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
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.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute in a dilema
"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."
~J.C. Watts
Ok.....shhhhhhhh.... Nobody watch the Bureau of Indian Education. Let's see what they do about SIPI losing their accreditation if nobody's looking.
And on March 24th then we'll look-after the Higher Learning Commission has left. There will be no Find-A-Word puzzle that will fix any of the shortcomings, however.
~J.C. Watts
Ok.....shhhhhhhh.... Nobody watch the Bureau of Indian Education. Let's see what they do about SIPI losing their accreditation if nobody's looking.
And on March 24th then we'll look-after the Higher Learning Commission has left. There will be no Find-A-Word puzzle that will fix any of the shortcomings, however.
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.”
"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)
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.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Eloise Cobell's Boy Scouts
Check out the new Indian Country Today format in the latest bit of "news" coming out from the Elouise Cobell "Corporation". Are there loose threads beginning to unravel and expose the men hiding behind the curtain? Is the intent of Team Cobell only now becoming obvious to everybody?
See what the newest article from Indian Country has to say about our "Superhero-advocates" here.
Such a great group of chums enit? They worked together to make their dreams come true and now their dreams are about to materialize right before....we get paid.
Should we thank them now? Is it proper to thank them before they take more money off the table before we get paid? I'm not sure what to do, Elouise. Do we offer them dessert, second helpings, tell them to leave the check blank, post-date it? You seem to have a handle on knowing what's "best for us" so what are we supposed to do now?
Related Posts:
Elouise Cobell Settlement could have been so much more
President Obama's final step before the fall known as the Cobell Settlement
Cobell Settlement is a fair and just settlement...in la la land
Cobell Settlement gets worse and worse
Another reason why the Cobell Settlement shouldn't pass
Elouise Cobell's cookie begins to crumble
Elouise Cobell answers...sort of
Elouise Cobell's fees need some documentation
Elouise Cobell "suffers" from criticism
See what the newest article from Indian Country has to say about our "Superhero-advocates" here.
Such a great group of chums enit? They worked together to make their dreams come true and now their dreams are about to materialize right before....we get paid.
Should we thank them now? Is it proper to thank them before they take more money off the table before we get paid? I'm not sure what to do, Elouise. Do we offer them dessert, second helpings, tell them to leave the check blank, post-date it? You seem to have a handle on knowing what's "best for us" so what are we supposed to do now?
Related Posts:
Elouise Cobell Settlement could have been so much more
President Obama's final step before the fall known as the Cobell Settlement
Cobell Settlement is a fair and just settlement...in la la land
Cobell Settlement gets worse and worse
Another reason why the Cobell Settlement shouldn't pass
Elouise Cobell's cookie begins to crumble
Elouise Cobell answers...sort of
Elouise Cobell's fees need some documentation
Elouise Cobell "suffers" from criticism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
