|
Post by peacekeeper on Aug 1, 2006 0:24:54 GMT -5
no i haven't heard anything yet des. i will let you know as soon as i do.
jackie
|
|
|
Post by redbrother on Aug 5, 2006 0:02:36 GMT -5
According to the 'two' handwritten transcripts of the proceedings of the last appearance in Washington (that were posted here), the Judge 'did' say he would like it if all the lawyers got together and put one case together, that it would be much easier to acknowledge. Not so much in those words, but that is exatly the way I took it. I think it is going to have' to be a group thing, always thought so, and it looks as if the Judge is going to make that effort, so I think it's safe to say that we are 'partially' back. We all just have to keep on searching for as much information, on our lineages, as we can, to make our own cases as solid as possible. If this is the way things are going to go, I think it makes a lot more sense and gives everyone an opportunity, so don't waste any time, or whatever time and resourses you can find. LOL!!! That is what I was thinking as well. I am wanting to know what drawbacks there would be to this if any. What reasons an attorney might have to not, I cant imagine. Yeah, maybe then we can finally drop the 'loyal Mdewakaton' label.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Sept 11, 2006 13:05:16 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me if it is the 1909 or the 1917 McLaughlin census that Mr. Montana is trying to get approved. Thanks for all your help and hope someone will tell me which or both are trying to be approved by the judge
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Sept 11, 2006 14:52:20 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me if it is the 1909 or the 1917 McLaughlin census that Mr. Montana is trying to get approved. Thanks for all your help and hope someone will tell me which or both are trying to be approved by the judge It is my understanding that the 1917 McLaughlin Roll is only viewed as supporting evidence that ones ancestors might be considered as beneficiaries. I think that it was said that if you find your ancestor on the 1917 Roll, you should search further back to see who they descend from and what part they play in the events on 1862 and the loyal or friendly sioux who were the people the appropriation acts where intended for. I think it is important to see where your ancestor was in the period of time following the 1863 removal act and if they lived in the state of minnesota and if they were mdewakanton. Tamara
|
|
|
Post by natfam on Sept 12, 2006 0:41:22 GMT -5
hello, after reading the transcript of the july 18 hearing and the presentation of Fran Felix, a non lawyer, the judge stated anyone who wanted their family lineage included or revisited ( after being turned down by the "lawyers") to send their information to his office in washington with all their information connection to the scouts or whatever the connection is , I will get the address to his washington address to Jackie to post. this was given to me when I called as to where to send our information and a darn good reason why you are so late getting it in,. the judge said get it in as soon as possible so we sent ours in to him.
|
|
|
Post by watash on Sept 12, 2006 0:50:37 GMT -5
What "Lawyers" are you referring to and are you trying to link up somehow other than the 1886 and 1889 census'. Should everyone who was denied by Morman and Kaardal submit straight to the Judge?
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Sept 12, 2006 1:17:16 GMT -5
hmmm... very interesting and as Mr Felix is an attorney who has already file a motion to intervene, I wouldnt have the same concerns as i would with a new litigator wanting to address the court. What group is Mr Felix currently representing?
I wasnt aware that anyone could submit directly to the court... seems like you would need to have representation or have filed to the court to represent yourself...
Tamara
|
|