Repost.

[mdenney]

www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Lettow/04/LETTOW.Wolfchild.pdf

This should be looked at more closely.

By peacekeeper. reposted by jamie

[sisco]

Peacekeeper, why do u say that this should be looked at more closely? I am Sisco.

[hermin1]

I agree with you Jackie.

[peacekeeper]

Actually Dakota reposted what I had on there. Here is one example though. This was sent to me by a distant relative. He was sharing his thoughts with others. I will see if I can find more examples later.
Jackie


"I just talk with XXX and she share your thoughts. Pull out Judge Lettow motion and look at page 10. At the top of the page toward the end it states "these Indian or family thereof," and the 1890 Act referred to "full and mixed bloods."

At par. 9 states "the great majority of the Sioux in Minnesota were of mixed blood, and there was no reliable way to discriminate among people with varying degrees of Indian ancestry"

At par. 10 states that the 1886, 1889 are a starting point for identifying Mdewakanton, but these census rolls may not be definitive. As you continue on it highlights that neither 1886, 1889 roll includes mixed-bloods in the 1890 Act. This is why that he ordered the gov. to provide LD list. "other also indicates that some individuals who were not on the (1886 , 1889) rolls should be eligible" In conclusion of the page. "None of those matters have been addressed in detail by the parties or the court"

The 1886, 1889 census is just a starting point. The 1890 Act open it to the mix-bloods and we have all these doc's and so does the gov. And the finale one who ok's LD is the courts, It is Judge Lettow he is highlighting if you come from the loyal Mdewakanton then you share in the trust for all LD's and not just who is on the 1886 or 1889 census. "

XXX

[tokakte]

Good observation, Peacekeeper! The judge's observation is still "up in the air", and I'm very curious about a Government LD list. They rely heavily on probate info when compiling their genealogies, and if their list is accepted as definitive, most of the names on the current list will be there, but not all. Without going into any detail, I know of people whose names appear on birth certificates who were denied as heirs by the probate judge based on evidence given at the hearing. There are also people who have nothing but probate info, and who will be presented as LD's by the Government list. The 1886 role does contain mixed bloods, but not as mixed bloods. John Frazier was one quarter Scottish, and a close look would probably identify more.
Confusing, isn't it!
Tokakte

[wazi]

I was thinking about that and the McLaughlin Roles. I am also curious to see if the 1917 census is what the gov't submits as its list.

wazi

[magrit]

So how does the Kaardal firm get away with saying that if you're not an LD of someone actually on the Census you cannot be part of the lawsuit? This is what I was told by them, even though my G-grandfather was George Campbell, who was serving in the Union Army at the time of the census. It simply does not compute. I know that you (Jackie) are looking into this, but can you just provide me with a short answer? I am really perplexed as to what their explanation is.

By the by, I am Barbara's sister, Margaret.

[santee1961]

Can someone please help me understand why certain families/family names listed as Mdewanaton Sioux in the history books are denied as LD? I feel that the Government and Kaardahl should go back to the 1862 list of Santee people and get the list PRIOR to the displacement. Also, is Kaardahl the only attorney that everyone is using? Just wondering.

[peacekeeper]

Wow. You all have some very valid questions. Hi Barb's sister, Margaret. First of all, when you talk about lds, it didn't have to be George, even though he was in the Army, fighting for his country, just like my ggggrandfather, Jeremiah aka Jerry aka Pahinsasa. It could have been one of their parents or grandparents. It could have been thier wives, if she was also your ld. So you really need to know the line as far as possible. I received a rejection letter from Kaardal's office, and that does not put my family out of the picture. We hired another lawyer, who has signed a partnership agreement with Mohrman and Kaardal's office. Everyone needs to make decisions based on what they feel their best chances are. There is a deadline fast approaching, and the time is now to do whatever you need to do. As I stated previously there are more ways than one to present your paperwork. Yes, there is Mohrman and Kaardal. You could hire a different lawyer (I highly recommend that if you do this, find someone who is highly trained in Indian Law and has some knowledge of this case). Three, there is a motion that you can file, to present your paperwork to Judge Lettow himself. I highly recommend that you use a lawyer, unless you are highly skilled in the legal field and of course I am not. The bottom line for me is I will keep searching and keep fighting until it is over. I believe in my family and their history. DO NOT GIVE UP!!!


Jackie

[sara]

Why not go by the 1851 Annuity payout for the Mdewakanton, this was a treaty signing year, everyone was listed. Or how about the 1854 Annuity list or the 1858 Annuity list or the 1860 Annuity list?



At least for future enrollment purposes.

[dakotaboi]

Wow. It seems there are several people trying to hinder this process. However, I feel that if we all stand together and help any and all we can, as one we can cancel out those obstacles. Myself, as well as my family, have all been "certified", but it would appear that there is still some issues with my own paperwork. (Even though mine is the same as anyone elses.....) No worries though. I will jump through the hoops. Afterall, I always did enjoy the circus!



--dakotaboi

[mdenney]

you and some of the others have very interesting ideas this can be done so what is the next step we can contract with other firms thinking this is a new idea I hope so why don't we try to over-lap the situation talk to the tribe Santee Neb. I still want to know why they reject meetings there we are members and in our tribal by laws where does it say we can't hold community meetings this would be a community vote ok or did I forget that we are not a tribe? I don't know we need to know the tribes by laws and council standing before we can act on this one I know...they will call on my uncle to run us out or they might try to stand off with us like they did with the gov. on the casino I would hope they would not do this I am a member of this tribe I want some answers.

[sisco]

Margret, I know your line is the Bluestones, well I have a question who was Thomas Robinson's father and mother? If u could help me out on this I would appreciate it. Thank you

[sings]

i seem to remember seeing the name Big Tom somewhere--- would that be the same as Tom Tanka, who was Thomas Robinson--- because i had the same question as to who his parents were? HIs wife was Mary Jane Wakute, or Wigiwin.......
thank you
kit

[sings]

Hi Sara: could you tell me where i can get a list of those annuity payouts that you mentioned earlier?
thanks-
kit

[sara]

I have them.
I think its about $4.00 for each Census for copies.
I have been to Kinkos 3 days straight, I have to go back tomorrow and pick up some poster size foam boards that I am having made up for the Memorial/PowWoW for May.

Sara

[matoakicita]

sara
on the 1854 annuity rolls does it have the names of the children also? ir just head of households. I would also like a copie where do i send my mazaska

thanks les

[santee1961]

As a latecomer, I am trying to catch up on a lot of this info. Forgive me if I sound redundant. In regards to this post and the Judge's decision, I also wonder whose Idea was it that 1886 -1889 was to be the starting point? That seems to be a current decision to start there and seems like a slap in the face for the families who were displaced. I feel history should be taken in account and I also don't feel like you can just "start over" with all the horrible things that happened to the people who were displaced and the horrible, catastrphic events that happened to them.
I also have some questions in regard to whose money was the land in Minnesota purchased with. I can't believe that the financial situation after the Civil War would allow for the purchase of prime farmland with money from the United States government itself. I think that it was more than likely purchased with money set aside and not used for the Indian people themselves. There has been no accountability for the money of the Native People so who would know if it was purchased with our own money that was to have been dispersed to our ancestors?

[hermin1]

personally, I would agree with you. if my memory serves me right, the US govt. published a notice sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's inviting Mdewakantons to return to Minnesota and be given land.In return they had to promise never again to form a tribe, or something to that effect. I do know that in the late 1890's,a census of the Mdewakanton Sioux residing in Minnesota was ordered by the Dept. of Interior /bureau of Indian Affairs, and Special agent Henton conducted it in 1885, according to my copy from the microfilm done on the original census, of the BIA. It was submitted in 1886 by Henton as having been completed in 1886.In 1889 corrections/adjustments were made t include the other settlements. it is these two lists that wolfchild and his co-plaintiffs with their lawyers set as the censuses from which to determine the LD's.
However, the government has produced evidence to the court that these two censuses may not be the ultimate criteria, and one of the censuses which should be included, per memorandum issued by the BIA in 1977, includes the 1917 MCLaughlin Roll which was prepared by McLaughlin of the BIA, to determine who among the Mdewakantons who had been moved out of Minnesota should be given an annuity payment that was withheld from them just prior to the 1862 uprising, for the land now involved in the law suit. Now Kaardal and Buttes are aware of this Roll. What someone needs to do and the court will permit it, is to file a brief to introduce this roll and the background information-including the 1977 Memorandum-to the court for the judge's consideration.
My gut hunch is the Feds don't want it introduced. Neither do the Plaintiffs, cause it means less of a share of the settlement for them.
which mreminds me, the Feds were to have responded to the Judge's order of Dec. 16, 2005, to produce their list of LD's to the court or be prepared t ojustify why they don't have it.any one hear anything about if they did respond or not?

[dakota20]

hermin1 said:

personally, I would agree with you. if my memory serves me right, the US govt. published a notice sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's inviting Mdewakantons to return to Minnesota and be given land.In return they had to promise never again to form a tribe, or something to that effect. I do know that in the late 1890's,a census of the Mdewakanton Sioux residing in Minnesota was ordered by the Dept. of Interior /bureau of Indian Affairs, and Special agent Henton conducted it in 1885, according to my copy from the microfilm done on the original census, of the BIA. It was submitted in 1886 by Henton as having been completed in 1886.In 1889 corrections/adjustments were made t include the other settlements. it is these two lists that wolfchild and his co-plaintiffs with their lawyers set as the censuses from which to determine the LD's.
However, the government has produced evidence to the court that these two censuses may not be the ultimate criteria, and one of the censuses which should be included, per memorandum issued by the BIA in 1977, includes the 1917 MCLaughlin Roll which was prepared by McLaughlin of the BIA, to determine who among the Mdewakantons who had been moved out of Minnesota should be given an annuity payment that was withheld from them just prior to the 1862 uprising, for the land now involved in the law suit. Now Kaardal and Buttes are aware of this Roll. What someone needs to do and the court will permit it, is to file a brief to introduce this roll and the background information-including the 1977 Memorandum-to the court for the judge's consideration.
My gut hunch is the Feds don't want it introduced. Neither do the Plaintiffs, cause it means less of a share of the settlement for them.
which mreminds me, the Feds were to have responded to the Judge's order of Dec. 16, 2005, to produce their list of LD's to the court or be prepared t ojustify why they don't have it.any one hear anything about if they did respond or not?

They have until the end of april. This whole lawsuit is still along way before it is finished.