(An article in Indian Country Today recently revealed a Seneca Nation Push to have President Obama veto the PACT act which would have States enforcing Federal Laws against Tribes)
hey this is right up her alley! This is a chance for the top Indian Job in the United States to showcase how it can be used. The battle for Sovereignty can hold no greater promise than for an Indian to advise the President about a disastrous bill that would erode sovereignty...right?
Technically, once you start a discussion on Sovereignty, you probably couldn't stop, ever. That is how vast Sovereignty is, there really is no limit to the definition of Sovereignty. Sovereignty is infinite in practice and promise. Let's hope Kim Teehee can impart that knowledge to President Obama.
A gentle hush should be heard across Indian Country while Kim Teehee explains the effects to President Obama.
Holding your breath probably isn't advised; however, if legislative history has any chance of repeating itself. Let's hope that now that we have an Indian in the Executive Offices of the President, things change.
At the very least, let's hope that the diatribe of some errant law school professors hasn't taken root in one of our own. When sovereign believers, speak to some of those walking legal-eagles (walk because they can't fly) their wish is to always convey, "your thoughts are not my indian reality:"
PLENARY POWER DOES NOT EXIST
(Unless you're as guillable as Ellwood Dowd in the film HARVEY, when he shows proof that , "THERE'S NO POWER LIKE THE POWER OF YOUR IMAGINATION")
SOVEREIGNTY IS NEVER TAKEN AWAY, SOVEREIGNTY CAN ONLY BE GIVEN AWAY
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY GETS AN AUDIENCE
Or at least part of HINU will get an audience. "Select administrators, faculty, and students" will have an opportunity to visit with Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk. Senator Pat Roberts call for somebody to investigate the alleged mismanagement of funds at Haskell will no doubt be topped by a literal smorgasboard of food in the Dining Facility.
We always knew when somebody "important" was visiting Haskell because the food suddenly looked foreign and plentiful. Just once I'd like to see an "important" somebody show up early or unannounced to see what the students are forced to accept from the dining facility. You know that is a tradition that dates to Haskell's early years in the late 1800s. Somebody important comes, and the kids suddenly have steaks on their plates. An unfortunate history that has crawled forward into the present day (meaning as late as 2004 anyway).
There has been no confirmation of any Open Forum for all the students and faculty to address their concerns. And in a boarding-school-generation of administrators and faculty, that means that many students will be forced to accept a grade demotion for a willful absence from classes, or suffer through knowing the Assistant Secretary is there on campus while they are forced to remain in session.
Not a complaint, just the reality of a boarding-school-trained staff environment to which the student population is subjected. I wonder if Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will inspect the daily room inspection logs. (oh but such clean rooms!)
The point is this: there is an environment that students are subjected to that means that if they disagree, they are classified as rabble-rousers by the boarding-school-trained staff. So a "select group of representatives" does not guarantee that the general opinion of the entire staff, faculty and student population will be presented. At the very least, one can hope that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will hold the meeting during the evening hours when anyone who wants to or that needs to attend will be able.
The most important thing to ask yourself if you are the Assistant Secretary is how did things get to the point where an Assistant Secretary has to be called in? And where is the President of Haskell? Who is left to answer for what has happened? Where is the Bureau of Indian Education leadership in the midst of all of this? Has it come to this?
Let's hope Pat Roberts' call for a visit from Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk goes well, is transparent, and is open to all suggestions in the spirit of our Native traditions and the community spirit where each voice is equally heard.
We always knew when somebody "important" was visiting Haskell because the food suddenly looked foreign and plentiful. Just once I'd like to see an "important" somebody show up early or unannounced to see what the students are forced to accept from the dining facility. You know that is a tradition that dates to Haskell's early years in the late 1800s. Somebody important comes, and the kids suddenly have steaks on their plates. An unfortunate history that has crawled forward into the present day (meaning as late as 2004 anyway).
There has been no confirmation of any Open Forum for all the students and faculty to address their concerns. And in a boarding-school-generation of administrators and faculty, that means that many students will be forced to accept a grade demotion for a willful absence from classes, or suffer through knowing the Assistant Secretary is there on campus while they are forced to remain in session.
Not a complaint, just the reality of a boarding-school-trained staff environment to which the student population is subjected. I wonder if Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will inspect the daily room inspection logs. (oh but such clean rooms!)
The point is this: there is an environment that students are subjected to that means that if they disagree, they are classified as rabble-rousers by the boarding-school-trained staff. So a "select group of representatives" does not guarantee that the general opinion of the entire staff, faculty and student population will be presented. At the very least, one can hope that Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk will hold the meeting during the evening hours when anyone who wants to or that needs to attend will be able.
The most important thing to ask yourself if you are the Assistant Secretary is how did things get to the point where an Assistant Secretary has to be called in? And where is the President of Haskell? Who is left to answer for what has happened? Where is the Bureau of Indian Education leadership in the midst of all of this? Has it come to this?
Let's hope Pat Roberts' call for a visit from Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk goes well, is transparent, and is open to all suggestions in the spirit of our Native traditions and the community spirit where each voice is equally heard.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Elouise Cobell's cookie begins to crumble
Word is that several tribes not listed in these articles are contemplating pulling out of camp as well.
South Dakota Tribes re-evaluating their class action settlement
We do not trust you
It would seem that nothing is perfect, but there is a line between acceptable and unreasonable. In the mind of a reasonable man, it would seem like an unbalanced measure to know that your land was trespassed on for the last two generations by cattle, and now know that you would only receive 500 dollars for that. Is there no accountability to be raised? On the local level we can tell you who's been trespassing, the problem has been the ability to compel the Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce the trespass provisions in 25 CFR part 162.
"But it's all good now, the Cobell Dream Team has gotten our family $500 dollars for the 70 cattle per year that were trespassing on our land."
And now when rights of way are negotiated with tribes, individual land owners are left to fend for themselves. Ironically after Cobell, the tribes will be the ones to point fingers at tribal members who are on fractionated lands telling the Federal Government to buy them out. And on a bit of a side note I heard a land owner at a Powwow this weekend talking about how you can't extinguish an individual tribal landowner out of his land, but the Federal government can extinguish "reservations, or tribally-owned land." So maybe there is some reason for why they want the land consolidation to go through in some peoples' minds.
Far too many questions exist for the oblivious land owner to truly know what they are getting for their 15 million dollar's worth from Elouise Cobell.
To suggest that time is more our friend than would seem some of our own relatives is grossly understated given what little we know right now.
South Dakota Tribes re-evaluating their class action settlement
We do not trust you
It would seem that nothing is perfect, but there is a line between acceptable and unreasonable. In the mind of a reasonable man, it would seem like an unbalanced measure to know that your land was trespassed on for the last two generations by cattle, and now know that you would only receive 500 dollars for that. Is there no accountability to be raised? On the local level we can tell you who's been trespassing, the problem has been the ability to compel the Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce the trespass provisions in 25 CFR part 162.
"But it's all good now, the Cobell Dream Team has gotten our family $500 dollars for the 70 cattle per year that were trespassing on our land."
And now when rights of way are negotiated with tribes, individual land owners are left to fend for themselves. Ironically after Cobell, the tribes will be the ones to point fingers at tribal members who are on fractionated lands telling the Federal Government to buy them out. And on a bit of a side note I heard a land owner at a Powwow this weekend talking about how you can't extinguish an individual tribal landowner out of his land, but the Federal government can extinguish "reservations, or tribally-owned land." So maybe there is some reason for why they want the land consolidation to go through in some peoples' minds.
Far too many questions exist for the oblivious land owner to truly know what they are getting for their 15 million dollar's worth from Elouise Cobell.
To suggest that time is more our friend than would seem some of our own relatives is grossly understated given what little we know right now.
Elouise Cobell answers. . sort of
In another Indian Country today article, Elouise Cobell explains that the receipts are forthcoming. Well this is welcome news to the fans of transparency. Maybe there is an explanation for the 15 million she's seeking to get from this class action lawsuit. But there's one thing that keeps bugging anyone who would look at part of what Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund does.
They fundraise. They raise funds. ( "We paid for it because it RAISED FUNDS for this purpose") There are literally millions being raised by them by grants or personal donations that went toward whatever it is that they do. So the 15 million that she will receive--will they go toward reimbursing whoever it was that DONATED funds toward her efforts? At this point it looks like fancy accounting footwork:
Here's 15 dollars now go any buy anything you want at the store.
And 14 years later, now we're going to "reimburse" her for whatever she bought at the store?
(in essence then she gets paid twice: once from the donor and then once from us)
Make us believers. Turn the tides around with at least some sort of explanation as to what is happening in light of what isn't listed on the tax returns.
The accounting firms that she says she had working on this and the expert witnesses are nowhere to be found on many years of tax returns for this organization. Where are the bills for them? They show up in 2008 (the bills to any contractors hired by this grass roots organization). Now to be fair, maybe before 2002 they were there. Guess we'll have to look at those tax returns when she presents them.
Examine the tax returns for the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund at the NCCS site and see if you come up with different opinions as to what she reported as contractors paid for by her organization. Otherwise, this doesn't look very believable. Maybe it is, but if receipts don't match up with the tax returns already available for public view, I would say that the overseeing court has to have some questions answered before they rule for the 15 million.
They fundraise. They raise funds. ( "We paid for it because it RAISED FUNDS for this purpose") There are literally millions being raised by them by grants or personal donations that went toward whatever it is that they do. So the 15 million that she will receive--will they go toward reimbursing whoever it was that DONATED funds toward her efforts? At this point it looks like fancy accounting footwork:
Here's 15 dollars now go any buy anything you want at the store.
And 14 years later, now we're going to "reimburse" her for whatever she bought at the store?
(in essence then she gets paid twice: once from the donor and then once from us)
Make us believers. Turn the tides around with at least some sort of explanation as to what is happening in light of what isn't listed on the tax returns.
The accounting firms that she says she had working on this and the expert witnesses are nowhere to be found on many years of tax returns for this organization. Where are the bills for them? They show up in 2008 (the bills to any contractors hired by this grass roots organization). Now to be fair, maybe before 2002 they were there. Guess we'll have to look at those tax returns when she presents them.
Examine the tax returns for the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund at the NCCS site and see if you come up with different opinions as to what she reported as contractors paid for by her organization. Otherwise, this doesn't look very believable. Maybe it is, but if receipts don't match up with the tax returns already available for public view, I would say that the overseeing court has to have some questions answered before they rule for the 15 million.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Elouise Cobell's fees need some documentation
Elouise Cobell recently stated that she had worked this case for 14 years. She stated that the fees for this cause are relatively small in comparison. There a couple of other important things that are pretty small in comparison. If she had personally lost 15 million in land revenue, fine, lets see it. If she personally lost 15 million litigating this, fine let see it. But if she's just representing a bunch of us to inflate what she gets, then that would be another story.
So what are the "estimated earnings" of her organization the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund? She makes inference that her BRDF funded much of her efforts to argue this case. Dunn and Bradstreet have her annual sales as low as $310,000. Manta.com has her between $500,000 and 1 million in annual sales. Well, if she's selling her Consulting services, to us the land owners, then I'd say we don't owe 15 million. We owe a max of 14 million and minimum according to Dunn and Bradstreet of $4,340,000 million.
As evidenced by some of the tax returns she filed, Dennis Gingold has already been paid too. And she got some hefty grants or public support for quite a bit of money that should already be deducted from what we, the land owners, owe her.
Looking through the tax returns on NCCS the National Center For Charitable Statistics I can only see one year that we, the land owners, owe to any "contractor": Dennis Gingold in 2008 accrued fees of $157,050. dollars in legal fees. Well now that seems reasonable. We also paid for CRA to come in and do some work. Then we had an accountant check the numbers too. But what about Elouise Cobell, doesn't she deserve some pay?
Well agreeably she does. But for what? She works according to her tax returns for a little as one hour a week. In the most recent tax returns she has doubled her work load to 2 hours a week. Now if she didn't get paid for all those years of work at two hours per week, (the tax returns show she didn't receive any compensation), then that's not the land owner's fault. Apparently she chose not to argue for compensation for all the years of tax returns on display at the NCCS site.
Or did she presume that if she got a giant win for all land owners that we would just give her 15 million?
Did this Blackfeet Reservation Development Corporation devote its entire existence to fighting this law suit? No education went toward its own reservation, no resources helped its own local community members out with some economic development ideas?
She deserves $25 dollars an hour for each year of the 14 years of litigation. It's the least we can do. That would bring her total up to $728,000 total. That seems fair, especially since she never told us that she was going to charge us after the fact.
You can't have it both ways, either you go the organization to compell them to pay you or you "suck it up and drive on." But don't expect me to have my name and all the oblivious land owners' names used to make you a millionaire after you received millions of dollars in public support or grants and managed to get by somehow. Or are there some fancy receipts that aren't showing up on your tax returns? Maybe you can have it both ways. Tell this judge what you think you are owed, and then tell us what you got. Some of us will judge the character of this incident by the transparency of the entire cast of actors. Make believers of us all and show how you lost 15 million arguing this case. My bet is that the GRANTS to your organization will more than cover what you claimed. Not all land owners are convinced and will wait for the transparency to prove your case.
Good luck with that.
So what are the "estimated earnings" of her organization the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund? She makes inference that her BRDF funded much of her efforts to argue this case. Dunn and Bradstreet have her annual sales as low as $310,000. Manta.com has her between $500,000 and 1 million in annual sales. Well, if she's selling her Consulting services, to us the land owners, then I'd say we don't owe 15 million. We owe a max of 14 million and minimum according to Dunn and Bradstreet of $4,340,000 million.
As evidenced by some of the tax returns she filed, Dennis Gingold has already been paid too. And she got some hefty grants or public support for quite a bit of money that should already be deducted from what we, the land owners, owe her.
Looking through the tax returns on NCCS the National Center For Charitable Statistics I can only see one year that we, the land owners, owe to any "contractor": Dennis Gingold in 2008 accrued fees of $157,050. dollars in legal fees. Well now that seems reasonable. We also paid for CRA to come in and do some work. Then we had an accountant check the numbers too. But what about Elouise Cobell, doesn't she deserve some pay?
Well agreeably she does. But for what? She works according to her tax returns for a little as one hour a week. In the most recent tax returns she has doubled her work load to 2 hours a week. Now if she didn't get paid for all those years of work at two hours per week, (the tax returns show she didn't receive any compensation), then that's not the land owner's fault. Apparently she chose not to argue for compensation for all the years of tax returns on display at the NCCS site.
Or did she presume that if she got a giant win for all land owners that we would just give her 15 million?
Did this Blackfeet Reservation Development Corporation devote its entire existence to fighting this law suit? No education went toward its own reservation, no resources helped its own local community members out with some economic development ideas?
She deserves $25 dollars an hour for each year of the 14 years of litigation. It's the least we can do. That would bring her total up to $728,000 total. That seems fair, especially since she never told us that she was going to charge us after the fact.
You can't have it both ways, either you go the organization to compell them to pay you or you "suck it up and drive on." But don't expect me to have my name and all the oblivious land owners' names used to make you a millionaire after you received millions of dollars in public support or grants and managed to get by somehow. Or are there some fancy receipts that aren't showing up on your tax returns? Maybe you can have it both ways. Tell this judge what you think you are owed, and then tell us what you got. Some of us will judge the character of this incident by the transparency of the entire cast of actors. Make believers of us all and show how you lost 15 million arguing this case. My bet is that the GRANTS to your organization will more than cover what you claimed. Not all land owners are convinced and will wait for the transparency to prove your case.
Good luck with that.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Elouise Cobell "Suffers" From Criticism
She deserves criticism if she is personally going to walk away with 15 million dollars while the rest of us will get the rumored 1,500 dollars. I thought she was arguing for justice. Where is the justice in walking away a millionaire? (for what kind of lost profits on her land?)
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Maybe, maybe if she lost 15 million dollars in profit from her land I could jump on board her gravy train. If she personally lost 15 million dollars contributing toward the litigation, maybe I could pull her little red wagon. If she was charging appearance fees on my behalf though, well that is a different matter.
What a haul! "She" points out a discrepancy which we all know about, and she gets to rake in the millions? I'm sorry, I thought this was initially for accountability. So, I propose that Congress, and a few "Good Indians" come up with the documentation to show how we land owners are supposed to take 1,500 dollars each and Elouise walks away a millionaire. If she has those kind of bills stacked up, then in the spirit of transparency, show all of us land owners your losing hand.
Otherwise, how in the name of all that's Native does she expect us to swallow this story of her walking away with 15 million dollars? I am willing to accept this, with a resonable explanation. Congress should do the same. Indian Land Owners should also fall in step.
And there are a few other issues which deserve stage time, but which do not deserve to be repeated when somebody else has already provided the arguments in Indian Country Today.
Did we just get hoodwinked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
