Informal notes from the July 18th hearing

[tonya]

I was at the court hearing with my wife and son. We were also in attendance with two of my wife’s recently discovered relatives who are fast becoming good friends. In the hearing I did take notes. 17 small pages in all. A few people have asked me to type out my notes. I am very reluctant to do this due for several reasons. I started taking these notes for my own understanding. My biggest fear has to do with the possibility that others may think that these notes are fact. While these notes are not fact it should be mentioned that in some cases it was hard to separate my opinion. Another concern is that most, if not all, of the people reading these notes have a much better understanding of this case than I. To a certain degree this may be an asset. I do not completely understand this case and I really believe that the fact that I know very few people involved and have never read this forum before might enable me to give a different perspective than some.

The only thing that I would stress is that I am sure that some of my notes are wrong and when creating ones own perspective I would hope that all opinions and perspectives are heard. Then with all of the information at hand one makes up their own mind.

At one time after the hearing three of us were discussing an issue that took place in the courtroom and all three of us had a different opinion. At times it appeared confusing to the judge and attorneys in the courtroom. It is crucial to consult the attorneys and experts involved in this to get a good understanding. In saying all of this I will now humbly attempt to transcribe my notes.

In arriving at the courthouse I was surprised that the building was brick and there were very few people walking around. Although brick, the building was beautiful and a good amount of security greeted one as we entered the courthouse. As the people did arrive it appeared that all were very friendly. Before entering Sheldon Wolfchild came over and spoke to us and even took a picture with a few of the attendees. I really knew very few of the people in attendance, but received several handshakes and many smiles and greetings.

In the actual room it said United State Court of Federal Appeals behind the judges chair. The hearing was set to begin at 10:00 a.m. To me the room seemed very small. There were two rows of four benches with each bench holding about five or six people. Eric Kaardal came back and spoke to a few of us. I commented on how small the room was and he said it was the largest room they had. I believe it could hold 50 people including attorneys. He went on to explain that usually this court handles suits where a large contractor with the government goes belly up and the sub contractors want to all get their money. The judge then decides how to split the money up. Eric went on to say that usually there is no one watching the proceeding.

As the attorneys walked in it appeared to me that they sat at no particular position at the plaintiff’s table. Which was to my right. A few attorneys even sat in the gallery with us. One of these was Mr. Montana who eventually joined the other attorneys at the plaintiff table. The attorneys at the table were Kaardal, Mohrman, Doug Kettering, Sam Keteringer, Gary Montana, Kelly ?, ?Thompson, Eric Magnuson. There was one US attorney by the name of Longstrenth (sp) sitting all by himself. He appeared to me to be between 27 and 32 years of age.

Judge Lettow came in at 10:00 am sharp and was very pleasant and had a smile. Due to my line of work I am in courtrooms on the district level on a very regular basis. From the beginning I was very surprised at how courteous and polite the judge was. On more than one occasion the judge explained that there were “case management” issues and he was appreciative of everyone’s patience.

I would say that only once did I feel that he was short with anyone and that was when the attorney for the two people from the Lower Sioux attempted to intercede. The attorney said, “Judge I do want to interrupt but…” at that point the judge then said “good don’t”. Other than this statement I felt that the judge gave all involved a lot of leeway and very patiently waited for them to finish. He eventually did come back to that attorney that he had cut off. He even appeared patient when the teleconference would not work correctly.

When he started he let each attorney introduce himself or herself and state one name by which there parties would be known. A few times there was confusion as to was on the phone and other times who he thought was on the phone was disconnected. It is my experience that there is nothing that frustrates judges more than this, but he just kept working through it.

There were also two people present who appeared to be court reporters. When one person on the phone explained that she was representing herself and her family the Judge went on to explain that an individual can represent themselves and their family. He was very patience with this individual.

The judge then explained that there were five sets of issues. The first issue was the current number of people involved. The judge then asked Eric to present. When the presenting attorney would present they would get up and approach the podium with a microphone. Eric reported that they had over 6500 hundred lineal descendents. The judge mentioned the Tucker Act and asked Eric specifically how many people he had. Eric was unable to answer. The judge then informed him that he needed to know this. Later Eric informed the judge that there was 6553.

The judge informed the attorneys that he did not receive all of his submitted briefs due to them not being filed the way the clerk of courts requires them to be filed. The US attorney then did not oppose these numbers. The judge informed them that the government would have to work with the council to set up a procedure that would be acceptable.

The second issue was the Cermack issue. Mr. Shapiro was representing. The judge attempted to summarize this issue. One Mr. Cermack brought a claim that says this is part of an administrative act, which was transferred by the 8th circuit court. The attorney argued that the Indian Trust Accounting enables this trust to go forward. The judge then responded that the court has a problem with the “right of heir ship” that means that land does not automatically pass from one person to another. I think the issue was whether this land would pass from one relative to another even after the one relative was dead. I am not real clear on this. It did appear to me that the judge was not buying Shapiro’s argument.

The third issue was where the judge spoke of interventions. This is where the judge reported that he received many sets of interventions in which the clerks found many defects in the interventions. I guess this means they were not file correctly. It almost appeared that he was addressing this to Eric for Eric was standing at the time. Eric then said that they have agreed on their trust beneficiaries and reported that there were some entities that did not agree with his criteria. He went on to say that he welcomed all of these entities to the table because this would add to the process for establishing criteria.

Eric then said that many people should have been allowed to be part of Shakopee. This goes back to 1969 when the government realized that they should not have allowed Shakopee to form.

Eric stressed that there are two issues. Was it wrong for Shakopee to form and two who are the lineal descendents? The judge then agreed and reminded Eric that that is the function of that court.

All of the attorneys spoke of whom they represented and which group did they fell into. The first group is the group of people who link up to the 86, and 89 censes. The second group is a group that are attempting to prove they are lineal descendent through other means then the 86 and 89 census.

The government then spoke and said that he did not oppose any of these motions other than the Felix issue. He said they were not in Minnesota and not in route. This was the case where the lady was representing herself and her family. It was at this point where the judge asked to hear from all of the parties. When all were done speaking as to why they should be considered a lineal descendent the judge reported that he hoped that some of the plaintiff’s would get together so he would not have to have 30 briefs. He went on to say that there might be a distinct possibility that the court will ask that the parties would join.

At this point the attorney for the Lower Sioux Tribe spoke. Mr. Magnusson said that he speaks for the Lower Sioux and the Lower Sioux wants to join the suit. He said that after 1980 the tribe has had an active role in the land. He cited the Parrot (sp) Case as precedent. Judge then clarifies that the Lower Sioux have taken and possessed the 1886 land. The US attorney then claims that they are a trust of the land. The judge then replies that the tribes might be the US’s trusties over the land. Government responds that there is no such trust. The judge then corrected the US attorney once again.

Eric then speaks and says Lower Sioux are the most open of the three tribes to enrollment.

Magnusson then cites the Parrot (sp) case and says there is an article 3 standing and that some property is part of trust land and some is not.

The fourth issue is the issue of summons. Eric wants to summons the people of Prairie Island and Shakopee. This summons would notify people of the hearings and to become party to the suit, it so qualified. The judge appeared to be not too excited about this prospect. They debated for some time and the judge responded more than once as to how could these two communities not know of the hearings. Eric said that there were over 10,000 interveners, 200 and some Shakopee’s, 200 and some Prairie Island members and 360 Lower Sioux. Eric again spoke of his two-step process and the breach in 1980.

At this point it was then mentioned twice that the power of this court is to appoint moneys and this would be done in art by establishing governments interest after 1890 and the 1980 acts.

To me it then appeared to come out of nowhere when the judge reported that the court had serious doubts that the three tribes have sovereignty. This was in part because the people had to sever their relationship with their original tribes. It appeared that the judge was looking for a place to fit this comment in at.

It was then spoke about the issue of some people not being a part of the lawsuit. It was explained that these people are not automatically out of the suit, but they will have to show good cause as to why they are not a part of the suit. Eric continued to argue that they should serve notice. The US attorney reported that notice should not be served. He went on to start to speak about money and settlement and the judge admonished him about getting ahead of himself. The judge then said he would take it under consideration.

The last issue was the attorney for the two Lower Sioux members who wanted to file a brief in order to terminate Lower Sioux’s standing within the case. The attorney informed the judge that it was his understanding that he was unable to file any briefs. The judge then corrected him and apologized if the attorney read his ruling wrong. Magnusson then spoke that these two people have no more right then anyone else to file a brief and if the judge lets then do it then many other briefs will be filed in the future. Even through these two members are council members the community already elected their council in a hotly contested election. It was my opinion that Magnusson said that these two people couldn’t represent the tribe.

US attorney would not endorse either way. Judge then said he would allow their brief by July 28th. Eric and Magnusson would have until August 4th and the two individuals attorney would reply by August 9th. Then the court would decide. The judge then informed this attorney for the two that Lower Sioux politics should not be involved in what he files. He has to file this for the two as individuals. The judge asked him if he understood and he very hesitantly responded “yes”.

The John Doe names were then talked about and the judge explained that he would not release those names as of yet.

Mr. Montana responded that if the interveners are not part of the suit then Eric’s people are not part of the suit. The judge then correct Montana and informed him that the court granted Erick those powers and his people are part of the suit. I believe the people that were previously filed on in the 1st and 2nd compliant. While I am sure that I am not explaining this very well I am sure that the judge corrected Montana and informed him that Erick’s people are party of the suit.

As I wrap this up I would like to again apologize for any errors that you have noticed. I am not spending a lot of time with grammar and spelling, please excuse. Unfortunately I do not have real good notes of the many attorneys who spoke other than Longsweath, Magnusen and Kaardals. In part this is because they spoke more and were called upon more often by the judge. It seemed that the US attorney was corrected and almost mentored along during the hearing. Other than when he argued the “notice” issue Eric was very proficient and it appears that the judge relied upon him. Magnusson made the judge and courtroom laugh on more than one occasion. It was very apparent that he was very skilled. Of the other attorneys Montana probably spoke the most. It did not seem to me that he had quit the understanding of some of the attorneys but the judge gave him a lot of leeway. It appeared that he was the only attorney who was Native American and he referred to his ancestry on an occasion or two. It seemed that the judge appreciated him. I hope this helps and not add to any confusion. I wish all of the people on this forum the best.

Thanks,
Will

[tonya]

I ment to say the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Sorry,

Will

[denney]

Thankyou for taking the time to lets us know what You and Your Wife and Son seen and heard . And I thankyou again.

Denney

[tamara]

Thank you so much for your efforts to further our understanding. Your concern as to accuracy and perception is appreciated. I cant tell you how much it means for many of us to be given the type of details you have shared, and the fact that you would take the time to share this information for anyone persons interested in the lawsuit is very admirable. Thank you and your family.

Tamara

[BIG JON]

THE SHORT VERSION:


The Judge went on to explain that an individual can represent themselves and their family.

The Judge then explained that there were five issues.

1. The current number of people involved.--Eric reported-6553--The Judge informed them that the government would have to work with the council to set up a procedure that would be acceptable.

2. The Cermack issue--the court has a problem with the “right of heir ship”(inheriting land held in trust)

3. the judge spoke of interventions.--this would add to the process for establishing criteria-- some interventions were not filed correctly---He went on to say that there might be a distinct possibility that the court will ask that the parties would join(together).

4. the issue of summons.--Eric wants to summons the people of Prairie Island and Shakopee.--the judge responded more than once as to how could these two communities not know of the hearings.(!!?)

-about the issue of some people not being a part of the lawsuit.It was explained that these people are not automatically out of the suit, but they will have to show good cause as to why they are not a part of the suit.

5. the attorney for the two Lower Sioux members who wanted to terminate Lower Sioux’s standing within the case---Judge then said he would allow their brief by July 28th--Eric and Magnusson would have until August 4th---the two individuals attorney would reply by August 9th.---Lower Sioux politics should not be involved in what he files.

-Erick’s people are party(plaintiffs)of the suit.

[wazi]

Thanks Tonya and Will,

Glad the trip went well....

wazi

[peacekeeper]

Tonya, Will, and Big Jon,
First- I want to say Thank You from all of us who were unable to attend. I am sure that your diligence is greatly appreciated by the majority of the people on the website.
Second- After reading all of your notes, I have to say I couldn't have even come to close to your documentation. It was very detailed and written in a way that made is easy for us to understand what took place in Washington, D.C..
THANK YOU FROM ALL OF US!!!!!

Jackie

[tonya]

As I was sitting there, listening to the attorneys going through the families they represent like Jackie, Dawn, Wazi, Trudells, Henrys, Oldmans, Tuttles and so many more....it was special in that I could appreciate all the efforts that all families that have filed motions to intervene. I think that they estimated 10,000 people have filed motions to intervene. It was one of most powerful moments for me sitting there.

It seems the judge wants everyone that can be included to be included, which is great.
Tonya

[redbrother]

tonya said:

I was at the court hearing with my wife and son. We were also in attendance with two of my wife’s recently discovered relatives who are fast becoming good friends. In the hearing I did take notes. 17 small pages in all. A few people have asked me to type out my notes. I am very reluctant to do this due for several reasons. I started taking these notes for my own understanding. My biggest fear has to do with the possibility that others may think that these notes are fact. While these notes are not fact it should be mentioned that in some cases it was hard to separate my opinion. Another concern is that most, if not all, of the people reading these notes have a much better understanding of this case than I. To a certain degree this may be an asset. I do not completely understand this case and I really believe that the fact that I know very few people involved and have never read this forum before might enable me to give a different perspective than some.

The only thing that I would stress is that I am sure that some of my notes are wrong and when creating ones own perspective I would hope that all opinions and perspectives are heard. Then with all of the information at hand one makes up their own mind.

At one time after the hearing three of us were discussing an issue that took place in the courtroom and all three of us had a different opinion. At times it appeared confusing to the judge and attorneys in the courtroom. It is crucial to consult the attorneys and experts involved in this to get a good understanding. In saying all of this I will now humbly attempt to transcribe my notes.

In arriving at the courthouse I was surprised that the building was brick and there were very few people walking around. Although brick, the building was beautiful and a good amount of security greeted one as we entered the courthouse. As the people did arrive it appeared that all were very friendly. Before entering Sheldon Wolfchild came over and spoke to us and even took a picture with a few of the attendees. I really knew very few of the people in attendance, but received several handshakes and many smiles and greetings.

In the actual room it said United State Court of Federal Appeals behind the judges chair. The hearing was set to begin at 10:00 a.m. To me the room seemed very small. There were two rows of four benches with each bench holding about five or six people. Eric Kaardal came back and spoke to a few of us. I commented on how small the room was and he said it was the largest room they had. I believe it could hold 50 people including attorneys. He went on to explain that usually this court handles suits where a large contractor with the government goes belly up and the sub contractors want to all get their money. The judge then decides how to split the money up. Eric went on to say that usually there is no one watching the proceeding.

As the attorneys walked in it appeared to me that they sat at no particular position at the plaintiff’s table. Which was to my right. A few attorneys even sat in the gallery with us. One of these was Mr. Montana who eventually joined the other attorneys at the plaintiff table. The attorneys at the table were Kaardal, Mohrman, Doug Kettering, Sam Keteringer, Gary Montana, Kelly ?, ?Thompson, Eric Magnuson. There was one US attorney by the name of Longstrenth (sp) sitting all by himself. He appeared to me to be between 27 and 32 years of age.

Judge Lettow came in at 10:00 am sharp and was very pleasant and had a smile. Due to my line of work I am in courtrooms on the district level on a very regular basis. From the beginning I was very surprised at how courteous and polite the judge was. On more than one occasion the judge explained that there were “case management” issues and he was appreciative of everyone’s patience.

I would say that only once did I feel that he was short with anyone and that was when the attorney for the two people from the Lower Sioux attempted to intercede. The attorney said, “Judge I do want to interrupt but…” at that point the judge then said “good don’t”. Other than this statement I felt that the judge gave all involved a lot of leeway and very patiently waited for them to finish. He eventually did come back to that attorney that he had cut off. He even appeared patient when the teleconference would not work correctly.

When he started he let each attorney introduce himself or herself and state one name by which there parties would be known. A few times there was confusion as to was on the phone and other times who he thought was on the phone was disconnected. It is my experience that there is nothing that frustrates judges more than this, but he just kept working through it.

There were also two people present who appeared to be court reporters. When one person on the phone explained that she was representing herself and her family the Judge went on to explain that an individual can represent themselves and their family. He was very patience with this individual.

The judge then explained that there were five sets of issues. The first issue was the current number of people involved. The judge then asked Eric to present. When the presenting attorney would present they would get up and approach the podium with a microphone. Eric reported that they had over 6500 hundred lineal descendents. The judge mentioned the Tucker Act and asked Eric specifically how many people he had. Eric was unable to answer. The judge then informed him that he needed to know this. Later Eric informed the judge that there was 6553.

The judge informed the attorneys that he did not receive all of his submitted briefs due to them not being filed the way the clerk of courts requires them to be filed. The US attorney then did not oppose these numbers. The judge informed them that the government would have to work with the council to set up a procedure that would be acceptable.

The second issue was the Cermack issue. Mr. Shapiro was representing. The judge attempted to summarize this issue. One Mr. Cermack brought a claim that says this is part of an administrative act, which was transferred by the 8th circuit court. The attorney argued that the Indian Trust Accounting enables this trust to go forward. The judge then responded that the court has a problem with the “right of heir ship” that means that land does not automatically pass from one person to another. I think the issue was whether this land would pass from one relative to another even after the one relative was dead. I am not real clear on this. It did appear to me that the judge was not buying Shapiro’s argument.

The third issue was where the judge spoke of interventions. This is where the judge reported that he received many sets of interventions in which the clerks found many defects in the interventions. I guess this means they were not file correctly. It almost appeared that he was addressing this to Eric for Eric was standing at the time. Eric then said that they have agreed on their trust beneficiaries and reported that there were some entities that did not agree with his criteria. He went on to say that he welcomed all of these entities to the table because this would add to the process for establishing criteria.

Eric then said that many people should have been allowed to be part of Shakopee. This goes back to 1969 when the government realized that they should not have allowed Shakopee to form.

Eric stressed that there are two issues. Was it wrong for Shakopee to form and two who are the lineal descendents? The judge then agreed and reminded Eric that that is the function of that court.

All of the attorneys spoke of whom they represented and which group did they fell into. The first group is the group of people who link up to the 86, and 89 censes. The second group is a group that are attempting to prove they are lineal descendent through other means then the 86 and 89 census.

The government then spoke and said that he did not oppose any of these motions other than the Felix issue. He said they were not in Minnesota and not in route. This was the case where the lady was representing herself and her family. It was at this point where the judge asked to hear from all of the parties. When all were done speaking as to why they should be considered a lineal descendent the judge reported that he hoped that some of the plaintiff’s would get together so he would not have to have 30 briefs. He went on to say that there might be a distinct possibility that the court will ask that the parties would join.

At this point the attorney for the Lower Sioux Tribe spoke. Mr. Magnusson said that he speaks for the Lower Sioux and the Lower Sioux wants to join the suit. He said that after 1980 the tribe has had an active role in the land. He cited the Parrot (sp) Case as precedent. Judge then clarifies that the Lower Sioux have taken and possessed the 1886 land. The US attorney then claims that they are a trust of the land. The judge then replies that the tribes might be the US’s trusties over the land. Government responds that there is no such trust. The judge then corrected the US attorney once again.

Eric then speaks and says Lower Sioux are the most open of the three tribes to enrollment.

Magnusson then cites the Parrot (sp) case and says there is an article 3 standing and that some property is part of trust land and some is not.

The fourth issue is the issue of summons. Eric wants to summons the people of Prairie Island and Shakopee. This summons would notify people of the hearings and to become party to the suit, it so qualified. The judge appeared to be not too excited about this prospect. They debated for some time and the judge responded more than once as to how could these two communities not know of the hearings. Eric said that there were over 10,000 interveners, 200 and some Shakopee’s, 200 and some Prairie Island members and 360 Lower Sioux. Eric again spoke of his two-step process and the breach in 1980.

At this point it was then mentioned twice that the power of this court is to appoint moneys and this would be done in art by establishing governments interest after 1890 and the 1980 acts.

To me it then appeared to come out of nowhere when the judge reported that the court had serious doubts that the three tribes have sovereignty. This was in part because the people had to sever their relationship with their original tribes. It appeared that the judge was looking for a place to fit this comment in at.

It was then spoke about the issue of some people not being a part of the lawsuit. It was explained that these people are not automatically out of the suit, but they will have to show good cause as to why they are not a part of the suit. Eric continued to argue that they should serve notice. The US attorney reported that notice should not be served. He went on to start to speak about money and settlement and the judge admonished him about getting ahead of himself. The judge then said he would take it under consideration.

The last issue was the attorney for the two Lower Sioux members who wanted to file a brief in order to terminate Lower Sioux’s standing within the case. The attorney informed the judge that it was his understanding that he was unable to file any briefs. The judge then corrected him and apologized if the attorney read his ruling wrong. Magnusson then spoke that these two people have no more right then anyone else to file a brief and if the judge lets then do it then many other briefs will be filed in the future. Even through these two members are council members the community already elected their council in a hotly contested election. It was my opinion that Magnusson said that these two people couldn’t represent the tribe.

US attorney would not endorse either way. Judge then said he would allow their brief by July 28th. Eric and Magnusson would have until August 4th and the two individuals attorney would reply by August 9th. Then the court would decide. The judge then informed this attorney for the two that Lower Sioux politics should not be involved in what he files. He has to file this for the two as individuals. The judge asked him if he understood and he very hesitantly responded “yes”.

The John Doe names were then talked about and the judge explained that he would not release those names as of yet.

Mr. Montana responded that if the interveners are not part of the suit then Eric’s people are not part of the suit. The judge then correct Montana and informed him that the court granted Erick those powers and his people are part of the suit. I believe the people that were previously filed on in the 1st and 2nd compliant. While I am sure that I am not explaining this very well I am sure that the judge corrected Montana and informed him that Erick’s people are party of the suit.

As I wrap this up I would like to again apologize for any errors that you have noticed. I am not spending a lot of time with grammar and spelling, please excuse. Unfortunately I do not have real good notes of the many attorneys who spoke other than Longsweath, Magnusen and Kaardals. In part this is because they spoke more and were called upon more often by the judge. It seemed that the US attorney was corrected and almost mentored along during the hearing. Other than when he argued the “notice” issue Eric was very proficient and it appears that the judge relied upon him. Magnusson made the judge and courtroom laugh on more than one occasion. It was very apparent that he was very skilled. Of the other attorneys Montana probably spoke the most. It did not seem to me that he had quit the understanding of some of the attorneys but the judge gave him a lot of leeway. It appeared that he was the only attorney who was Native American and he referred to his ancestry on an occasion or two. It seemed that the judge appreciated him. I hope this helps and not add to any confusion. I wish all of the people on this forum the best.

Thanks,
Will

I'm going to take this only at 'face' value, because it sounds like the Judge is talking from 'two sides' of the fence here. In what way, I wonder, did the Judge mean by wether the three tribes had 'sovereignty'? I thought the discription of the courtroom was interesting and helped build an image in my mind.

Ultimately, no matter what happens, if you/me/we can prove in one way or another that we are at least part Mdewakaton, and whatever party is trying to deny that, then this just simply cannot be denied. This fight will never end.

I really like the idea of all attorny's getting together and we 'all' go foreward with this case, just as some of us have been saying.

Oh' and thank you very much Tonya for your imput! It is much appreciated.

[dgberg]

but redbrother you, like all the rest of us, have known for about 2 years now what the condition is to be a plaintiff....descend from someone on the '86 or '89 census. we don't make up the rules, we just follow them.

redbrother said:

tonya said:

I was at the court hearing with my wife and son. We were also in attendance with two of my wife’s recently discovered relatives who are fast becoming good friends. In the hearing I did take notes. 17 small pages in all. A few people have asked me to type out my notes. I am very reluctant to do this due for several reasons. I started taking these notes for my own understanding. My biggest fear has to do with the possibility that others may think that these notes are fact. While these notes are not fact it should be mentioned that in some cases it was hard to separate my opinion. Another concern is that most, if not all, of the people reading these notes have a much better understanding of this case than I. To a certain degree this may be an asset. I do not completely understand this case and I really believe that the fact that I know very few people involved and have never read this forum before might enable me to give a different perspective than some.

The only thing that I would stress is that I am sure that some of my notes are wrong and when creating ones own perspective I would hope that all opinions and perspectives are heard. Then with all of the information at hand one makes up their own mind.

At one time after the hearing three of us were discussing an issue that took place in the courtroom and all three of us had a different opinion. At times it appeared confusing to the judge and attorneys in the courtroom. It is crucial to consult the attorneys and experts involved in this to get a good understanding. In saying all of this I will now humbly attempt to transcribe my notes.

In arriving at the courthouse I was surprised that the building was brick and there were very few people walking around. Although brick, the building was beautiful and a good amount of security greeted one as we entered the courthouse. As the people did arrive it appeared that all were very friendly. Before entering Sheldon Wolfchild came over and spoke to us and even took a picture with a few of the attendees. I really knew very few of the people in attendance, but received several handshakes and many smiles and greetings.

In the actual room it said United State Court of Federal Appeals behind the judges chair. The hearing was set to begin at 10:00 a.m. To me the room seemed very small. There were two rows of four benches with each bench holding about five or six people. Eric Kaardal came back and spoke to a few of us. I commented on how small the room was and he said it was the largest room they had. I believe it could hold 50 people including attorneys. He went on to explain that usually this court handles suits where a large contractor with the government goes belly up and the sub contractors want to all get their money. The judge then decides how to split the money up. Eric went on to say that usually there is no one watching the proceeding.

As the attorneys walked in it appeared to me that they sat at no particular position at the plaintiff’s table. Which was to my right. A few attorneys even sat in the gallery with us. One of these was Mr. Montana who eventually joined the other attorneys at the plaintiff table. The attorneys at the table were Kaardal, Mohrman, Doug Kettering, Sam Keteringer, Gary Montana, Kelly ?, ?Thompson, Eric Magnuson. There was one US attorney by the name of Longstrenth (sp) sitting all by himself. He appeared to me to be between 27 and 32 years of age.

Judge Lettow came in at 10:00 am sharp and was very pleasant and had a smile. Due to my line of work I am in courtrooms on the district level on a very regular basis. From the beginning I was very surprised at how courteous and polite the judge was. On more than one occasion the judge explained that there were “case management” issues and he was appreciative of everyone’s patience.

I would say that only once did I feel that he was short with anyone and that was when the attorney for the two people from the Lower Sioux attempted to intercede. The attorney said, “Judge I do want to interrupt but…” at that point the judge then said “good don’t”. Other than this statement I felt that the judge gave all involved a lot of leeway and very patiently waited for them to finish. He eventually did come back to that attorney that he had cut off. He even appeared patient when the teleconference would not work correctly.

When he started he let each attorney introduce himself or herself and state one name by which there parties would be known. A few times there was confusion as to was on the phone and other times who he thought was on the phone was disconnected. It is my experience that there is nothing that frustrates judges more than this, but he just kept working through it.

There were also two people present who appeared to be court reporters. When one person on the phone explained that she was representing herself and her family the Judge went on to explain that an individual can represent themselves and their family. He was very patience with this individual.

The judge then explained that there were five sets of issues. The first issue was the current number of people involved. The judge then asked Eric to present. When the presenting attorney would present they would get up and approach the podium with a microphone. Eric reported that they had over 6500 hundred lineal descendents. The judge mentioned the Tucker Act and asked Eric specifically how many people he had. Eric was unable to answer. The judge then informed him that he needed to know this. Later Eric informed the judge that there was 6553.

The judge informed the attorneys that he did not receive all of his submitted briefs due to them not being filed the way the clerk of courts requires them to be filed. The US attorney then did not oppose these numbers. The judge informed them that the government would have to work with the council to set up a procedure that would be acceptable.

The second issue was the Cermack issue. Mr. Shapiro was representing. The judge attempted to summarize this issue. One Mr. Cermack brought a claim that says this is part of an administrative act, which was transferred by the 8th circuit court. The attorney argued that the Indian Trust Accounting enables this trust to go forward. The judge then responded that the court has a problem with the “right of heir ship” that means that land does not automatically pass from one person to another. I think the issue was whether this land would pass from one relative to another even after the one relative was dead. I am not real clear on this. It did appear to me that the judge was not buying Shapiro’s argument.

The third issue was where the judge spoke of interventions. This is where the judge reported that he received many sets of interventions in which the clerks found many defects in the interventions. I guess this means they were not file correctly. It almost appeared that he was addressing this to Eric for Eric was standing at the time. Eric then said that they have agreed on their trust beneficiaries and reported that there were some entities that did not agree with his criteria. He went on to say that he welcomed all of these entities to the table because this would add to the process for establishing criteria.

Eric then said that many people should have been allowed to be part of Shakopee. This goes back to 1969 when the government realized that they should not have allowed Shakopee to form.

Eric stressed that there are two issues. Was it wrong for Shakopee to form and two who are the lineal descendents? The judge then agreed and reminded Eric that that is the function of that court.

All of the attorneys spoke of whom they represented and which group did they fell into. The first group is the group of people who link up to the 86, and 89 censes. The second group is a group that are attempting to prove they are lineal descendent through other means then the 86 and 89 census.

The government then spoke and said that he did not oppose any of these motions other than the Felix issue. He said they were not in Minnesota and not in route. This was the case where the lady was representing herself and her family. It was at this point where the judge asked to hear from all of the parties. When all were done speaking as to why they should be considered a lineal descendent the judge reported that he hoped that some of the plaintiff’s would get together so he would not have to have 30 briefs. He went on to say that there might be a distinct possibility that the court will ask that the parties would join.

At this point the attorney for the Lower Sioux Tribe spoke. Mr. Magnusson said that he speaks for the Lower Sioux and the Lower Sioux wants to join the suit. He said that after 1980 the tribe has had an active role in the land. He cited the Parrot (sp) Case as precedent. Judge then clarifies that the Lower Sioux have taken and possessed the 1886 land. The US attorney then claims that they are a trust of the land. The judge then replies that the tribes might be the US’s trusties over the land. Government responds that there is no such trust. The judge then corrected the US attorney once again.

Eric then speaks and says Lower Sioux are the most open of the three tribes to enrollment.

Magnusson then cites the Parrot (sp) case and says there is an article 3 standing and that some property is part of trust land and some is not.

The fourth issue is the issue of summons. Eric wants to summons the people of Prairie Island and Shakopee. This summons would notify people of the hearings and to become party to the suit, it so qualified. The judge appeared to be not too excited about this prospect. They debated for some time and the judge responded more than once as to how could these two communities not know of the hearings. Eric said that there were over 10,000 interveners, 200 and some Shakopee’s, 200 and some Prairie Island members and 360 Lower Sioux. Eric again spoke of his two-step process and the breach in 1980.

At this point it was then mentioned twice that the power of this court is to appoint moneys and this would be done in art by establishing governments interest after 1890 and the 1980 acts.

To me it then appeared to come out of nowhere when the judge reported that the court had serious doubts that the three tribes have sovereignty. This was in part because the people had to sever their relationship with their original tribes. It appeared that the judge was looking for a place to fit this comment in at.

It was then spoke about the issue of some people not being a part of the lawsuit. It was explained that these people are not automatically out of the suit, but they will have to show good cause as to why they are not a part of the suit. Eric continued to argue that they should serve notice. The US attorney reported that notice should not be served. He went on to start to speak about money and settlement and the judge admonished him about getting ahead of himself. The judge then said he would take it under consideration.

The last issue was the attorney for the two Lower Sioux members who wanted to file a brief in order to terminate Lower Sioux’s standing within the case. The attorney informed the judge that it was his understanding that he was unable to file any briefs. The judge then corrected him and apologized if the attorney read his ruling wrong. Magnusson then spoke that these two people have no more right then anyone else to file a brief and if the judge lets then do it then many other briefs will be filed in the future. Even through these two members are council members the community already elected their council in a hotly contested election. It was my opinion that Magnusson said that these two people couldn’t represent the tribe.

US attorney would not endorse either way. Judge then said he would allow their brief by July 28th. Eric and Magnusson would have until August 4th and the two individuals attorney would reply by August 9th. Then the court would decide. The judge then informed this attorney for the two that Lower Sioux politics should not be involved in what he files. He has to file this for the two as individuals. The judge asked him if he understood and he very hesitantly responded “yes”.

The John Doe names were then talked about and the judge explained that he would not release those names as of yet.

Mr. Montana responded that if the interveners are not part of the suit then Eric’s people are not part of the suit. The judge then correct Montana and informed him that the court granted Erick those powers and his people are part of the suit. I believe the people that were previously filed on in the 1st and 2nd compliant. While I am sure that I am not explaining this very well I am sure that the judge corrected Montana and informed him that Erick’s people are party of the suit.

As I wrap this up I would like to again apologize for any errors that you have noticed. I am not spending a lot of time with grammar and spelling, please excuse. Unfortunately I do not have real good notes of the many attorneys who spoke other than Longsweath, Magnusen and Kaardals. In part this is because they spoke more and were called upon more often by the judge. It seemed that the US attorney was corrected and almost mentored along during the hearing. Other than when he argued the “notice” issue Eric was very proficient and it appears that the judge relied upon him. Magnusson made the judge and courtroom laugh on more than one occasion. It was very apparent that he was very skilled. Of the other attorneys Montana probably spoke the most. It did not seem to me that he had quit the understanding of some of the attorneys but the judge gave him a lot of leeway. It appeared that he was the only attorney who was Native American and he referred to his ancestry on an occasion or two. It seemed that the judge appreciated him. I hope this helps and not add to any confusion. I wish all of the people on this forum the best.

Thanks,
Will

I'm going to take this only at 'face' value, because it sounds like the Judge is talking from 'two sides' of the fence here. In what way, I wonder, did the Judge mean by wether the three tribes had 'sovereignty'? I thought the discription of the courtroom was interesting and helped build an image in my mind.

Ultimately, no matter what happens, if you/me/we can prove in one way or another that we are at least part Mdewakaton, and whatever party is trying to deny that, then this just simply cannot be denied. This fight will never end.

I really like the idea of all attorny's getting together and we 'all' go foreward with this case, just as some of us have been saying.

Oh' and thank you very much Tonya for your imput! It is much appreciated.

[redbrother]

Actually my friend, I've only known for about the last three or four months. And I was responding to the 'warning' that Tonya gave in her assertation of note taking. I'm not sure, did I sound like I was complaining? Sorry for the misinterpretation.

[tamara]

I think the "rules" thus far have appeared as fact according to the Buttes/Kaardal criteria and according to them are the 86 and 89 census. That however, is not the Governements criteria. The letter that Lettow cites clearly states that in calling them a "good presumptive starting point" they are NOT the only documents to go by. The same letter says many other very specific definitions of whom the appropriations were intended for and also says that in the case of one individual on the census (whom was not Mdewakanton, or even indian) that the fact that he was on the rolls did not mean that he was to be either enrolled or benefit. The letter also clearly states that there are some on the lists that "should NOT be" (quoting Lettow) in a very clear and precise way. This same letter also indicates the reasons why these appropriations were made and it was NOT done to reward or benefit those who had been considered "hostile" (although how they were determined to be so is of great issue to many, and they deserve as much respect as those that were not) and there are a number of them on the 86 and 89 Rolls, Henton knew it and McLeod knew it as well and they clearly state they were "not entitled to benefit", and here I would cite the McLeod letter as this is a quote for the page that was sent to me in the beginning from MKlaw along with the census rolls. Has anyone ever asked Kaardal about the relevence of that statement to the McLeod Roll itself? If Kaardal wishes to overlook it or disregard it, it hasnt stopped Judge Lettow from referring to this type of information. He clearly looks at the facts of the case and not just what is given to him by Mr Kaardal. The supplement of the Henton Roll is also referred to in the letter that Lettow cites and it would appear that it is disregarded as well as it is not shown by Kaardal's office along with the 86 and 89 rolls. I could go on and be more specific but for those who wish to disregard Lettow and this part of the "rules", it wouldnt matter. For those (and there seems to be a number of them) who wish the beneficiaries to include all that rightfully and according to law should, might be interested as to why Lettow would consider more than the 86 and 89 census. It isnt as far out there as some might want to think.

Tamara

[redbrother]

When it comes to the 'Law', I understand were some of you are coming from. I would even go as far as to say that there is also 'a buying into' process in all of this 'stuff'. I guess that's what it means to be a 'loyalist'. Something I think a lot of Indian people have a big problem with. I know I do. Yes' the law is the law. Lettow is the law. Lettow is like God only following God's way, according to what I see written on the dollar bills that I spend each day. This is why our ancestors died, mind all of you, by the 'thousands and thousands. We're talking about families. Just becuase there is law, white man's law, doesn't mean I or anyone else does not have a right to an opinion, or a 'human feeling' about this whole thing. Some of my own family members don't want to be a part of this because they have a problem with being 'a loyalist'. They don't want to go down 'this' road to make the point of expressing the wrongs done to our people, and payment to be made for those wrongs. I personally don't want to lose sight of that. I want to stay as far away from being negative about all of this as I can, but I must also express what I feel. I understand the law of the land, but I also understand very clearly how it got that way and how people were 'forced' to except that. I'd rather be true to myself, my soul and express these facts. Some may think of me as a bunch of bull (and I welcome it) or maybe even trouble, as a thinker, but that is really what this whole thing has always been about. I beleive this is what it means to have lost our way, to have been assimulated. For you young people who have not experienced what's been happening up until just recently, say 20, 30 years ago and beyond, I'm sorry for my expressions. I have a problem with forgiveness right now. But I also want to say that I believe there will be a day when all will be forgiven and healed and all will be good, but until then. I won't deny the fact that I am a very angry person inside looking for peace. That anger has been my biggest challenge in life and I have learned a lot from it and I will spend the rest of my life learning from it. At this point, all I want is to be recognized, and only because we are being threatened to be cut off from that recognition by the Goverment that we are all ruled under. Anything that delutes that in any way I will be there to fight with my words and nothing more. I know people who read this will have a different temperment towards it, some extreme, some not so extreme. When expressing, one never knows the reaction from another, so we'll see and talk about it if you want. If it were only about me, these feelings and thoughts (and this is the part I feel terrible about), I'd be the first to admit it, but I've seen way too many Indian lives in my own lifetime ruined, still being ruined to this day. This has got to be adressed properly and I feel really, really bad that barely anyone from the Govermental side has not taken that step and that somehow money is supposed to make the whole thing go away. Some of you would be happy with that and maybe I'd be happy with that, I don't know, but I also feel this may be one of the last chances I have to express these feelings of anger towards all that has happened. A last ditch effort to keep the memory alive of who we are and how we got here. I'm not sure how important that really is anymore. I don't know if any of yoiu have the same feelings and thoughts on these matters.

I apologize to those of you who want to move on, who don't want to know or bother with it any longer. I apologize to the elders who went through the pains and have excepted many things long ago for whatever reason, but I cannot apologize to myself, at least not yet. There is this big scratch on me that needs to heal first. I beleive there is a big scratch on all of us. I apologize to you folks, please forgive my expressions. The law of the land is the law, but mind you, those laws have been created through expression. I hope I have been reasonable enough.

[peacekeeper]

Good morning everyone. I want all of you to know that we had another terrific person who went to Washington, D.C. on July 18th and attended the hearing. He took notes and transcribed them. He shared with many of our family members 7 pages of information. With his written permission and disclaimer attached, Mr. Kitto has allowed us to post them. Mike D. our resident computer whiz, posted them on the "Members/Staff Posting""Help Not On The 1886" thread. So go to the thread and read another translation of the July 18th hearing. MANY MANY THANKS TO MISTER KITTO AND MISTER DENNEY!

Jackie

[sav]

Since the 1886-89 Census is only a "Presumptive Starting Point".
Than I would like to see compensation for the descendants of those whom were sentenced to be hung. The only thing with that is that it's not on a Census & I can only imagine the difficulty of obtaining the legal documents proving the descendancy of those whom were hung. One thing is there's no denying what band/tribe of Sioux they were. & thru my native eyes, they're the real "Loyalist". Meaning loyal to their own! The one's whom really care bout our ancestors. Hence sacrificing their lives for.

The next issue of mine, is if the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota are not "Sovereign". Than all those whom are enrolled members are gonna basically gonna have bad lives, cuz it'll only be filled with lawsuits presented by Minnesota residents,& it'll happen constantly cuz of all the money hungry folks in this world. Why would wanna deal with that? I know I would'nt, & would rather not be enrolled in Minnesota since more money equals more problems. Obviously. Example, So it's like as a member of a Minnesota Sioux Community, you would be getting sued for anything, by any means, & it'll work cuz you won't be protected by "Sovereignity". That's all negative thinking though. So I'll quit. & have one last thing with this post.

I'm wondering if the whole "Sovereign" thing is really being exaggerated, only cuz the Sioux communiti(s) are after all, Federally Recognized. Therefore, in a way that is what makes the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota "Sovereign". Or does Federal Recognition give you Community/Tribal Sovereignity?

Hopefully someone understands what I'm sayin'.

[tamara]

sav said:

Since the 1886-89 Census is only a "Presumptive Starting Point".
Than I would like to see compensation for the descendants of those whom were sentenced to be hung. The only thing with that is that it's not on a Census & I can only imagine the difficulty of obtaining the legal documents proving the descendancy of those whom were hung. One thing is there's no denying what band/tribe of Sioux they were. & thru my native eyes, they're the real "Loyalist". Meaning loyal to their own! The one's whom really care bout our ancestors. Hence sacrificing their lives for.

The next issue of mine, is if the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota are not "Sovereign". Than all those whom are enrolled members are gonna basically gonna have bad lives, cuz it'll only be filled with lawsuits presented by Minnesota residents,& it'll happen constantly cuz of all the money hungry folks in this world. Why would wanna deal with that? I know I would'nt, & would rather not be enrolled in Minnesota since more money equals more problems. Obviously. Example, So it's like as a member of a Minnesota Sioux Community, you would be getting sued for anything, by any means, & it'll work cuz you won't be protected by "Sovereignity". That's all negative thinking though. So I'll quit. & have one last thing with this post.

I'm wondering if the whole "Sovereign" thing is really being exaggerated, only cuz the Sioux communiti(s) are after all, Federally Recognized. Therefore, in a way that is what makes the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota "Sovereign". Or does Federal Recognition give you Community/Tribal Sovereignity?

Hopefully someone understands what I'm sayin'.

I hear you on that one and have oral history that I am descendant from those who died in Mankato, but the issue at hand deals with the government's perspective of loyalty not our native perspective.

Tamara

[redbrother]

sav said:

Since the 1886-89 Census is only a "Presumptive Starting Point".
Than I would like to see compensation for the descendants of those whom were sentenced to be hung. The only thing with that is that it's not on a Census & I can only imagine the difficulty of obtaining the legal documents proving the descendancy of those whom were hung. One thing is there's no denying what band/tribe of Sioux they were. & thru my native eyes, they're the real "Loyalist". Meaning loyal to their own! The one's whom really care bout our ancestors. Hence sacrificing their lives for.

The next issue of mine, is if the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota are not "Sovereign". Than all those whom are enrolled members are gonna basically gonna have bad lives, cuz it'll only be filled with lawsuits presented by Minnesota residents,& it'll happen constantly cuz of all the money hungry folks in this world. Why would wanna deal with that? I know I would'nt, & would rather not be enrolled in Minnesota since more money equals more problems. Obviously. Example, So it's like as a member of a Minnesota Sioux Community, you would be getting sued for anything, by any means, & it'll work cuz you won't be protected by "Sovereignity". That's all negative thinking though. So I'll quit. & have one last thing with this post.

I'm wondering if the whole "Sovereign" thing is really being exaggerated, only cuz the Sioux communiti(s) are after all, Federally Recognized. Therefore, in a way that is what makes the Sioux communitie(s) in Minnesota "Sovereign". Or does Federal Recognition give you Community/Tribal Sovereignity?

Hopefully someone understands what I'm sayin'.

I to have a concern about the sovereignity issue. That is the very wall that protects us all. It is really hard to be positive, with all of this swirling around in our heads. I think it's okay to lose it a little and then get back on path. I think most everyone will understand this.

[wazi]

It will be good to hear what the Judge will put into writing regarding sovereignty. In one aspect he is right because they were suppose to give up their affiliation. However the Judge will definitely need to go back and read some previous case law. Shakopee was recently awarded the right to take their land and put it into trust. The federal government definitely is allowing them to behave as a sovereign. It will be interesting, this will probably entail for some big guns to come out and fight, if we go in this direction.

wazi

[sav]

I see what perspective you mean. I just sometimes go overboard.

[redbrother]

It's okay. watch this...........'I HATE THIS WORLD'! See' I just did it myself, but now I'm back. It's cool man!

I know what Sav is talking about and can see why he/she would panic a little, which brings something to mind and something I'd like to share when it comes to material possesions. Boyyyyyyyy, if you get any monitary material out of this' you'll find friends that you never knew existed and I must warn you, there may be people who will try to study you, to scam you out of what you have. It happens all the time. I myself won't open any e-mail, not unless there is 'some kind' of information that leads me to think it is someone I know, but I won't tell all of my secrets on that one. Believe me, growing up in the big City, virtually all your life, you learn alot of things about all kinds of people and I learned a lot of things. Yes' just like Sav says, it is possible that if someone 'knows' for a fact that you have something, then yes, it is posible that they may try to take it from you. Here's my words of advice. If indeed you come across a large amount of money, don't freak out or go paranoid. All you have to do is be cautious. Tell no one what you have. Just move on with your life and don't give anyone a reason to come after you. If you have a job and you hate the boss, walk away. Don't call him/her what you always wanted to call them. Just walk away, maybe even put in that two week notice, just to show good intention, on your' part. Remember, if' you come across some kind of wealth, you will be leaving a lot of people behind, a lot of things behind and maybe even a new home, somewhere far away, but let's hope things don't come down to this. As long as people know nothing of you, what you have in your life, what you do (and I'm talking the general public, strangers and maybe even a few people you know) or where you go , give them no one a reason to come after you, sort of like the life your living now, yeah?! Then you should have 'nothing' to worry about. Pray every day, at least once a day and be thankful for what you have and be thankful for what you might get in life. Just be a normal human being and all should be just fine. Don't get caught up in material possesions. Be an example and take nothing in return.