The best Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs we're going to get

You protect Individual Indian Rights with the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs you have--not the Secretary you might want or wish to have at a later time.

"We’re all about executing the trust responsibility and protecting all Native people that have an interest in water,” [Larry] Echo Hawk said. “I’m here to tell you we will be vigilant in protecting the rights of allottees.”

The bottom line, he said, “speaking as the assistant secretary, this is the best deal that you’re going to get." (from the Billings Gazette)

"...the best you're gonna get?"

That's "being vigilant?"

"The best you're going to get?" Why does that sound so paternalistic again? Yes there is a lot of great stuff going on in the Crow Water Settlement. The Tribe is not arguing, the BIA is not arguing, but if they were, "somebody" would be listening. The fact that BIA leaves tribes out of consultation on many policy changes is a fact that is not easily forgotten. Tribes are heard when they complain, rightly so.

But what happens when individual Indian land owners complain-when they weren't given a chance to voice their concerns-after a decision has been made that affects them? "...this is the best deal that you're going to get."

Any idea now why the Elouise Cobell Settlement, made on "behalf" of all land owners is such a contentious issue? Probably not.

And that leaves us still wishing for somebody to protect our Individual Indian Land Rights by listening to the Individual Land Owners who have the greatest gauge of what kind of effect any legislation or policies will have on us.

I guess getting a real championship office of Tribal and Individual Indian Rights really does come down to "...a matter of production and capability of doing it."

Coming soon: An Assistant Secretary who will advocate for the acceptance that the Cobell Settlement is fair and just to individual Land Owners. (make sure you read between the lines though if you're an Individual Indian Land Owner)

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?

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.

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?

The Dismal Cobell Dismissal

MARY CLARE JALONICK has a report just out: Judge says Indians owed $455m in trust case

U.S. District Judge James Robertson has summarily dismissed any billion dollar claim the Cobell plaintiff's had against the government. He has issued an opinion saying that Indians are entitled to 455 million dollars as part of the broken Trust duties of the United States. That's not even 1 million to each of the 562 tribes across the nation. Really? Really enit? They (the U.S. Government) were that accurate from 1887? Wow! Somebody nominate this government for a Quality Management Award!

Judge James Robertson says that Eloise Cobell et al. didn't prove that damages included benefits to the United States that the U.S. received as part of mis-use of the Trust Funds, despite the fact that it was argued that the trust funds were used to down-size some government debts.

Funny part is that he says in his ending statement, "The Cobell case will no doubt stand, in some respects, as a cautionary tale about the limited ability of a court to right historical wrongs that could have been — and should have been — settled by the same political branches in recognition of their own failure to preserve the trust."

Aint it the truth?