunately there is an appeals process that can be drug out; yes like the Cobell case.

Also the future of the Supreme Court is up in the air with the Chief Justice passing

Wazi

[dgberg]

so basically the "we have won and we have won big" was a little preliminary so to speak? though that was a win back then that statement was, maybe, a little overboard?

[mdenney]

My question is why can we not have our attorneys give us a little insight from time to time, on the current question. I know for my self I would like to have the attorneys put some info on Oyate-exchange. Can this be done? I think it can, any one willing could just ask them to post a little at their discretion from time to time.
I don't see how this would create a problem. Who ever has their e-mail should think about asking them if they could do this. It is up to the individual.

[tokakte]

This is the fourth "Indian Tucker Act" case I've been a part of, but only the first I've been directly involved in. I say this because while I'm not an attorney, I have a little knowlege of how things have worked in the past, and what we might expect here:
1. There is no such thing as an "open and shut case"; and everything the judge has rule on is appealable.
2. The federal gov't will appeal the judge's partial summary judgement arguing that the judge erred when he found that an enforceable trust had been created. There is pleny of legal precedent for this in the "Mitchell I" decision of a few years ago.
3. If the gov''t loses the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal for the MN area, and I have forgotten the number, gov't will appeal to the Supreme Court. I suspect that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. That isn't good news.
4. If we lose the Circuit Court decision, Erick and the others will have assess their chances of winning in the Supreme Court based on the facts of the case and the money they have available to pursue the appeal. Even if they like their chances based on the legal issues, they may not have the money to continue.
5. Finally, the Dept. if Justice Att'ys are paid to keep ther gov't from paying damages, and they'll fight to the bitter end to keep from losing this and any other Indian Tucker Act case.
Sorry if this prognosis sounds grim, but I think that too many of the LD's have "visions of sugarplums dancing in their wee little heads" way too soon.
Tokakte

[mdenney]

I wish people as members if to sound secure could you be more detailed in the "TOPIC?" Where is this info coming from and what happened? I see doubt and grim discussions and I want to pin point the details in the topic.

Thank you.

[mdenney]

Are the attorneys going in to an appeal process and what is the exact blow we took? That is what it sounds like.

[dgberg]

yes but, look at all the appeals that erick & co. have oercome thus far. it's almost like he's been bullet-proof so far and i think he is in too far to just give up later on.

[tokakte]

This information comes from "U.S. v. Mitchell", involving the mismanagement of allotted timber resources on the Quinault Reservation in Washington. In the first case (Mitchell I) the Supreme Court ruled that then U.S. had established only a "bare bones trust relationship" regarding allotted timber sales, and had never asserted management control over these sales. They merely kept track of the money received and made sure the Indian timber owners received their checks. Gov is making the same arguement in our case. The Helen Mitchell's attorneys refiled the case that became Mitchell II, and won it when they demonstrated that the Gov't had excercised total management control over Indian timber resources, from seedling to sale. Our attorneys will make a similar arguement, arguing that the Gov't asserted their Trust Responsibilty by managing the distribution of the allottments as well as approving of them. It sounds like a good arguement to me, but it's what the judges think that will matter.
By the way, while I'm not a lawyer, I was Director of Native American Studies at the University of New Mexico for two years, and I taught an undergraduate course entitled "The Indian and the Law". The Law School examined my materials and sat in on several of my lectures. They occasionally modified some of my presentations, but they were essentially satisfied with my information and conclusions.

[peacekeeper]

HI everyone. I am back from my one-day mini-vacation. I have been just reading all the new messages and communications going on and am trying to re-climate myself. I just looked at this thread and read all of the communications. I believe that everyone wants to know: When will this case be settled?
Well the truth is no one knows for sure. There are a lot of options still open for both sides of the lawsuit. I think that every time Erick and company overcome another hurdle, it is one more step closer to the moon. Even though many might not agree with what I am going to say I will say it anyway. I think that if this lawsuit had finished quickly, it would already have been forgotten. I honesty don't think that winning, or losing, would have made it any more memorable. However, the longer this takes, the more communication and knowledge takes place and is passed on to others. I think that all the bases need to be covered, so there can't be an appeal based on faulty or missing information. I also think that the longer this takes the better it is for us. Keep your hope up, your heart open, and continue to help each other on this long road home.

Jackie

[mdenney]

tokakte... that was nice I am stumbling on that come back, very nice. I don't think to much info is to much infact not enough leaves me guessing and that is the gap created by lack of information.

Thank you.

[mdenney]

I don't have any current case documentation. I go by hear say. I would like to see some. I think jackie posted some thing once not for sure? I will check this out.

[mdenney]

Erick&Co. Ok.

[alberta]

Tokakte, thank you very much for your input, i think it helped many ppl understand a lil better what is going on, n where it is we r at, once again Thank you, alberta

[peacekeeper]

ALBERTA!!!
LONG TIME NO SEE! WELCOME BACK YOU WERE MISSED.

JACKIE

[dgberg]

i think, no, i know that tokakte is very wise but are we comparing apples to oranges- why would'nt this be used early on before so much of the tax payers' dollars been spent on foreplay?

[tokakte]

Good question!
Possible reason is that our lawyers, and they are good ones, believe that after all the frills are stripped away, a trust was created by Congress. It may be a "bare bones " trust, but it is still obliged to protect the land held in trust from alienation. That's like Capt. Kirk's "Prime Directive" (Any old Star Wars fans out there?). Gov. failed to do that when they enacted a mere "change of title" instead of the more robust actual termination act. But, if they had terminated the trust, they would probably had to liquidate the land holdings and distribute the proceeds from the sale among the LD's. Too complicated, so they got a little too creative and tried a legal "end sweep". I think it will backfire on them, but they'll still put up a fight.