Lower Sioux letter[s]

[cashmoney]

Hello fellow Oyate O'Dakota'z. Over on the forum there is a letter from Lower Sioux posted on there. At first I didnt believe that this was a real letter untill I called my uncle who lives there and said that everybody has gotten this letter and will be printed in the news newsletter . He said that Sheldon needs to do some "damage controll" because I guess this letter and effected some members minds to a certain degree. I know these are the judges words because I have read these in the massive amount of documents we have generated thus far. There are some things we must discuss. I know the other people ( unknown author,Carl Leath, Wigwam etc) have all brused these words from the judge as insignificant but in reality they are very significant because these are the actual words from the Judge of our case and if you think these words are made up look throu the judges ruleings and find them there. I know all of our own interpetations of these words differ. A fine example of this is read the other forum. Who ever wrote this letter did a "good" job at getting all of the facts that could be negative towards our cause.




In the Judge's own words
Some of the plaintiffs suggest that the lawsuit is over and that they have won. This is not true. First, any final decision can be appealed as a matter of right. As of March 1, there is no final decision. How do we know? Judge Lettow says so. In the Judge's own words, there are many important issues left to decide. What follows are direct quotes from the decisions of the Honorable Judge Lettow in the lawsuit.
Judge Lettow wrote: The facts set forth do not constitute [/b[findings of fact by the court.
What does this mean? Other than on the issue that a trust was created by the congress in 1888, 1889 and 1890 and the federal government breached that trust, the court has not adopted the facts as alleged by plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs cannot claim their version of the facts as truth.
Judge Lettow wrote, At this early stage of the case plaintiffs rest on allegations that they are Lineal Descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton. Future proceedings will be held to determine whether plaintiffs satisfy their burden of proof on this factual issue.
What does this mean? It means the Court has not decided whether any plaintiff traces back to the 1886 census or whether they are in fact a trust beneficiary. All plaintiffs still must prove before some objective finder of fact that he or she traces ancestry back to the 1886 rolls and can otherwise qualify as a trust beneficiary. At this time no one plaintiff is guarenteed any damages award.
Judge Lettow wrote, The record is incomplete as to the extent of the breach by the government of its fidiciary duties.
What does this mean? The court has made no determination how badly the US breached its duties under the trust. The fact that the government authorized the Mdewakanton to organize tribal governments under the Indian Reorganization Act may minimize the breach to almost nothing. Remember the Mdewakanton who benefited under the Appropriation Acts were allowed to do so only if they had severed their tribal relations. If the purposes of the Appropriation Acts were fulfilled there never would have been organized tribal governments. Without an organized tribal government there would be no economic deveoptment in the form of Indian Gaming as we know it today.
Judge Lettow wrote: No accounting has been rendered. No inventory of funds and lands consituting the corpus has been made....
What does this mean? The court has not determined what is in the trust. Does the trust consist onlly of the so-called 1886 lands? Does it only include the $60,000 the federal government held in the 70's that the documents suggest are attributable to the 86 lands? The major gaming facilities of the three federally recognized tribal governments do not sit on 86 lands. The court has not determined whether the Casinos and gaming revenues are part of the trust. If anyone says that the lands belong to the plaintiffs, those statements are premature and not supported by the facts of the case.
Judge Lettow wrote: Plaintiffs who belong to a communitymay have received benefits. Because plaintiffs include members of each of the three communities as well as non members, individual plaintiffs may differ insofar as they have suffered injury from the breach.
What does this mean? The court has not determined how much damage any individual plaintiff may have suffered. The court suggests that there will need to be a damage assessment for each individual. Sheldon Wolfchild is a member of Lowe Sioux. He has received per capita payments. According to the judge he may have already received benefits under the so-called trust. Therefore he may be entitled to nothing under his own lawsuit.
Judge Lettow wrote: Entry of partial summary judgement in favor of plaintiffs thus does not extend beyond a conclusion that the government has as a general matter breached its fidiciary duties under the trust created for the Loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants.
What does this mean? The court was careful to limit the effect of its Oct. 27 2004 decision. The court is saying there are many more issues that it must consider and decide. Suggestions that the plaintiffs own the 86 lands, tribal government, casinos and gaming revenues do not follow what the judge says in his decision.
Judge Lettow wrote, Approximately 1,120 seperately named persons have joined this action as plaintiffs. Each such plaintiff claims to be a lineal descendant of a loyal Mdewakanton.
What does this mean? The judge appropriately indicates that the plaintiffs claim to be lineal descendants. The judge's continued use of the word claims indicates the court has yet to make a determination whether the plaintiffs are trust beneficiaries.
Judge Lettow wrote: The government has also stated it's position that individuals who had joined a tribe other than the three Mdewakanton communities would not be eligible because they do not meet the criteria for severing their tribal relations. Similarily, someone whose parents were members of a different tribe would not meet the criteria either. None of those matters have been addressed in detail by the parties or the court.
What does this mean? The judge indicates that it may be an issue if a person who claims to be a lineal descendant is also enrolled in another tribe. He indicates this type of situation will be addressed. It is reported that Barbara Buttes is enrolled with the Yankton Sioux Tribe. The federal government takes the position that her enrollment with Yankton makes her ineligible to benefit as a Mdewakanton. The judge indicates that this is a question that will need to be addressed.

[mdenney]

Oh my god! cashmoney you are right on this subject you submitted. This has and will make some cry, but let us go off track a little here. I am santee and so are some others. Ok, now since our ancestors were driven out and still carrying the santee title, how does that fit our criteria? I am under the impression that the GOV is digging up information to counter attack the case! I think they are reciting the 1888 ruling, but implementing in their own words to intentionally play with our minds, indeed there is questions needing to be answered here. This judge can say what he wants but the facts are in the documentation that was ruled in 1888.

The facts set forth do not constitute [/b[findings of fact by the court.
What does this mean? Other than on the issue that a trust was created by the congress in 1888, 1889 and 1890 and the federal government breached that trust, the court has not adopted the facts as alleged by plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs cannot claim their version of the facts as truth.
Judge Lettow wrote, At this early stage of the case

What is going on?

thanks for the help cashmoney.

[tokakte]

Most of you know my views on this partial sumary judgement. First, it was a significant victory, because without it, the ball game would be all over. However, the judge has yet to enter his final judgement, and can't do this until until the issues raised in Judge Lettow's statement are decided. The decision of this court is appealable to the First Circuit Court of Appeals,in Wash. D.C., and we should be ready for that.
Having said that, I am more optimistic about the outcome than I was a few months ago. Until the Wind River Shoshonees and Arapahoes won their recent case and had the decision upheld by the First Circuit, and then saw the Supreme Court refuse to hear the Gov's appeal, I was apprehensive about our chances because I've seen several breach of trust cases lose on appeal, even though they had a great set of facts. The government had commited some outrageous acts and then had been caught perjuring themselves, but the Supreme Court had ruled against the tribes on either technical grounds or with some utterly astonishing interpretation of the facts. The Wind River case showed me that with a good case and with good lawyers, we could win; and I believe we have both.
But we haven't won yet. What I said before about the Dept. of Justice lawyers being stubborn, determined, and well paid by the US taxpayers still holds.
I am an optimist, and I'll always hope for the best, but I really do believe we have a chance, and maybe a good chance, of winning.
Tokakte

[mdenney]

Hmmm, you are pretty good.

[mdenney]

!?

[mdenney]

I mean if my ancesters were santee, and lets say you are Medewakanton...that would mean that we as santee over yonder still have a chance to get the certification? I know I seen Jeremiah Campbell on the Medewakanton list.

[santee1961]

admin said:

I mean if my ancesters were santee, and lets say you are Medewakanton...that would mean that we as santee over yonder still have a chance to get the certification? I know I seen Jeremiah Campbell on the Medewakanton list.

[hermin1]

cashmoney. I would very much like to see this alleged letter you mentioned, posted here so we canalllook at it anddetermine if we cometo the same conclusions you have arrived at.

[mdenney]

Is this the stuff we are on?

Click here:www.mklaw.com/pdfs/007.pdf

[santee1961]

Hello,
It's getting interesting. I am certainly not an expert but there have been several points of the Judge's decision that the attorney's are deliberatly ignoring. One point in particular should be of considerable importance to all the Santee people. In his decision there is mention of the lineal descendants of the 1862 census. I have talked with several atty's about this particular point of Judge Lettow's decision and every one of them has told me that this point that WILL NEVER be considered and thenthey have proceeded to put an entirely different spin on this point of the Judge's decision. I have also been told (repeatedly) that only the LD's of the 1886 census are the only Santee who will be considered for any judgement or payment that will be made at the outcome of the Wolfchild case. Obviously my interest in this is I would like to qualify. My family is in the same boat as several others with Santee heritage out there. We are trying to chase down family trees, mainly on the womens side as we do not know as much about their history and are busy translating names, looking through archives, etc. Through my dialogue with numerous attys., doing research. exchanging information through forums ssuch as this and attending mtgs. I can't help forming an opinion. I feel there are two sides out there. One side does not want the possiblity of any more people qualifying than what was predetermined at the beginning of this case. At the onset of any case all attorneys compile a risk analysis to present to their clients to let them know a best and a worst scenario. They do their homework and I can't help but feel that the plaintiffs were told at the very least an approximate amount regarding how many lineal decendants there would be so they would have an idea how big or little their slice of the pie was going to be. The other side does not want to stop their lucrative lifestyle and they don't want their slice of the pie disturbed at all and want to keep things as status quo. I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to disrupt the lifestyle that the members at Shakopee have come to expect presently or in the future. The Judge still has the final say but what if he decides that the descendants of the 1862 census were eligible? If there is not an atty willing to explore Judge Lettow's statement then we will never know if the 1862 descendants could be eligible. There are two additional families who have filed independantly of the Wolfchild plaintiff's but I don't know on what basis they filed or the atty's involved. The last two atty's I talked with wouldn't even discuss these other filings.

[cashmoney]

Yes as we all know the other social club is pretty strict on what information gets posted on their board but we should expect that from some of them. Some of the posters are so immature you would think that they are 15 years old or something. The letter from Lower Sioux is posted on my first post here. I guess more of this kind of information is comming out. Its hard to get really excited like 99% of the people on the other social club because there are alot of things to sort out and to have ruled on. The newest stuff to come from the lawyer is just a request on the LD's side to have the other communities brought into the suit as defendants but that is going to take some time as they will put up a fight and we still have to see if this court has that kind of autority to do that . Just be very careful what you read on the other board. Alot of them are jumping the gun way too fast.


"Issues not yet decided in Wolfchild vs United States:
In the Judge's own words
Some of the plaintiffs suggest that the lawsuit is
over and that they have won. This is not true. First,
any final decision can be appealed as a matter of
right. As of March 1, there is no final decision. How
do we know? Judge Lettow says so. In the Judge's own
words, there are many important issues left to decide.
What follows are direct quotes from the decisions of
the Honorable Judge Lettow in the lawsuit.
Judge Lettow wrote: The facts set forth do not
constitute findings of fact by the court.
What does this mean? Other than on the issue that a
trust was created by the congress in 1888, 1889 and
1890 and the federal government breached that trust,
the court has not adopted the facts as alleged by
plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs cannot claim their
version of the facts as truth.
Judge Lettow wrote, At this early stage of the case
plaintiffs rest on allegations that they are Lineal
Descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton. Future
proceedings will be held to determine whether
plaintiffs satisfy their burden of proof on this
factual issue.
What does this mean? It means the Court has not
decided whether any plaintiff traces back to the 1886
census or whether they are in fact a trust
beneficiary. All plaintiffs still must prove before
some objective finder of fact that he or she traces
ancestry back to the 1886 rolls and can otherwise
qualify as a trust beneficiary. At this time no one
plaintiff is guarenteed any damages award.
Judge Lettow wrote, The record is incomplete as to the
extent of the breach by the government of its
fidiciary duties.
What does this mean? The court has made no
determination how badly the US breached its duties
under the trust. The fact that the government
authorized the Mdewakanton to organize tribal
governments under the Indian Reorganization Act may
minimize the breach to almost nothing. Remember the
Mdewakanton who benefited under the Appropriation Acts
were allowed to do so only if they had severed their
tribal relations. If the purposes of the Appropriation
Acts were fulfilled there never would have been
organized tribal governments. Without an organized
tribal government there would be no economic
deveoptment in the form of Indian Gaming as we know it
today.
Judge Lettow wrote: No accounting has been rendered.
No inventory of funds and lands consituting the corpus
has been made....
What does this mean? The court has not determined what
is in the trust. Does the trust consist onlly of the
so-called 1886 lands? Does it only include the $60,000
the federal government held in the 70's that the
documents suggest are attributable to the 86 lands?
The major gaming facilities of the three federally
recognized tribal governments do not sit on 86 lands.
The court has not determined whether the Casinos and
gaming revenues are part of the trust. If anyone says
that the lands belong to the plaintiffs, those
statements are premature and not supported by the
facts of the case.
Judge Lettow wrote: Plaintiffs who belong to a
communitymay have received benefits. Because
plaintiffs include members of each of the three
communities as well as non members, individual
plaintiffs may differ insofar as they have suffered
injury from the breach.
What does this mean? The court has not determined how
much damage any individual plaintiff may have
suffered. The court suggests that there will need to
be a damage assessment for each individual. Sheldon
Wolfchild is a member of Lowe Sioux. He has received
per capita payments. According to the judge he may
have already received benefits under the so-called
trust. Therefore he may be entitled to nothing under
his own lawsuit.
Judge Lettow wrote: Entry of partial summary judgement
in favor of plaintiffs thus does not extend beyond a
conclusion that the government has as a general matter
breached its fidiciary duties under the trust created
for the Loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal
descendants.
What does this mean? The court was careful to limit
the effect of its Oct. 27 2004 decision. The court is
saying there are many more issues that it must
consider and decide. Suggestions that the plaintiffs
own the 86 lands, tribal government, casinos and
gaming revenues do not follow what the judge says in
his decision.
Judge Lettow wrote, Approximately 1,120 seperately
named persons have joined this action as plaintiffs.
Each such plaintiff claims to be a lineal descendant
of a loyal Mdewakanton.
What does this mean? The judge appropriately indicates
that the plaintiffs claim to be lineal descendants.
The judge's continued use of the word claims indicates
the court has yet to make a determination whether the
plaintiffs are trust beneficiaries.
Judge Lettow wrote: The government has also stated
it's position that individuals who had joined a tribe
other than the three Mdewakanton communities would not
be eligible because they do not meet the criteria for
severing their tribal relations. Similarily, someone
whose parents were members of a different tribe would
not meet the criteria either. None of those matters
have been addressed in detail by the parties or the
court.
What does this mean? The judge indicates that it may
be an issue if a person who claims to be a lineal
descendant is also enrolled in another tribe. He
indicates this type of situation will be addressed. It
is reported that Barbara Buttes is enrolled with the
Yankton Sioux Tribe. The federal government takes the
position that her enrollment with Yankton makes her
ineligible to benefit as a Mdewakanton. The judge
indicates that this is a question that will need to be
addressed."

[sara]

Another point that has never been brought up is if the persons on the 1886 are Mdewakanton. Some may have been Sisseton ,Wahpeton. Like Buttes and Wolfchilds Grandfather John Bluestone, he is not on the 1851 Mdewakanton AnnuityCensus(Treaty Signing Annuity) or his father. They were not loyalists either, no one was a Loyalist. There was no government there at the time of the outbreak to pledge loyalty too. After the troops arrived some signed on as paid Scouts to hunt down dakota who had fled or taken part in killings.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with Loyalist or full blood Mdewakanton , that just looked good for the lawsuit.
I talked with Attorneys from both sides, they also said it has nothing to do with Full blood Mdewakanton or Loyalists, this is made up by Wolfchild and Buttes.
Just the facts.

[tamara]

You make a very strong and clear point on the issue of them being called Loyalist. by loyalist, i am referring to the standard set by the non indian side of the events. on the indian side of events there are many people that are considered gulity of involvement but of very little other than (according to Riggs and Williamson in 1874 Word Carrier) going along with the excitement of the time. I have a very hard time considering Untomiska as a loyalist and as they often refer to History of the santee by myers, in it says that Hinman was accused of prejudice against Wakeman for religious reasons and Hinman responded that he was not giving him benefits as others recieved because he "was hostile" in 1862. I just cant get my simple mind around that..

[tokakte]

This whole thing about who was actually "loyalist" and who was guilty of atrocities was badly muddled at the time when witnesses like Joseph Godfrey testified against many who were nowhere near the fighting in exchange for his own life. He was one one of the most cruel of any of the rebels. Even without his tainted testimony, it was a kangaroo court and little more than a legal lynching. John Frazier was Joseph"Jack"Frazier's son. Jack was a true loyalist, but he is not on the 86 role..he died in '67. John was a headman in Wacouta's band, and as near as I know, was confined at Ft. Snelling and was removed to Crow Creek and Santee, but was never tried. Wacouta's band helped settlers as a matter of principle, but many of them were condemned to hang or to be imprisoned, although they took no part in the fighting. Most actually qualified as "loyalist". My point is that mere presence on the 86 role does not prove loyalist sentiment any more than conviction by that drum head court martial proves they were guilty of any atrocities. There are probably those who fought but who merely became homesick and migrated back to MN, particularly when things were so tough at Santee. It seems that the test of loyalty as presented in this lawsuit is merely being in MN in 1886 regardless of what you did in 1862.
Tokakte

[terry]

sara said:

Another point that has never been brought up is if the persons on the 1886 are Mdewakanton. Some may have been Sisseton ,Wahpeton. Like Buttes and Wolfchilds Grandfather John Bluestone, he is not on the 1851 Mdewakanton AnnuityCensus(Treaty Signing Annuity) or his father. They were not loyalists either, no one was a Loyalist. There was no government there at the time of the outbreak to pledge loyalty too. After the troops arrived some signed on as paid Scouts to hunt down dakota who had fled or taken part in killings.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with Loyalist or full blood Mdewakanton , that just looked good for the lawsuit.
I talked with Attorneys from both sides, they also said it has nothing to do with Full blood Mdewakanton or Loyalists, this is made up by Wolfchild and Buttes.
Just the facts.

Do you honestly think that Sheldon and Barbra made this up? Get a grip sara

[sara]

Show us the documentation,
show us the Gov correspondence in 1862 and 1863 that lists loyalists. Show us any list that lists Full blood Loyalist'.

I have spoken to Eric before and he admitted there was no actual list that they had, he said " The 1886
list was basically the same as the loyalists ".

Spoke to Attorney for Government . He said, "1886 Census is not a loyalist list and loyalist has nothing to do with the lawsuit of missmanaged trust."

What am I suppose to think then??
It is B.S.


If you have read Through Dakota Eyes or tesimony in the court cases done in 1862 you would notice many who helped Metis and whites, were still convicted and sentenced to be hung, and then sent to Davenport. And not for there safety either.

I am sorry you have been misslead in thinking they are all Loyalists.
I have been researching the Mdewakanton at the Santee Agency and the Prisons and the Conflict for almost 18 years now. That is reading the original records not studying white historys interpertation.

Don't tell me to get a grip. Especially since I have given up fat and sugar in my diet. ROAR!!!!!
But have a nice day, if I am ever proven wrong with some original documentation on Loyalists I will gladly appoligize.
I appoligize now for my spelling.
Sara

[tamara]

tokakte
amazing as I have in front of me volume II of a history of minnesota page 252

"a census dated Decmeber 2, 1862, showed a total poplulation of 1,601. It included 112 loyal half-breeds belonging mostly to families who had locted their half-breed scip on the upper Minnesota and had established homes on the lands. the Freniere, Faribault, Laframboise, robertson, and Renville families were represented. Their homes desolated, they could do nothing but follow their Indian relatives and share their rations as they were allowed to do. There were a few other half-breeds, among them were Jean jacquez frazer and Charles Crawford, who were reserved for scout service in a future expected campaign. "

I have been studying the Sisseton vs the US court of claims or claims of the sioux, and a great deal of the testimony was used in the book Through Dakota Eyes. Sara, do you have a copy of it? I am sure by now you have read it. The gentleman who gave the access to copy it, said that it was hard (for him) to come by. It is lengthy but very informative. In it they clearly state that they feel a list should be made and then in closing state that there is none and that it would be impossible to do so individually. This is the early 1900's when they have first hand knowledge and testimony. I really am not trying to make and issue of it, but simply feel that it doesnt hurt to acknowledge "the facts". Good luck with the no fat no sugar thing, sara!

Tamara

[sara]

Hi Tamara,

I am looking for a full blood loyalist list. Like the one stated in the lawsuit.

I think alot of those Metis loyalist's at Fort Snelling in Dec 1862 were Sisseton Wahpeton, or became members of the Sisseton Wahpeton Band after.
There were 2 or 3 Freniers who died at Camp McClellan, also there was a Faribault at Camp McClellan, David Faribault. he wrote alot of letters at Camp McClellan for other prisoners.

I have a list of Dakota that did not fire during the Conflict. I will post that later when I get home.

Remind me not to post in the early morning when I have not gotten but an hour of sleep, I get a little up tight. Sorry.
Sara

[tamara]

I havent searched for such list yet but do you think Gary Anderson might know where to find it? Here is his bio page. www.ou.edu/cas/history/faculty_bio_anderson.html
The reason I even suggest such an idea it that I was very pleasantly surprised to get a timely response from Mark Diedrich another historican. (on another project) this type of thing certainly is his expertise. Seems to me most people I ask about a loyalist list give me the census list...
Tamara

[sara]

I have talked to Mark Diedrich . He wrote a book on Chief Red Wing and used a copy of a photo of Red Wings document, this document resides with our Uncle, family and Mark did not have permission to use it. He also did not have answers to several of my questions about Red Wing/ Wacouta.
I did talk to Mr Anderson last summer, he was vague and did not have time to talk. I learned nothing from either one of them, but they learned a few things from me.
Go figure.
Sara