In part of his introduction to the book Sovereign Bones titled Rolling Those Sovereign Bones, Eric Gansworth wrote:
those people from indigenous communities who have chosen the artist's life understand that theirs is a gamble for survival. Their subversive acts, keeping their cultures alive, by necessity, use the tools of the oppressors: the English language, written forms of communication, Western publishing models, digital technology, film, the blog, installation, and myriad other forms of current information transmission. The risk inherent in learning to use the oppressors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
And I believe it. There is a point where if you argue with Native Americans in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you're seen as the rabble-rouser. There is a point where if you say a person in a position who just happens to be an Elder did something wrong, you are the person who is wrong. Let me tell you there are Elders who were not doing good things when they were young, so what is the difference if they do that now?
There are always people who will say that people just point their fingers just to be pointing fingers. If you are pointing at a Tribal member in the Bureau of Indian Affairs who is really doing something disastrous to Tribal members' rights, are you really the bad guy?
When realty staff tell tribal members "just sign the lease, stop being so difficult," I have an issue with that. When OST staff misquote 25 CFR (their guiding bible) I have an issue with that. When the Regional Directors of Bureau of Indian Affairs do not budget for a superintendent for every reservation, I have an issue with that. When tribes are submitted to a process with obvious blind spots such as the Cadastral Surveyor process which would put people with political conflicts of interest on our reservation surveying and acquiring sensitive information, I have an issue with that. When the Office of Appraisal Services neglects to protect tribes' appraisal contracts from being sub-contracted to two levels away from the contractor, I have an issue with that. When the same appraisal office neglects to identify how an appraisal firm came to a appraisal decision in a State of non-discolsure I have an issue with that. When tribes everywhere are not included on appraisal contracts as clients, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government loses all original surveys for three reservations, a Trust duty, and then require Tribes to pay for re-surveys, I have an issue with that.
When the Federal Government requires the Tribes to gain comments on Fee to Trust from local lower governments (mainly states and counties and towns) I have a problem with that because nobody asked us the impact that moving from Trust to Fee would have on us when they took our land.
When they continually put people into the office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs who have never worked at the ground level I have an issue with that.
These are Native Issues. If you are on the government side of the Native Issues, you had better be prepared to actually defend your stance with a proper citation of Title 25 the Code of Federal Regulations. If you are the realty specialist who told a land owner to just sign an agricultural lease without being difficult, the shame should be on you. If you are the person who could change the surveying scheme, and you don't do anything about it, you are the problem.
In the Army Drill sergeants tell new privates, "if you see a piece of garbage on the ground, it is now your garbage." In Native issues if you see something and don't do anything about it, it is your fault.
If you are a land owner who will sign a lease and then later complain because of what is in the lease, you need to start reading your lease. If you are not going to read your lease, then don't point a finger at the people who would warn you when your farmer takes full advantage of you on the lease you signed.
Am I confrontational? You had best bet that I am just as confrontational as the obstacle to change is toward me.
The risk in learning to use the oppresors' tools so fluently and naturally...is that often our own people become suspicious of our motivations.
Well know this, we should all be confrontational to the processes undertaken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Special Trustee with the right balance of confrontation just to sway the effect to justice.
I would hope that the Native Issues that are problems would be addressed. I would hope that if you are part of the problem in a Native Issue, you would read your bible, 25 CFR whether you're a land owner, or a Federal employee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee or any of their supposedly beneficial Contractors.
Do you want to know the quickest way to shut up a "finger-pointer?" Give them the responsibility. They'll either take the responsibility with the thought that their name is on it or they will fail miserably and then they won't complain.
Well, it would seem....ready for this?....that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Special Trustee have stopped complaining....because they are failing miserably. Understand, there are a multitude of people who are trying and looking out for their fellow tribal people. But the people who need to admit that many of the tasks carried out by Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special Trustee are not beneficial, are not working, and are failing miserably, have stopped complaining.
Even if it was to complain that there is too much work to be done, those leaders need to be complaining and stop labeling. Quite to the opposite, your whining and labeling come back to you in the way of medicine, self administered. It is good to advocate for Native Issues. It is not good to fail to admit that the Native Issues exist.
The truth just keeps coming back to you no matter how many times you deny it.
If it wasn't true, you should just say so.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Another American Indian Tribal Chairman Arrested by Police?
Another arrest warrant for a sitting American Indian Tribal Chairman?
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
First Eugene Little Coyote was arrested (December 28, 2007) when he resumed duties as Tribal President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe after his Tribe's Constitutional Court ruled that he was indeed still President after a failed attempt to oust him from office. It was a contentious issue and the Council appears to have been divided for what some have called jealousy and others may believe that it is over the Natural Resource over which the Tribe's land sits: Coal Bed Methane. The largest untapped CBM reserve in the United States.
Now, in October 2008, we have Ben Nuvamsa of the Hopi Tribe who is under threat of arrest for apparently resuming his daily legal duty as Chairman of the Hopi Tribe. What Tribal Court would arrest the Chairman? I'm of the opinion that they might impeach him, they might rule against his decisions, but arrest him? Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa despite being from opposite north and south ends of the United States of America might share crib notes and come up with the same conclusion. It isn't easy being on top, so whatever your reason, stick to it.
It is unfortunate though--unfortunate that the environment is what is most likely to take the hit for all the misgivings of our activities.
It's unfortunate that the Dirty Percaps have raised their head again as well. You know my concept of dirty percaps is where you keep the Native American populations poor enough so that they'll jump at the opportunity to make relatively little money off of what you want to mine, to exploit, to become rich over.
Mining jobs. Yes they make money. The economic multiplier from every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy.
You will do well to note the previous statements and consider their implications. I said that Natives could make "relatively little money" and "every dollar spent from those paychecks is a boost for the entire regional economy." The money made is relatively little COMPARED to the money that Peabody Coal is making by feeding a really minor fraction of what is made toward the paychecks. "Every Dollar spent from those paychecks" means that the rest of the money, the big money, the money paid by foreign companies ends up in the corporate accounts and is spent wherever the corporate leaders happen to live. How much money? Well on their own site they quote a figure of $4.6 billion in revenues, and that their coal products fuel approximately 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity. Wow! Say, uh, where did they get that much coal?
They don't get rich by making others rich, who does? But they'll get by on the Hopi Reservation by providing a decent paying job to a few people. Is that really all they should give? Understandably, they provide the means to the market, but I tend to agree with Carl Venne of the Crow Tribe and Ben Nuvamsa, that the days of leasing are over. Carl Venne is making headway toward owning the mining process up north. "Equity Ownership is what we want," said Ben Nuvamsa in the October 29 issue of Indian Country today article 'Black Mesa Project Controversey Rises.' I hope that the eyes of all Indian Country see what that means.
I am not a big fan of destroying the water table anywhere, with polluting the entire railway (it does happen and then later has to be capped to be used and to prevent further pollution from whatever was on the trains), with coal and what it does to the environment. I guess it has to happen, but at what cost? If the case is to be made that it should be utilized then don't take what amounts to pennies on the dollar. It isn't that I encourage people to get rich off coal, but in the absence of any alternative efforts at providing subsistence to your people, own the process. Do not lease it because the longer you lease the resource right, the more the leasee makes, and like a well-fed stray dog, they do get more comfortable with coming back for more helpings year after year after year.
Do companies need to mine resources? Of course. Do they need to do it on a reservation? Of course they do--if you ask them. Do Natives need to LEASE the resource right off the rez? No.
If this is going to cost the health of the land, make all the money you can so you can repair it. Now this Peabody coal is making enough to apparently "restore" mining sites in Indiana, so they obviously have a lot of money. Where are they getting it? I'll bet from all the mines they extract from. How much is really going back into the reservations where they operate? When the mine is gone, what is left? What is really sustainable that the mine is leaving behind? And how much are they making off the resource extracted from Indian Land?
I would hope that in the interest of the environment, the greatest thinkers in Indian Country would come up with alternatives to these people who tear up the earth and leave it like an open scab and then walk away.
Then again, Eugene Little Coyote and Ben Nuvamsa and Carl Venne may be those great thinkers each with a different solution. Ultimately, the solution should come from their tribes. So for now we'll hope that Ben Nuvamsa doesn't fall victim to the same hand cuffs that bound Eugene Little Coyote. None of us can say what the best solution for them is. Only their respective tribes can.
Just keep your eyes open on your reservation when the corporate interests come knocking on your door. Don't let the $20 dollar-an-hour paycheck (dirty percaps) sway your opinion from what you and your heritage originally stood for before somebody put a dollar sign on your environment.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Majel Russell Part Deux?
I am wondering if there is any chance Majel Russell might be seeking to get back into Carl Artman's office? Does she still have the keys?
I am in the earnest corner of "I hope she doesn't" because my opinion is that her stance on sovereignty thus far has not been within even the lightest shade of what True Sovereignty should be.
And because so many are oblivious to the facts surrounding her recent stint as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs means that not all Native Americans are the best judges or the best references for Majel. Instead ask Eugene Little Coyote of the Northern Cheyenne Nation what his opinion on Majel Russell may be. (she signed an order recognizing a new Northern Cheyenne President in opposition to a Northern Cheyenne Constitutional Court Opinion). Ask members from California's Table Mountain Rancheria whose sovereignty was wiped clean by the efforts of an enthusiastic lawyer (Majel Russell) as their leadership was being turned upside-down what their opinion is on her view of Sovereignty. All this happened as she and her clients sought to "peacefully take over leadership." (Again she was party to a leadership dispute under circumstances which at least in part appears to have been undermining tribal sovereignty, as she tried to figure out who had jurisdiction on the reservation? duh! Tribal police: think "Sovereignty") At the heart of the matter is that both the incumbent and the "dissident" faction on the Table Mountain Rancheria had the reigns put on them by the Tribe. They wanted to decide who would lead them together, AS A WHOLE TRIBE. They did not need the outside "expertise" of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or some fancy lawyer who was not mediating, but instead intimidating by throwing the "Casino Percapita Bone" out in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In an unexplainable move, Kevin Gover, the BIA Secretary at the time, issued recognition for the dissident faction, because of violations of a gaming allocation plan by the incumbent Tribal Chairman. Funny, I never knew the GAMING ALLOCATION PLAN would trump a LEGAL ELECTION by the people. (funny, just like the Northern Cheyenne's overturning, the Tribal Constitution is what should have prevailed, not the opinion of an outsider like a lawyer from another tribe, or an Assistant Secretary who didn't set up the Tribes' Constitutions)
Remember one of the glaring points of this blog is that "right does not necessarily mean it's good." Follow the rules until following them defeats the entire purpose (in relation to the trust responsibility and the benefit to the tribal member). The American Indians have a long trail of Federal Court rulings that we will all tell you are not ethical or beneficial to us as Nations. Just because you followed a case in a court of law does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or ethical. I tend to believe Aristotle's and Socrates' view that True Politics meant the pursuit of the "Common Good."
"Common Good" for Native Americans should mean equal treatment across the board, and the best and most economical treatment should be to let tribes decide for themselves to exercise their own sovereignty. And in the absence of them exercising sovereignty-in-action, let that remain as one of their options. Everything comes to an end eventually. It doesn't take a lawyer from outside a tribe to end a dispute. I believe talented people like Majel Russell may have a place in some courts for the Tribes. Her accumen has been sharp thus far, but like Saul, maybe she needs to take the talent she's been given and pour it into a new direction, a better direction, in support of True Sovereignty. Maybe. Maybe like life, the tribal disputes across the nation will run their course and lessons will be learned from the snail's-pace flow of action. At any rate, tribes do not need a court to define sovereignty. In fact, if you start to define sovereignty, you begin to limit it.
The day you tell someone what sovereignty is you should not stop talking...forever, (the definition is infinite) or you should just hand over the keys to your leadership office. Well in light of the fact that, in a small part of the Native American Public Opinion, Majel Russell stepped all over sovereignty in the Northern Cheyenne Nation just recently, I would hope that the whoever gains the Presidency would ask a very short list of people for references if she ever seeks another leadership position at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee, or the Department of the Interior. I'm hoping we don't hand the keys to our BIA leadership offices over to her if she ever pursues a leadership position under the next Administration.
I am in the earnest corner of "I hope she doesn't" because my opinion is that her stance on sovereignty thus far has not been within even the lightest shade of what True Sovereignty should be.
And because so many are oblivious to the facts surrounding her recent stint as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Bureau of Indian Affairs means that not all Native Americans are the best judges or the best references for Majel. Instead ask Eugene Little Coyote of the Northern Cheyenne Nation what his opinion on Majel Russell may be. (she signed an order recognizing a new Northern Cheyenne President in opposition to a Northern Cheyenne Constitutional Court Opinion). Ask members from California's Table Mountain Rancheria whose sovereignty was wiped clean by the efforts of an enthusiastic lawyer (Majel Russell) as their leadership was being turned upside-down what their opinion is on her view of Sovereignty. All this happened as she and her clients sought to "peacefully take over leadership." (Again she was party to a leadership dispute under circumstances which at least in part appears to have been undermining tribal sovereignty, as she tried to figure out who had jurisdiction on the reservation? duh! Tribal police: think "Sovereignty") At the heart of the matter is that both the incumbent and the "dissident" faction on the Table Mountain Rancheria had the reigns put on them by the Tribe. They wanted to decide who would lead them together, AS A WHOLE TRIBE. They did not need the outside "expertise" of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or some fancy lawyer who was not mediating, but instead intimidating by throwing the "Casino Percapita Bone" out in front of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In an unexplainable move, Kevin Gover, the BIA Secretary at the time, issued recognition for the dissident faction, because of violations of a gaming allocation plan by the incumbent Tribal Chairman. Funny, I never knew the GAMING ALLOCATION PLAN would trump a LEGAL ELECTION by the people. (funny, just like the Northern Cheyenne's overturning, the Tribal Constitution is what should have prevailed, not the opinion of an outsider like a lawyer from another tribe, or an Assistant Secretary who didn't set up the Tribes' Constitutions)
Remember one of the glaring points of this blog is that "right does not necessarily mean it's good." Follow the rules until following them defeats the entire purpose (in relation to the trust responsibility and the benefit to the tribal member). The American Indians have a long trail of Federal Court rulings that we will all tell you are not ethical or beneficial to us as Nations. Just because you followed a case in a court of law does not mean it is necessarily beneficial or ethical. I tend to believe Aristotle's and Socrates' view that True Politics meant the pursuit of the "Common Good."
"Common Good" for Native Americans should mean equal treatment across the board, and the best and most economical treatment should be to let tribes decide for themselves to exercise their own sovereignty. And in the absence of them exercising sovereignty-in-action, let that remain as one of their options. Everything comes to an end eventually. It doesn't take a lawyer from outside a tribe to end a dispute. I believe talented people like Majel Russell may have a place in some courts for the Tribes. Her accumen has been sharp thus far, but like Saul, maybe she needs to take the talent she's been given and pour it into a new direction, a better direction, in support of True Sovereignty. Maybe. Maybe like life, the tribal disputes across the nation will run their course and lessons will be learned from the snail's-pace flow of action. At any rate, tribes do not need a court to define sovereignty. In fact, if you start to define sovereignty, you begin to limit it.
The day you tell someone what sovereignty is you should not stop talking...forever, (the definition is infinite) or you should just hand over the keys to your leadership office. Well in light of the fact that, in a small part of the Native American Public Opinion, Majel Russell stepped all over sovereignty in the Northern Cheyenne Nation just recently, I would hope that the whoever gains the Presidency would ask a very short list of people for references if she ever seeks another leadership position at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or Office of Special Trustee, or the Department of the Interior. I'm hoping we don't hand the keys to our BIA leadership offices over to her if she ever pursues a leadership position under the next Administration.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The N8tive Prayer..
A little levity never hurt anyone
The Ndnz Prayer
Our Interior which art in DC, hallowed be thy name
Thy secretaries come, to make sure Great Father’s will be done in
Give us this day our daily bread which might be moldy by now because you’ve been withholding it so long
And forgive our overdue loans as we borrow on our car titles to get by with outdated groceries from the thrift store
And lead us not into poverty, (although you shouldn’t push us either!)
But deliver us from lawsuits regarding the Cobell suit
For thine policies and regulations have to be translated into 562 languages which will take forever and ever, amen….
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Two cheers for Dirk Kempthorne!
The United States Department of the Interior released a report today, "Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne Initiates Action Following Receipt of Inspector General Reports."
Dirk Kempthorne will get two cheers for now and the third? Well, I think he deserves a third cheer when he e x p a n d s his display of leadership ethics and exercises justice over the fiasco over unethical behavior at the Office of Special Trustee.
What makes it different? Is it that they wasted resources, time, and the reputation of an otherwise sound agency belonging to the United States instead of from Native Americans? I am not saying it is, I'm just asking, why now, why this agency and why not before when equally damaging behavior happened at the Office of Special Trustee?
Was it equally damaging? Well I would think that to the people who filed reports with the Inspector General, Earl Devaney, putting their jobs at risk, it would be equally damaging to their quality of life. To the people who were waiting for objective management of their resources, it would be equally damaging. To people who were expecting just treatment of disciplinary problems, when Ross Swimmer assigned "corrective training," for Donna Erwin and Doug and Jeff Lords instead of real disciplinary action, yes it is my opinion that it was equally damaging. And when one of the three Ringling Trustees recently got promoted, well that was too much.
So, while Mines and Minerals Management Service gets scrutiny, Native Americans everywhere wait for a little bit of attention on our fire. We wait for justice, we wait for the Trust to be put into the Office of Special TRUSTee.
Dirk Kempthorne will get two cheers for now and the third? Well, I think he deserves a third cheer when he e x p a n d s his display of leadership ethics and exercises justice over the fiasco over unethical behavior at the Office of Special Trustee.
What makes it different? Is it that they wasted resources, time, and the reputation of an otherwise sound agency belonging to the United States instead of from Native Americans? I am not saying it is, I'm just asking, why now, why this agency and why not before when equally damaging behavior happened at the Office of Special Trustee?
Was it equally damaging? Well I would think that to the people who filed reports with the Inspector General, Earl Devaney, putting their jobs at risk, it would be equally damaging to their quality of life. To the people who were waiting for objective management of their resources, it would be equally damaging. To people who were expecting just treatment of disciplinary problems, when Ross Swimmer assigned "corrective training," for Donna Erwin and Doug and Jeff Lords instead of real disciplinary action, yes it is my opinion that it was equally damaging. And when one of the three Ringling Trustees recently got promoted, well that was too much.
So, while Mines and Minerals Management Service gets scrutiny, Native Americans everywhere wait for a little bit of attention on our fire. We wait for justice, we wait for the Trust to be put into the Office of Special TRUSTee.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Excuse me while I interrupt myself...
IndianTrust.com is reporting just now that a number of news accounts – particularly The Associated Press - are incorrectly saying that the plaintiffs have rejected a $7 billion offer from the government to settle the Indian Trust lawsuit. They say it simply isn’t true.
Imagine that? A news report saying things that aren't true? The nerve!
Indian Trust reports the facts to be that:
The government has never offered to settle the Cobell vs. Kempthorne lawsuit at any price.
Instead it is pointed out that the Bush administration in March 2007 suggested it was willing to spend $7 billion over 10 years to resolve a wide range of major Indian issues, including land fractional land claims, the Cobell suit, all individual land mismanagement claims, the 100 plus trust lawsuits filed by tribes and pay for all of trust reform as well.
Oh yes, and it also included provisions to deny Indians any right to bring any future lawsuits for future mismanagement no matter how egregious. That final provision was essentially a license to steal. This proposal was universally condemned by everyone not associated with the government, including a wide range of Native leaders.
Ms. Cobell did note that a mediator had suggested recoveries could run between $7 billion to $9 billion in the case. She said she "would want to talk about that more." Hardly a rejection.
But the Bush administration never followed up on her overture. In fact, federal officials have never made any offer to the Cobell legal team to settle the class action lawsuit for any specific amount.
In 2006, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee did introduce legislation to settle the lawsuit without a specific dollar amount. The Committee later amended that bill to include an $8 billion figure but the bill never moved out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee because of objections raised by the (Sudanese? South Korean, Spanish, noooooo...the United Snakes!) government.
The position of the Cobell plaintiffs has long been that we will consider reasonable offers from the United States to resolve this case. Unfortunately, none has been put forth.
Well, well, well...very well put if you ask me. But then who did the AP go ask to get these "facts of mythic porportion?
To view the latest information concerning this case, go to www.indiantrust.com
Imagine that? A news report saying things that aren't true? The nerve!
Indian Trust reports the facts to be that:
The government has never offered to settle the Cobell vs. Kempthorne lawsuit at any price.
Instead it is pointed out that the Bush administration in March 2007 suggested it was willing to spend $7 billion over 10 years to resolve a wide range of major Indian issues, including land fractional land claims, the Cobell suit, all individual land mismanagement claims, the 100 plus trust lawsuits filed by tribes and pay for all of trust reform as well.
Oh yes, and it also included provisions to deny Indians any right to bring any future lawsuits for future mismanagement no matter how egregious. That final provision was essentially a license to steal. This proposal was universally condemned by everyone not associated with the government, including a wide range of Native leaders.
Ms. Cobell did note that a mediator had suggested recoveries could run between $7 billion to $9 billion in the case. She said she "would want to talk about that more." Hardly a rejection.
But the Bush administration never followed up on her overture. In fact, federal officials have never made any offer to the Cobell legal team to settle the class action lawsuit for any specific amount.
In 2006, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee did introduce legislation to settle the lawsuit without a specific dollar amount. The Committee later amended that bill to include an $8 billion figure but the bill never moved out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee because of objections raised by the (Sudanese? South Korean, Spanish, noooooo...the United Snakes!) government.
The position of the Cobell plaintiffs has long been that we will consider reasonable offers from the United States to resolve this case. Unfortunately, none has been put forth.
Well, well, well...very well put if you ask me. But then who did the AP go ask to get these "facts of mythic porportion?
To view the latest information concerning this case, go to www.indiantrust.com
Thursday, August 7, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
