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 Trust Responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trust Responsibility. 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!
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Dear Elouise Cobell Litigation Members
"Someone Tell Her" week of February 31, 2011
February 31, 2011
Dear Indian Country:
don't read between the lines because you might not like what becomes obvious:
This is the another letter in a series of openly bitter letters that I'm sending to Indian Country. The purpose of this letter is to confuse you about the settlement and to answer your most relevant questions that maybe 20 indians have as proof that Indian country "overwhelmingly" has no idea of what we've been up to.
As I reported in the another letter where I gave no side opposed to me any time to refute my claims, the parties agreed to extend the settlement for just the 40th time and yet another extension is required if we are to give Santa a chance to pass legislation. I will only consult our attorneys and allies on the Hill about that extension on behalf of oblivious land owners over the next few days.
In your last letter, you mentioned that Senator Barrasso (R - WY), Vice-Chairman, Senator Committee on Indian Affairs introduced an amendment that he says would "improve" the settlement agreement even though it would terminate the settlement, what is the status of his amendment? Thanks to the overwhelming support of maybe 20 Indians who favor my side, Senator Barrasso was unable to bring his amendment to the floor for a vote. Your letters and calls to members of Congress had a significant impact on the outcome. Unfortunately, Senator Barrasso still doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that Indian Country has 20 Indians who overwhelmingly support this settlement. According to statements reported in the press, he is more determined than ever to rob you of your victory in this case and it is likely that he again will attempt to introduce an amendment to terminate the settlement at some time in the future. We remain on guard against his efforts to further harm more than 20 individual Indians. Instead we will focus our efforts on robbing you by shifting millions of dollars away from the thousands of other Indians who oppose me and putting it in the pockets of my lawyers.
You also mentioned that the National Congress of American Indians was considering a resolution supporting the Barrasso amendment, what is the status of that resolution? The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association resolutions opposing my settlement will summarily be ignored and therefore do not exist as proof that more than 20 Indians overwhelmingly oppose my settlement. (In fact they only represent 73 tribes in 9 states) I attended an imaginary NCAI event in Rapid City, South Dakota beginning June 31, 2010. A small, rabid group of tribal representatives sought to support Senator Barrasso's amendment and, thereby, kill your settlement, but their effort was defeated soundly (even overwhelmingly) and NCAI passed a resolution urging Congress to reject the Barrasso amendment and pass authorizing legislation as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the tribally-elected leaders I called Rabid could not be euthanized. It is important to remember that this class is made up solely of oblivious individual Indian trust beneficiaries; tribes have their own litigation (and, at times, the agenda of a few tribally-elected leaders is inconsistent with individual Indians' interests), but they don't represent your interests in this litigation. I do, so don't listen to them; listen to me; your non-elected leader.
Will any Interior contractors with experience on Indian issues be selected to assist with the distribution of settlement proceeds or to hold the funds pending distribution? Overwhelmingly not! This is a conflict of interest which does not serve my interests or my attorney's interests so it won't be tolerated. To allow the same contractors, who have been peddling their services that fail to deliver promised benefits to Indian Country, to have any role in the distribution of settlement funds would be insane. For the first time in history, your funds will be held securely, managed prudently, and distributed competently by able and experienced professionals, mostly to my lawyers but you will get enough to buy groceries and gas for a month-rest assured! I know of no Interior contractors that meet the highest fiduciary standards that you are owed; this is not dissimilar to your lack of knowledge of any lawyer who is really representing your interests.
While I'm at it, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't like ATNI, GPTCA, or Interior people. I'm only here to support "Individual Indians."
Where can I review the overwhelming amount of time the attorneys have spent on the litigation? Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, statements regarding counsels' billing rates and related records supporting daily time, expense and cost records will be filed with the Court and available to the public as long as you are standing just inside the courtroom doors or downstairs in the courtroom basement where the records are available for any Indian in this country to come and see, in person. (For the record, for reasons unexplainable to oblivious Indian Land Owners we will not publish the records anywhere where everybody can see them, like in a newspaper, or on my website, or on the Church Bulletin Board.) This documentation will be filed no later than 30 days following preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the Court. After the court signs. Not before the Court signs. Preliminary approval by the Court cannot occur unless and until Congress authorizes the settlement. We are not holding anybody hostage by withholding the billing information until after Congress signs the settlement. We are only holding papers people! Papers! As soon as the settlement is signed, we will surprise everybody with the billing information. We will not contest any settlement between 50 and 99 million dollars. We will agree that we are entitled to between 50 and 99 million dollars. That is irrefutable information that we will not contest. We will not contest that we are owed between 50 and 99 million. We agree that we are owed between 50 and 99 million dollars: plus 124 million dollars. Since no one will suggest 223 million dollars it will therefore be ok for us to suggest it. It will all make overwhelming sense if you don't think about it.
Prior letters which are truly objective cannot be found . We also have a "frequently asked questions" section which includes what I have deemed the most common questions we've received as well as questions and answers from prior harmless letters. With so many members of the class being so angry, I can't answer every question that you send. These letters will answer as many questions as possible, or two that I randomly choose as being harmless to my cause that are relevant to the entire oblivious class membership.
The most common question I receive every week relates to whether a particular person is included in this settlement. Unfortunately, I do not have that information, then again, maybe it's best I don't have that information. The settlement agreement provides general guidelines. But I also understand that many of you are still oblivious to the entire settlement agreement and still have questions. Thank you for your questions.
I hope someday to have an answer, after we've been paid for our time and service to all 20 of the Indians who overwhelmingly support me. Pay no attention to my tax records which are public and show that most weeks I only recorded to the IRS that I worked 2 hours a week for the organization which got grants to have me represent all the oblivious Indians in the pursuit of justice in this case. I will do my best to amend the records from 14 previous years that shows that we already paid for the financial services and the legal services of a few well known attorneys associated with this case.
Thanks for being an enrolled member which gave me numbers from which to claim I represent.
If no one answers any of the relevant questions of angry land owners please keep sending letters. We overwhelmingly welcome any letter, unfortunately we won't answer all of them or any that appear to be representing dissent from my opinion or my attorneys, ooops I mean our attorneys.
If you have a question, send an e-mail to someone. Otherwise you can send me a letter. To expedite the processing of your letters a contractor has set up a post office box in Ohio, smack dab in the middle of Indian Country! But I assure you I will see your letters. I just won't answer any that are too difficult to explain or that point out our shortcomings in representing the real overwhelming majority of you.
Thank you and keep your questions coming!
Best wishes for those expensive attorneys of mine
-your overwhelmingly best supporter
More articles are at the bottom of this page. Click here.
February 31, 2011
Dear Indian Country:
don't read between the lines because you might not like what becomes obvious:
This is the another letter in a series of openly bitter letters that I'm sending to Indian Country. The purpose of this letter is to confuse you about the settlement and to answer your most relevant questions that maybe 20 indians have as proof that Indian country "overwhelmingly" has no idea of what we've been up to.
As I reported in the another letter where I gave no side opposed to me any time to refute my claims, the parties agreed to extend the settlement for just the 40th time and yet another extension is required if we are to give Santa a chance to pass legislation. I will only consult our attorneys and allies on the Hill about that extension on behalf of oblivious land owners over the next few days.
In your last letter, you mentioned that Senator Barrasso (R - WY), Vice-Chairman, Senator Committee on Indian Affairs introduced an amendment that he says would "improve" the settlement agreement even though it would terminate the settlement, what is the status of his amendment? Thanks to the overwhelming support of maybe 20 Indians who favor my side, Senator Barrasso was unable to bring his amendment to the floor for a vote. Your letters and calls to members of Congress had a significant impact on the outcome. Unfortunately, Senator Barrasso still doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that Indian Country has 20 Indians who overwhelmingly support this settlement. According to statements reported in the press, he is more determined than ever to rob you of your victory in this case and it is likely that he again will attempt to introduce an amendment to terminate the settlement at some time in the future. We remain on guard against his efforts to further harm more than 20 individual Indians. Instead we will focus our efforts on robbing you by shifting millions of dollars away from the thousands of other Indians who oppose me and putting it in the pockets of my lawyers.
You also mentioned that the National Congress of American Indians was considering a resolution supporting the Barrasso amendment, what is the status of that resolution? The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association resolutions opposing my settlement will summarily be ignored and therefore do not exist as proof that more than 20 Indians overwhelmingly oppose my settlement. (In fact they only represent 73 tribes in 9 states) I attended an imaginary NCAI event in Rapid City, South Dakota beginning June 31, 2010. A small, rabid group of tribal representatives sought to support Senator Barrasso's amendment and, thereby, kill your settlement, but their effort was defeated soundly (even overwhelmingly) and NCAI passed a resolution urging Congress to reject the Barrasso amendment and pass authorizing legislation as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the tribally-elected leaders I called Rabid could not be euthanized. It is important to remember that this class is made up solely of oblivious individual Indian trust beneficiaries; tribes have their own litigation (and, at times, the agenda of a few tribally-elected leaders is inconsistent with individual Indians' interests), but they don't represent your interests in this litigation. I do, so don't listen to them; listen to me; your non-elected leader.
Will any Interior contractors with experience on Indian issues be selected to assist with the distribution of settlement proceeds or to hold the funds pending distribution? Overwhelmingly not! This is a conflict of interest which does not serve my interests or my attorney's interests so it won't be tolerated. To allow the same contractors, who have been peddling their services that fail to deliver promised benefits to Indian Country, to have any role in the distribution of settlement funds would be insane. For the first time in history, your funds will be held securely, managed prudently, and distributed competently by able and experienced professionals, mostly to my lawyers but you will get enough to buy groceries and gas for a month-rest assured! I know of no Interior contractors that meet the highest fiduciary standards that you are owed; this is not dissimilar to your lack of knowledge of any lawyer who is really representing your interests.
While I'm at it, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't like ATNI, GPTCA, or Interior people. I'm only here to support "Individual Indians."
Where can I review the overwhelming amount of time the attorneys have spent on the litigation? Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, statements regarding counsels' billing rates and related records supporting daily time, expense and cost records will be filed with the Court and available to the public as long as you are standing just inside the courtroom doors or downstairs in the courtroom basement where the records are available for any Indian in this country to come and see, in person. (For the record, for reasons unexplainable to oblivious Indian Land Owners we will not publish the records anywhere where everybody can see them, like in a newspaper, or on my website, or on the Church Bulletin Board.) This documentation will be filed no later than 30 days following preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the Court. After the court signs. Not before the Court signs. Preliminary approval by the Court cannot occur unless and until Congress authorizes the settlement. We are not holding anybody hostage by withholding the billing information until after Congress signs the settlement. We are only holding papers people! Papers! As soon as the settlement is signed, we will surprise everybody with the billing information. We will not contest any settlement between 50 and 99 million dollars. We will agree that we are entitled to between 50 and 99 million dollars. That is irrefutable information that we will not contest. We will not contest that we are owed between 50 and 99 million. We agree that we are owed between 50 and 99 million dollars: plus 124 million dollars. Since no one will suggest 223 million dollars it will therefore be ok for us to suggest it. It will all make overwhelming sense if you don't think about it.
Prior letters which are truly objective cannot be found . We also have a "frequently asked questions" section which includes what I have deemed the most common questions we've received as well as questions and answers from prior harmless letters. With so many members of the class being so angry, I can't answer every question that you send. These letters will answer as many questions as possible, or two that I randomly choose as being harmless to my cause that are relevant to the entire oblivious class membership.
The most common question I receive every week relates to whether a particular person is included in this settlement. Unfortunately, I do not have that information, then again, maybe it's best I don't have that information. The settlement agreement provides general guidelines. But I also understand that many of you are still oblivious to the entire settlement agreement and still have questions. Thank you for your questions.
I hope someday to have an answer, after we've been paid for our time and service to all 20 of the Indians who overwhelmingly support me. Pay no attention to my tax records which are public and show that most weeks I only recorded to the IRS that I worked 2 hours a week for the organization which got grants to have me represent all the oblivious Indians in the pursuit of justice in this case. I will do my best to amend the records from 14 previous years that shows that we already paid for the financial services and the legal services of a few well known attorneys associated with this case.
Thanks for being an enrolled member which gave me numbers from which to claim I represent.
If no one answers any of the relevant questions of angry land owners please keep sending letters. We overwhelmingly welcome any letter, unfortunately we won't answer all of them or any that appear to be representing dissent from my opinion or my attorneys, ooops I mean our attorneys.
If you have a question, send an e-mail to someone. Otherwise you can send me a letter. To expedite the processing of your letters a contractor has set up a post office box in Ohio, smack dab in the middle of Indian Country! But I assure you I will see your letters. I just won't answer any that are too difficult to explain or that point out our shortcomings in representing the real overwhelming majority of you.
Thank you and keep your questions coming!
Best wishes for those expensive attorneys of mine
-your overwhelmingly best supporter
More articles are at the bottom of this page. Click here.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Background Check for Ross Swimmer
This article on Indianz.com titled, Swimmer can't recall Navajo involvement
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 is what should have come up to the Public and Administration's minds before Ross Swimmer came to acquire his position as Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee (OST). Well, it should have come up and then he should have been rejected for any position of advocacy for Indians. It probably did come up. Everyone from the President on down probably knew about it, but still welcomed him into the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and eventually the OST. They probably gave him a pat on the back as he was welcomed and said, "you're doing a heckuva job there Swimmer!"
It should be of note that at a recent Intertribal Trust Monitoring Association (ITMA) (of Trust Funds) meeting in April, 2008 in Albuquerque, NM, Ross Swimmer actually said that appraisal values should not be what people negotiate for on their agricultural leases. He said appraisal values should be the low end you receive for leases. This despite the fact that he may as well have worn the shoes of the LOBBYIST for PEABODY COAL when he screwed the Navajo Tribe, out of the royalty rate for coal. The LOBBYIST convinced an Indian Advocate, who went down swinging for our cause (feigning a twisted arm--anybody recognize Ross Swimmer?) may rest well only for a lack of conscience:
"In this case, the Court of Federal Claims found that the government met “secretly with parties having interests adverse to those of the [Nation], adopt[ed] the third parties’ desired course of action in lieu of action favorable to the [Nation], and then misle[d] the [Nation] concerning these events.
the [Navajo] Nation asked that the royalty rate be adjusted to a reasonable level, and Peabody had consented to such a reasonable adjustment explicitly in Lease 8580
Prior to the ex parte interference, (and the in-office interference) the Bureau of Indian Affairs had deemed proper and approved an increase in the royalty rate to 20%. Despite the mandate of § 1300(e) and the Nation’s request for an adjustment to a reasonable royalty rate, however, it is undisputed that Secretary Hodel refused to make this royalty adjustment permanent after meeting with Peabody’s representative, (There were probalby two Peabody Representatives when you think even for a second about it) whom the government conceded was “a former aide and friend of Secretary Hodel.
...the Secretary approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal government’s relations with Native Americans"
No Way? Really? He did that? All by himself? And then through a sudden change of heart over the course of time, he comes out telling Indians at the ITMA conference that they should negotiate leases advantageously, above the appraised value? In the words of Borat, wowie wow wow wow! Did he learn his lesson or is he merely attempting to put lipstick on a pig? Because no matter how well you dress up a pig, it's still a pig.
Your'e doing a heckuva job there Ross, heckuva job.......
details at 11 on indianz.com.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 is what should have come up to the Public and Administration's minds before Ross Swimmer came to acquire his position as Special Trustee, Office of Special Trustee (OST). Well, it should have come up and then he should have been rejected for any position of advocacy for Indians. It probably did come up. Everyone from the President on down probably knew about it, but still welcomed him into the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and eventually the OST. They probably gave him a pat on the back as he was welcomed and said, "you're doing a heckuva job there Swimmer!"
It should be of note that at a recent Intertribal Trust Monitoring Association (ITMA) (of Trust Funds) meeting in April, 2008 in Albuquerque, NM, Ross Swimmer actually said that appraisal values should not be what people negotiate for on their agricultural leases. He said appraisal values should be the low end you receive for leases. This despite the fact that he may as well have worn the shoes of the LOBBYIST for PEABODY COAL when he screwed the Navajo Tribe, out of the royalty rate for coal. The LOBBYIST convinced an Indian Advocate, who went down swinging for our cause (feigning a twisted arm--anybody recognize Ross Swimmer?) may rest well only for a lack of conscience:
"In this case, the Court of Federal Claims found that the government met “secretly with parties having interests adverse to those of the [Nation], adopt[ed] the third parties’ desired course of action in lieu of action favorable to the [Nation], and then misle[d] the [Nation] concerning these events.
the [Navajo] Nation asked that the royalty rate be adjusted to a reasonable level, and Peabody had consented to such a reasonable adjustment explicitly in Lease 8580
Prior to the ex parte interference, (and the in-office interference) the Bureau of Indian Affairs had deemed proper and approved an increase in the royalty rate to 20%. Despite the mandate of § 1300(e) and the Nation’s request for an adjustment to a reasonable royalty rate, however, it is undisputed that Secretary Hodel refused to make this royalty adjustment permanent after meeting with Peabody’s representative, (There were probalby two Peabody Representatives when you think even for a second about it) whom the government conceded was “a former aide and friend of Secretary Hodel.
...the Secretary approved lease amendments with royalty rates well below the rate that had previously been determined appropriate by those agencies responsible for monitoring the federal government’s relations with Native Americans"
No Way? Really? He did that? All by himself? And then through a sudden change of heart over the course of time, he comes out telling Indians at the ITMA conference that they should negotiate leases advantageously, above the appraised value? In the words of Borat, wowie wow wow wow! Did he learn his lesson or is he merely attempting to put lipstick on a pig? Because no matter how well you dress up a pig, it's still a pig.
Your'e doing a heckuva job there Ross, heckuva job.......
details at 11 on indianz.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
