Larry Echo Hawk could not be further from the truth in making the statement in an Indian Country Today article (see here) that the “sweeping reform of federal surface leasing regulations for American Indian lands" will, "break the chains of paternalism that the federal government has held over tribes for too long."
It might in some areas, but when it comes to Tribes and Landowners who grow crops and who utilize a Gross Revenue Crop Share lease, this "sweeping reform" will sweep their rights right into the trash. This proposed reform requires IIM pay for any leases with more than 10 owners. Any leases with 10 owners or less HAVE to all agree to Direct Pay, even if the majority of the owners agree to Direct Pay.
IIM Pay is REGULATED PAYMENT BY CHECK FROM OST, for your crops on your land. And it usually has a time limit to be paid by. If you wanted to hold onto your crops until the market went in your favor by holding a ticket from your grain elevator, under this reform you will lose that ability. Many crops come into the grain elevators at one time. They all get put into a holding pattern until they get quality tested which may take until March or later sometimes. The problem with IIM Pay is that it will require payment by a deadline that fits one OST finance clerk;s misguided schedule in life.
This proposed reform does not eliminate Gross Revenue Crop Sharing being allowed in a lease, but it will confuse OST (big surprise there) in how they handle payments for a Crop Share Lease when payment is made in the form of a weighted share of the crop, which incidentally, is still allowed.
The best option is to leave the Direct Pay option the way it is currently in the CFR. If direct pay is negotiated in a lease, the burden of proof of payment (which is IN THE CFR) is on the person who pays the landowner. Simple. Not elegant, but it has to be more reliable than the years of mismanagement of trust that has been displayed in the Pre-Cobell era.
To the Finance Clerk in Office of Special Trustee who can't keep track of our Gross Revenue Crop Share leases: Please come to the rez to get instruction for how this piece of garbage will mess things up for thousands of land owners before this reform is signed into law.
related entries: bia' sweeping land leasing reforms
Showing posts with label Kim Teehee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim Teehee. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
"BIA's Sweeping Reform" of Land Leasing
Click this link to see the Federal Register Release on the BIA's Sweeping Reform of the Federal Leasing Process.
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
In the proposed reform as seen on the above page, you will note the severe restrictions on Direct Pay Options. If you have 11 landowners on a piece of land, there will be no more direct pay. It will only be allowed on land with 10 owners or less.
And ALL 10 owners have to consent to the Direct Pay. This is a specific slant against direct pay, otherwise, you would have a proposed regulation that says that whatever the "majority" of landowners agree to, is what should be enacted on a lease. Besides that, according to the current CFR, Direct pay is an option already on the books and 100% is NOT REQUIRED for you to receive direct pay from your farmer. This will have disastrous results!
If OST comes in and requires a farmer to pay them for your lease by November 1st, you will not have any option to play the market and you will not get anything that says anything about your harvest.
All you're going to get is a check. There is nothing else given. You don't know WHEN your crop was sold, HOW much crop you had, WHAT THE PRICE/BUSHEL was for your crop. What a wonderful way for accountability to fly out the window with your crop.
This is a policy in direct opposition to Crop Revenue Sharing. There will be confusion and as usual the OST will listen to their finance clerk in Albuquerque who knows nothing of agricultural marketing/harvesting operations.
This should be at least one point that tribes and tribal members should be in opposition to in this proposed regulation.
Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk said on Native Times, "The revised regulations will bring greater transparency, efficiency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process, and will provide tribal communities and individuals certainty and flexibility when it comes to decisions on the use of their land.”
So how is it when I have a gross revenue crop share lease where my farmer pays me with a weighed share of my crops that, under this new leasing reform, I am going to get transparency, efficiency and workability? Under this proposed reform, all I am going to get is a check and that's it. The check doesn't even say what it's for. It doesn't tell me what my crops sold for, when they were sold, or what the total bushel per acre for my allotment was.
You know a funny thing about those crops: There is no guarantee that the protein levels for your crops can be determined before November 1st. There is no guarantee that the quality of the crop versus weed and waste content can be determined before November 1st. They do a seed test on many crops which takes about a month to determine if your seed crops are quality that can be sold. So, how am I going to get a check for my "supposedly sold" crop when it hasn't even been divided up and tested yet? Sometimes the crops in bumper years aren't totally quality-checked until March because of the backlog.
But rest assured, that ONE FINANCE CLERK at OST will rest easy knowing that all the numbers line up nice and straight.
This is a horrible piece of this reform. The current 25 CFR 162. 226 states the lease can be negotiated for "DIRECT PAY" from the farmer or operator. 162.227 even stipulates how payment must be made under Direct Pay options.
There will be even more confusion now for our poor OST Clerk in Albuquerque because, how in the world will they pay land owners who have Crop Revenue Share leases? Legally by November 1st? Talk about Trust Mismanagement! A clear case for screwing the land owners again. How long ago was the Cobell suit? The ink's not even dry and now this!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Behind the scenes of the Cobell Opt Out
I can tell you opting out is on the mouths of more than a few Indians. The phone lines and emails are flying between Indians in D.C., South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Washington. The main problem with opting out is that most lawyers are representing the Tribes. Anyone else is hesitant to take a case on a "contingency basis."
What is obvious to all the INDIVIDUAL Tribal Landowners is that the Cobell Settlement Lawyers did not adequately represent almost the entire great plains region or the Pacific Northwest where landowners lease their land, and where many got Direct Pay from their farmers for YEARS. Not a lot of our money went through IIM accounts. The Cobell Settlement seems to ignore the fact the 25 CFR part 162 has always allowed Native Landowners to receive direct pay from their farmer-operators. It short-changes generations of landowners under the payment schedule worked into the Cobell Settlement where payment is made based on an amount of money that passed through each individual IIM account.
The Elouise Cobell Settlement team did not represent any Direct Pay Native Landowner. Their pay should be commensurate with their level of incompetence and fall well short of 200 million dollars.
Somebody should whisper this in Congressman Doc Hastings ear at the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Indian Affairs meeting on Tuesday.
What is obvious to all the INDIVIDUAL Tribal Landowners is that the Cobell Settlement Lawyers did not adequately represent almost the entire great plains region or the Pacific Northwest where landowners lease their land, and where many got Direct Pay from their farmers for YEARS. Not a lot of our money went through IIM accounts. The Cobell Settlement seems to ignore the fact the 25 CFR part 162 has always allowed Native Landowners to receive direct pay from their farmer-operators. It short-changes generations of landowners under the payment schedule worked into the Cobell Settlement where payment is made based on an amount of money that passed through each individual IIM account.
The Elouise Cobell Settlement team did not represent any Direct Pay Native Landowner. Their pay should be commensurate with their level of incompetence and fall well short of 200 million dollars.
Somebody should whisper this in Congressman Doc Hastings ear at the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Indian Affairs meeting on Tuesday.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
COBELL SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR AND JUST SETTLEMENT...IN LA LA LAND.
The Cobell Settlement is a fair settlement a just settlement, in LA LA Land. (la la land: A state of mind characterized by unrealistic expectations or a lack of seriousness.)
Recently Barack Obama, Black Eagle, made the statement that the Cobell settlement was fair and just. Some have said that he was mistaken. It couldn't be; he wouldn't say that to the Indian faces throughout all the land. "Someone" should tell him the truth. "Someone" should have told him that he might have been confusing a fair and just settlement to the African American Farmers with the pile o'crap being served to the people who collectively adopted him. There are as many reasons Indians adopt someone into their Nations as there are Indian Nations. One of those reasons is so that when Indians have a problem, the Indians and adoptees alike share in those problems now. "Someone" should have let him know that since he's been adopted, the Indians' problems are now "our" problems together, he and us.
In a recent Indian Country Today article Richard Monette offered an explanation for why Black Eagle would utter such an insult to Indian people in public: “He’s either being duped, or he doesn’t know, and someone is intentionally not letting him know.” "Someone" sure gets a lot of blame to chew on enit?
In the same article Kimberly Craven posits that maybe Black Eagle is "totally unaware" that thousands of Indians are opposed to the settlement, "or if he is, he obviously doesn't care." Let's hope that Barack Obama, our Black Eagle, is just unaware because otherwise the possibilties get more and more depressing.
There are obvious differences between Land-less Indians and large land-based-Indians, between D.C. Indians and reservation Indians, between assimilated Indians and traditional Indians. If you are from an Indian Nation with 16 whole acres to call your reservation, you will have different perspectives from large-land-based-Indians. If your Indian Nation's boundaries are encompassed within 16 acres or in some cases, even less, you won't have the same needs. Land-less Indians won't have 19 file cabinets full of land titles. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why surveys and maps designating treaty agreements were lost. Land-less Indians aren't wondering when cadastral survey corner markers will be replaced. Back in the day like around the early 1900s surveyors used posts to mark legal corners. By posts we don't mean they buried a fencepost. They buried a 16 inch piece of fir pine with a marker on top which was either plowed under, removed, lost in flooding, or rotted away. Now to establish cadastral surveys those corners have to be re-established. They aren't necessarily done by measurement; they are "legally interpreted" by people who may be STATE-elected officials who may or may not be collecting land information for their government's use. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why every single proof of land transactions were either destroyed, lost, or hidden away in a cave in Lenexa, KS. Not hidden? Try identifying which box the document is in, which book it's in, and the title of the document which has changed drastically over the years. Then try to identify how many tribes are in the same book or ledger and which tribe the entire ledger is filed under. Landless Indians don't have a plethora of cultural sites they work ceaselessly to protect. Land-less Indians won't have a fisheries department with 25 employees. They won't have a forestry department. Land-less Indians won't have hundreds of land leases to negotiate each year. Land-less Indians won't have to wonder why nobody seeks justice for the thousands of trespasses that occur daily on our reservations. They won't have the responsibility for supporting an entire government's infrastructure. And that is primary reason number one why the mis-informed and the land-less indians will gladly accept a pittance of $1000 dollars. Something out of nothing for them and a continued "status quo" of the lack of treatment our Native land issues.
But if you're an Oklahoma Indian with a law degree, by god, you must know what you're doing. If you're that big toe to President Obama on Indian Issues, surely you must have thought that throwing a mere pittance of $1000 dollars to every IIM account holder will not fix anything. Surely an Indian Advisor by now would have advised to provide true justice by providing for free Cadastral Surveys by objective surveyors with no conflict of interest, free appraisals by the same token, free N.E.P.A. evaluations, and funding to support a true lease compliance staff to recover millions in reparations every year from every single trespass onto our lands. Only then would you begin to discuss individual payments.
Black Eagle really is an advocate; it's just that he's advocating for a group of African American Farmers to receive a just and fair settlement of $48,500 dollars per farmer, while the Indian people he's been adopted by will receive $1000 per account holder and a bonus of $500 dollars depending on how much money you can prove the government had their hands on; all while Elouise Cobell and her lawyer buddies will walk away with 116 million dollars.
For those of you keeping track that means Native Americans will each receive 3% of what each of the African American Farmers will receive, except for Elouise and Company. Indians will receive 3% of what African American farmers will receive for not getting loans on land that used to be Indian land. Indians will receive 3% of what African American Farmers will receive for decades and generations of mismanagement of trust responsibilities and lost revenues.
It's hard to find anybody in the White Puzzle Palace, Non-Indian and Indian alike, who will understand the real fallacy with using the words just and fair when discussing the Cobell settlement. One would have thought that a large land-based-Indian tribal member would have understood but after the comments by Jodi Gillette at ATNI, one wonders if the leadership has stars in their eyes from a position in life or if they're the ones confused about what a rip off the Cobell settlement will be. Elouise cobell has a national spotlight and uses it with vigor to proudly proclaim the thousands of Indians in support of her settlement. The thousands of Indians who in reality don't support her cannot access the press with any effect to show their disapproval. When the Nez Perce Members who signed their letter of support of the settlement tried to have their names removed from the list, they were told there was no way to remove their names by one of the Cobell staff members. If the thousands of Indians who truly understand what trust responsibilities have been mismanaged cannot gain the support of President Obama, then perhaps Black Eagle will find he doesn't have the support of those same thousands of Indians. The realization may come as a surprise and too late for Black Eagle to recover from. Maybe that's what it will take for those in leadership to realize how many are opposed to the settlement.
Who's really in La La land? Those who argue for the settlement or those Indians who are waiting for a truly fair and just settlement to appear?
Recently Barack Obama, Black Eagle, made the statement that the Cobell settlement was fair and just. Some have said that he was mistaken. It couldn't be; he wouldn't say that to the Indian faces throughout all the land. "Someone" should tell him the truth. "Someone" should have told him that he might have been confusing a fair and just settlement to the African American Farmers with the pile o'crap being served to the people who collectively adopted him. There are as many reasons Indians adopt someone into their Nations as there are Indian Nations. One of those reasons is so that when Indians have a problem, the Indians and adoptees alike share in those problems now. "Someone" should have let him know that since he's been adopted, the Indians' problems are now "our" problems together, he and us.
In a recent Indian Country Today article Richard Monette offered an explanation for why Black Eagle would utter such an insult to Indian people in public: “He’s either being duped, or he doesn’t know, and someone is intentionally not letting him know.” "Someone" sure gets a lot of blame to chew on enit?
In the same article Kimberly Craven posits that maybe Black Eagle is "totally unaware" that thousands of Indians are opposed to the settlement, "or if he is, he obviously doesn't care." Let's hope that Barack Obama, our Black Eagle, is just unaware because otherwise the possibilties get more and more depressing.
There are obvious differences between Land-less Indians and large land-based-Indians, between D.C. Indians and reservation Indians, between assimilated Indians and traditional Indians. If you are from an Indian Nation with 16 whole acres to call your reservation, you will have different perspectives from large-land-based-Indians. If your Indian Nation's boundaries are encompassed within 16 acres or in some cases, even less, you won't have the same needs. Land-less Indians won't have 19 file cabinets full of land titles. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why surveys and maps designating treaty agreements were lost. Land-less Indians aren't wondering when cadastral survey corner markers will be replaced. Back in the day like around the early 1900s surveyors used posts to mark legal corners. By posts we don't mean they buried a fencepost. They buried a 16 inch piece of fir pine with a marker on top which was either plowed under, removed, lost in flooding, or rotted away. Now to establish cadastral surveys those corners have to be re-established. They aren't necessarily done by measurement; they are "legally interpreted" by people who may be STATE-elected officials who may or may not be collecting land information for their government's use. Land-less Indians aren't wondering why every single proof of land transactions were either destroyed, lost, or hidden away in a cave in Lenexa, KS. Not hidden? Try identifying which box the document is in, which book it's in, and the title of the document which has changed drastically over the years. Then try to identify how many tribes are in the same book or ledger and which tribe the entire ledger is filed under. Landless Indians don't have a plethora of cultural sites they work ceaselessly to protect. Land-less Indians won't have a fisheries department with 25 employees. They won't have a forestry department. Land-less Indians won't have hundreds of land leases to negotiate each year. Land-less Indians won't have to wonder why nobody seeks justice for the thousands of trespasses that occur daily on our reservations. They won't have the responsibility for supporting an entire government's infrastructure. And that is primary reason number one why the mis-informed and the land-less indians will gladly accept a pittance of $1000 dollars. Something out of nothing for them and a continued "status quo" of the lack of treatment our Native land issues.
But if you're an Oklahoma Indian with a law degree, by god, you must know what you're doing. If you're that big toe to President Obama on Indian Issues, surely you must have thought that throwing a mere pittance of $1000 dollars to every IIM account holder will not fix anything. Surely an Indian Advisor by now would have advised to provide true justice by providing for free Cadastral Surveys by objective surveyors with no conflict of interest, free appraisals by the same token, free N.E.P.A. evaluations, and funding to support a true lease compliance staff to recover millions in reparations every year from every single trespass onto our lands. Only then would you begin to discuss individual payments.
Black Eagle really is an advocate; it's just that he's advocating for a group of African American Farmers to receive a just and fair settlement of $48,500 dollars per farmer, while the Indian people he's been adopted by will receive $1000 per account holder and a bonus of $500 dollars depending on how much money you can prove the government had their hands on; all while Elouise Cobell and her lawyer buddies will walk away with 116 million dollars.
For those of you keeping track that means Native Americans will each receive 3% of what each of the African American Farmers will receive, except for Elouise and Company. Indians will receive 3% of what African American farmers will receive for not getting loans on land that used to be Indian land. Indians will receive 3% of what African American Farmers will receive for decades and generations of mismanagement of trust responsibilities and lost revenues.
It's hard to find anybody in the White Puzzle Palace, Non-Indian and Indian alike, who will understand the real fallacy with using the words just and fair when discussing the Cobell settlement. One would have thought that a large land-based-Indian tribal member would have understood but after the comments by Jodi Gillette at ATNI, one wonders if the leadership has stars in their eyes from a position in life or if they're the ones confused about what a rip off the Cobell settlement will be. Elouise cobell has a national spotlight and uses it with vigor to proudly proclaim the thousands of Indians in support of her settlement. The thousands of Indians who in reality don't support her cannot access the press with any effect to show their disapproval. When the Nez Perce Members who signed their letter of support of the settlement tried to have their names removed from the list, they were told there was no way to remove their names by one of the Cobell staff members. If the thousands of Indians who truly understand what trust responsibilities have been mismanaged cannot gain the support of President Obama, then perhaps Black Eagle will find he doesn't have the support of those same thousands of Indians. The realization may come as a surprise and too late for Black Eagle to recover from. Maybe that's what it will take for those in leadership to realize how many are opposed to the settlement.
Who's really in La La land? Those who argue for the settlement or those Indians who are waiting for a truly fair and just settlement to appear?
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Cobell Settlement gets worse and worse
The Opinion Piece in Indian Country Today, Eagle Woman: The Cobell Settlement is a great wrong to Indian people, further and more eloquently explains a lot of what is wrong with the Cobell Settlement. Angelique has simplified the facts, making it easy for everyone from legislators to Indian land owners to agree that the settlement as it stands is not even a slight shadow of what is owed. Nor is the current settlement one that should be allowed. It is a common sentiment among land owners that Eloise Cobell should not accept anything less than what all of us receive. There is now yet another refined explanation for why the settlement should not proceed further which all Indians should communicate to their senators in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and their nearby states.
Kimberly Craven and multiple others are speaking as Angelique Eagle Woman is: on behalf of Indian land owners. These ladies' articulate articles have become reasonable assumptions that what is on the table now is not acceptable, nor should oblivious Indian land owners be counted as support for this settlement. That the Cobell team went looking for support from tribal members is obvious; what is not so obvious is the fact that nothing was presented at her team's meetings with land owners that objectively presented all the facts. As one tribal member said after a recent meeting with the Cobell team, all he heard was pro settlement; he never heard the cons. Based on the skewed presentation, land owners whose tribes are not even part of the class action lawsuit, were fooled into signing petitions of support.
Now Angelique Eagle Woman has presented what is yet another article explaining why Indian land owners would once again be short-shrifted if the Cobell Settlement proceeds. Thanks to Angelique Eagle Woman, Kimberly Craven and the multiple other advocates is appropriate-as they have made obvious how disastrous this settlement could be. One would hope that President Obama's lead Indian policy advisor, Kim Teehee, is there to pick up the load from here.
It would be even more fortuitous if Congress listened to these two ladies and the rest of our advocates, whose explanations truly show that the Elouise Cobell Settlement is wrong.
Kimberly Craven and multiple others are speaking as Angelique Eagle Woman is: on behalf of Indian land owners. These ladies' articulate articles have become reasonable assumptions that what is on the table now is not acceptable, nor should oblivious Indian land owners be counted as support for this settlement. That the Cobell team went looking for support from tribal members is obvious; what is not so obvious is the fact that nothing was presented at her team's meetings with land owners that objectively presented all the facts. As one tribal member said after a recent meeting with the Cobell team, all he heard was pro settlement; he never heard the cons. Based on the skewed presentation, land owners whose tribes are not even part of the class action lawsuit, were fooled into signing petitions of support.
Now Angelique Eagle Woman has presented what is yet another article explaining why Indian land owners would once again be short-shrifted if the Cobell Settlement proceeds. Thanks to Angelique Eagle Woman, Kimberly Craven and the multiple other advocates is appropriate-as they have made obvious how disastrous this settlement could be. One would hope that President Obama's lead Indian policy advisor, Kim Teehee, is there to pick up the load from here.
It would be even more fortuitous if Congress listened to these two ladies and the rest of our advocates, whose explanations truly show that the Elouise Cobell Settlement is wrong.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Follow up to Kim Teehee Gets a Chance to Work.
The original idea or blog entry was here.
So much for that idea!
So much for that idea!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Another reason why the Cobell Settlement shouldn't pass
One provision of the Cobell payout will pay some but not all. And it's not favorable or judicial the way it will pay out. Let's say my sister and I are .30 (30/100) undivided interest owners on our land. My aunt is .10 (10/100 ) and my convicted-in-prison cousin is a .30 (30/100) undivided interest owner.
My aunt and I each get direct pay from our farmer. My sister who lives in Arizona and my cousin who is a convict in Florida State Prison each get paid on their crop leases through their IIM (individual Indian Money) accounts through the Office of Special Trustee. They always have. My aunt and I have always gotten direct pay since we live on our rez.
So under the Cobell Settlement, any money that passed through the IIM account during 2000-2009 will count toward the settlement. My convict-cousin and my California sister will each get paid based on our land lease for all the money that passed through their IIM account. My aunt and I will not get paid at all because we got direct pay from the farmer to us. My aunt and I make up .40% of the ownership. My sister and my cousin make up 60% of the ownership. The farmer sent the lease (which was unethical) to my sister and cousin to sign. Since they control over 50% of the ownership, they controlled the lease. They didn't know better so they signed the unethical lease.
Now, as part of the Cobell settlement, they will also get paid because they had their payments made through their IIM accounts.
My aunt and I will not get a penny from a portion of the Cobell settlement because we were paid directly from our farmer. We also didn't have a voice into whether the unethical lease got approved or not.
Elouise Cobell argued for justice and accountability. The current settlement will further erode many peoples' trust in the Federal Government and Elouise Cobell if she continues to argue for what is now an unethical settlement.
Shame is on who?
My aunt and I each get direct pay from our farmer. My sister who lives in Arizona and my cousin who is a convict in Florida State Prison each get paid on their crop leases through their IIM (individual Indian Money) accounts through the Office of Special Trustee. They always have. My aunt and I have always gotten direct pay since we live on our rez.
So under the Cobell Settlement, any money that passed through the IIM account during 2000-2009 will count toward the settlement. My convict-cousin and my California sister will each get paid based on our land lease for all the money that passed through their IIM account. My aunt and I will not get paid at all because we got direct pay from the farmer to us. My aunt and I make up .40% of the ownership. My sister and my cousin make up 60% of the ownership. The farmer sent the lease (which was unethical) to my sister and cousin to sign. Since they control over 50% of the ownership, they controlled the lease. They didn't know better so they signed the unethical lease.
Now, as part of the Cobell settlement, they will also get paid because they had their payments made through their IIM accounts.
My aunt and I will not get a penny from a portion of the Cobell settlement because we were paid directly from our farmer. We also didn't have a voice into whether the unethical lease got approved or not.
Elouise Cobell argued for justice and accountability. The current settlement will further erode many peoples' trust in the Federal Government and Elouise Cobell if she continues to argue for what is now an unethical settlement.
Shame is on who?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Kim Teehee gets a chance to work
(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
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, November 18, 2009
Peabody Coal and the Office of Surface Mining's activities are again called to question
The controversey around Peabody Coal still not only simmers, it has once again boiled over, or at least it looks to if things don't change in the immediate future.
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
More leaders need to know, as it has been pretty rampant as of late, that not every Indian speaks for EVERY Indian. If indeed the Life of Mine provision, addressed in this latest Indian Country Today Opinon Piece by the Hon. Ben Nuvamsa, was passed in the dark hours of a passing administration, then the powers that be, need to request clarification from the Hopi Tribe that this is what the Hopi Tribe is in agreement with.
Perhaps a referendum should be initiated from the new Hopi tribal administration to reveal what the true voice of the people is concerning the provisions of the Black Mesa Area Mining permit. This is the truest path to discovering if the Hopi people really want to grant such broad sweeping permission to the Peabody Coal Company.
Alternatively, if the Hopi Tribe's process permits it, the Hopi people should present an immediate Direct Initiative to determine their own opinion on how to supply the needs of the Mohave Generating Station, while still addressing the natural resource needs of the people in a way that is transparent, respectful of all that will be impacted, and in the end run is in the best opinion of an informed Hopi tribal population. (A Direct Initiative will go directly to a vote and circumvent the legal maze that many will not be familiar with or have the patience to endure)
A tribal law will hold status that should weigh heavily in any pending lawsuit
Both sides of the issue should be most supportive of a Direct Initiative because the majority will come out on top, and if either side believes it really is correct then this is the ultimate mechanism for putting money where mouth may be. Then there will be no questions left to answer.
No questions will be left except-what will the Hopi people do either with or without their resources in either scanario?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs & Job Training
Bravo to Rep Lynch, Stephen F. , MA; Rep Kaptur, Marcy OH; Rep Lipinski, Daniel IL; Rep Quigley, Mike IL; and Rep Shuler, Heath NC. These distinguished people had an issue and they came up with a solution. They needed (?) Native American Iron workers. Or they wanted them, or they just saw an opportunity to help some Indians in need of work. At any rate, they have begun the long legislative journey to provide a means to that end: H.R.1129.
H.R.1129
This fancy piece of social work just passed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and they liked it. This will provide (with "available" funds) an annual grant to someone, some corporation, some entity (National Training Center?) to train Indians how to become Iron Workers and then assist them with job placement. BRAVO! BRAVO!
Why didn't anybody do this instead of the current Non-Tribal-Contractor-Friendly Cadastral Surveying Program?
We can do that? We can provide necessary training for a specific need? We don't have to accept all these non-native contractors who will hold their hand out for money every year when we NEED cadastral surveys conducted? We don't have to accept State, County, and City Surveyors who are trained as CFEDS surveyors, and who also hold the distinction of having a conflict of interest as it relates to releasing the survey information publicly, and representing entities with whom we may have border disputes, and tax disputes? Wow!
Someone should make up a bill like this to replace the horrible CFEDS program. It's only feeding contractors annual jobs on our reservations and we get nothing more than a survey from it. We aren't becoming empowered; we really are at the mercy of a bunch of people, even within the federal government who will subvert our sovereignty, or who will release our National information to several government entities that never were empowered to sign treaties with us.
I'm sure that the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs would gladly look a bill like this over and pass it along. The Tribes would.
"Think outside the box because the box probably belongs to a contractor"
This isn't new; read more here:
Surveys on a reservation A penny for your appraisal
A Grand Contracted Mess Yet More Motivations
President Obama's Contract Reform memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
H.R.1129
This fancy piece of social work just passed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and they liked it. This will provide (with "available" funds) an annual grant to someone, some corporation, some entity (National Training Center?) to train Indians how to become Iron Workers and then assist them with job placement. BRAVO! BRAVO!
Why didn't anybody do this instead of the current Non-Tribal-Contractor-Friendly Cadastral Surveying Program?
We can do that? We can provide necessary training for a specific need? We don't have to accept all these non-native contractors who will hold their hand out for money every year when we NEED cadastral surveys conducted? We don't have to accept State, County, and City Surveyors who are trained as CFEDS surveyors, and who also hold the distinction of having a conflict of interest as it relates to releasing the survey information publicly, and representing entities with whom we may have border disputes, and tax disputes? Wow!
Someone should make up a bill like this to replace the horrible CFEDS program. It's only feeding contractors annual jobs on our reservations and we get nothing more than a survey from it. We aren't becoming empowered; we really are at the mercy of a bunch of people, even within the federal government who will subvert our sovereignty, or who will release our National information to several government entities that never were empowered to sign treaties with us.
I'm sure that the Senate Committe on Indian Affairs would gladly look a bill like this over and pass it along. The Tribes would.
"Think outside the box because the box probably belongs to a contractor"
This isn't new; read more here:
Surveys on a reservation A penny for your appraisal
A Grand Contracted Mess Yet More Motivations
President Obama's Contract Reform memo, a fix to the Grand Contracting Mess
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Kimberly Teehee is actually the #2 position in Indian country
Jackie Johnson Pata said [Kim Teehee's] job was really going to hone in on those [domestic] policy issues. Pata also said, Kim's job was like the No. 1 position in Indian Country.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
