|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 2, 2006 13:22:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hermin1 on Aug 2, 2006 14:08:40 GMT -5
tamara: Why is the print so biig?
|
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 2, 2006 17:23:48 GMT -5
tamara: Why is the print so biig? ...must be for those of us who see the bigger picture!! lol joking, I really dont know, but mine printed out pretty normal. |
|
|
|
Post by dakota20 on Aug 2, 2006 21:28:40 GMT -5
Gary montana schooled erick and I think the 1886 board is brainwashed.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 2, 2006 22:02:07 GMT -5
I went to the website for heritage reporting and I am guessing this is something that MKLaw had ordered so what we are viewing might be courtesy of their lawfirm, and much appreciated. I can help but say repeatedly, I am learning so much!! I love that part of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tokakte on Aug 3, 2006 11:48:19 GMT -5
I have a question that the July 18th hearing did not address: The different groups of intervenors were represented pro se or by counsel and their claims heard by the court. Well and good, because many of us, and I'm an LD, suspected that the 86 and 89 rolls alone were imperfect as canonical standards for admission as plaintiffs. What about those applicants who (a) submitted the required documents, i.e., birth certificates or baptismal records proving descent from a person on either of those rolls, (b) submitted them on time, and (c) signed the short form on time as required; and have subsequently been denied admission by Erick and Co? These omissions are nothing short of blunders that the Court should correct, yet I have heard no mention of any way of bringing these cases to the Court's attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdwallcpa on Aug 3, 2006 13:25:22 GMT -5
the court addressed that tokakte, basically need to file with the court as an intervenor with counsel (or perhaps without) and include in your filing just cause for not filing by the deadline, which based on the facts you described appear to meet that standard of just cause
|
|
|
|
Post by denney on Aug 3, 2006 14:21:40 GMT -5
This was addressed by Montana and when Kaardall denied people at the last the paper you received said to hirer a attorney that your paper work wasnt good enough in so many words , thats what I understsand from the people that has talked about it. I have a question that the July 18th hearing did not address: The different groups of intervenors were represented pro se or by counsel and their claims heard by the court. Well and good, because many of us, and I'm an LD, suspected that the 86 and 89 rolls alone were imperfect as canonical standards for admission as plaintiffs. What about those applicants who (a) submitted the required documents, i.e., birth certificates or baptismal records proving descent from a person on either of those rolls, (b) submitted them on time, and (c) signed the short form on time as required; and have subsequently been denied admission by Erick and Co? These omissions are nothing short of blunders that the Court should correct, yet I have heard no mention of any way of bringing these cases to the Court's attention. |
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 3, 2006 14:25:39 GMT -5
keeping in mind that I am no legal genius.. lol I thought that after the 12th the court would no longer be accepting intervening parties. I would think the only way to be added onto a list of plaintiffs would be if added to an intervening attorney's list of names that he would need to file just cause to explain why they were not previously on the lists. So basically, you would need to be added by submitting yourself to an attorney's amended complaint and it did say that it would have to be done promptly and implied that there wouldnt me much time to do so.
Tamara
|
|
|
|
Post by redbrother on Aug 4, 2006 23:36:42 GMT -5
Hello Cousins! I have something I need to express. Correct me if' I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that the entire language of this case is wrong!I have a question about the 'loyalty' issue. Why are some Mdewakanton's considered 'loyal', the one's who agreed to give everything up, so that we may all live? And why are the Mdewakanton, who fought and died (including the one's who were hung) defending our people and our lands not' considered loyal Mdewakanton's? This seems to be the dividing factor in all of this. This is what this Judge is getting at, what definds a Mdewakanton, or a 'loyal' Mdewakanton? I think that is going to be a very important factor. I can't help it that that' notion bothers me. Does this bother any of you? I'm getting the impression that this lango may be the lango used in all of Indian countries court battles, in even just trying to 'prove' that you are Indigenous in this country. What does it mean for all of those who will be left out, who look very much like Indigenous people, some of those who may even participate in our cultures? Will that mean that there not even American? What does the 'BIG' picture mean when all is said and done? |
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 5, 2006 6:55:23 GMT -5
Midakuya Owasin,
(I am trying to write the Dakota words meaning "All my relatives.")
The question (FOR NOW) is being decided by Judge CHARLES LETTOW.
It appears that he was appointed to the United States Court of Federal Claims by President George W. Bush, and his most interesting position was that he was a law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I infer from that position that he will be "Liberal" in his decision making. That said, in my opinion his ruling should surpise you.
Let us all hope that it will be for US.
MIKE
|
|
|
|
Post by redbrother on Aug 5, 2006 7:24:36 GMT -5
You do mean 'us'? Not U.S.?  |
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 5, 2006 7:45:37 GMT -5
You BET!!!!! (Nice play on words!!!!)
|
|
terry
Junior Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by terry on Aug 5, 2006 16:12:59 GMT -5
If you think it will surprise someone whats your opinion on his ruling of the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis Kitto "MIKE" on Aug 5, 2006 16:22:53 GMT -5
Terry,
My observation is that he was trained by a LIBERAL judge. "law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court."
You may wish to read about the "Burger" court and form your own opinion.
MY opinion? He is a liberal and his decision should surprise you.
MIKE
I infer from that position that he will be "Liberal" in his decision making. That said, in my opinion his ruling should surpise you.
|
|
|
|
Post by wazi on Aug 5, 2006 23:43:15 GMT -5
Yeah I agree and am anxious to see what the judge decides.
wazi
|
|
|
|
Post by redbrother on Aug 6, 2006 0:55:16 GMT -5
Just got done reading this again (156 pages, totalling 312 pages, like a book) and it took me over several hours to get through it. What a read, what a mess! Boring at times, but I wanted to try and understand as much as I could of this 'breifing'. If I'm not mistaken, if I remember correctly, a docket is were all parties go to keep updated on the case and exchange information, until they actually get to the court room for the next discussion? I find the 'court room language' between the Judge and all of the Attorney's to be very interesting and am amazed at what each one is talking about and the fact that they understand each other.
We're not exactly intervenors just yet, and looking at the Cermaks, they been fighting it for years. I think those 50 acres taken away is just wrong. It is my wish that 'everyone' is accounted for, who is Mdewakaton.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbrother on Aug 6, 2006 1:02:28 GMT -5
In my opinion, Judge Lettow seems very fair and open-minded so I guess I would tend to agree with Mike's statements. Liberals are very open-minded, they see the bigger picture, and think outside the box. It is interesting to see that he was appointed by George W. Bush! Hmmm. |
|
terry
Junior Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by terry on Aug 6, 2006 6:24:42 GMT -5
Thanks Mike,
To be honest,I have been reading all the info out there.
Seems to me that the way most people involved are responding to previous rulings by the court and also remarks that have been made on this board and the other one,not to mention the things that have been going on at LS, I won't be surprised at all by any decision in this case.
I remember when the Mille Lacs band of Ojibwa went to court to retain their right to use gill nets on Mille Lacs,The people around the lake where very upset at this,guess what,that right was given to them long ago,they still have that right.
So like I said,The decisions involving this case won't surprise me at all
Have a Great Day!
Terry
|
|
|
|
Post by tamara on Aug 6, 2006 10:46:33 GMT -5
I see what you are saying Terry and see how with all the probable outcomes stated by the various angles of view, it might be hard to find an surprising outcome. Personally, I think with the complexity of the case, it is still a possibility. I like the reference to Mille Lacs and the outcome. I for one am concerned with the argument of Soverignty and what reprecussions it might have in the future if there is a ruling against it. Can someone explain in simple terms for me that line of debate from the transcripts?
Tamara
|
|
