Established May 20, 1886
MDEWAKANTON SIOUX INDIANS|
REFRESH / RELOAD EACH TIME YOU ARRIVE.
A better interpretation of the September 1st ORDER & MEMORANDUM OPINION is this:
District Judge Rudolph Contrera ruled against the original complaint, but he left the door open for further action by the Plaintiffs.
MKLaw is meeting with the lead plaintiffs in the recent litigation, Mdewakanton Sioux In Minnesota (MSIM), and also the lead plaintiffs in the Wolfchild I & II ligation.
Do not expect to see anything posted here on those meetings with the two plaintiff groups. If further litigation or administrative action is pursued, it will probably be announced in a press briefing as has been the MKLaw practice in the past. Stay tuned!
Click on the First Saturday link above for more detail.
Below please find two recent District Court of DC documents, an ORDER and a MEMORANDUM OPINION, both dated September 1, 2017:
In quickly reviewing the above two documents, it appears District Judge Rudolph Contrera is handling all the MOTIONS before him in reverse order and a final decision has not yet been made to
the Plaintiffs original November 23, 2016 Verified Complaint.
As soon as a better interpretation than that above becomes available, it will be posted here immediately.
Below please find the latest plaintiff filing dated June 30, 2017:
PLAINTIFFS' SURREPLY MEMORANDUM
Below are three documents apparently obtained some years ago from the Minneapolis Regional Office, Minnesota Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Copy of a 1961 letter from
W. W. Palmer, Superintendent, Minnesota Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Daily Republican Eagle newspaper
Undated document entitled
"Southern Minnesota Sioux Reservations"
Undated document entitled
"A Brief History of the Prairie Island Sioux"
On June 20th, 2017, District Judge Rudolph Contrera issued a MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' April 17th MOTION for Leave to File a SURREPLY.
Judge Contrera further ORDERED that on or before June 30, 2017, Plaintiffs shall file up to 6 pages comprising their SURREPLY in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A MINUTE ORDER is often the court's answer to a party's request. A minute order comes about when a trial judge sits officially, with or without a court reporter, and a clerk keeps minutes of the court session. In those sessions the only record of an oral order made by the judge may be in the minutes.
Two documents were filed late this afternoon regarding the Motion For Temporary Restraining Order:
District Judge RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
District Judge RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Two documents were filed today regarding the Motion For Temporary Restraining Order:
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I do not see any document in the PACER system as to whether Judge Contreras granted Plaintiff's 4/17/2017 Memorandum For Leave to File A Surreply Memorandum.
However, the following documents were filed May 30, 2017 in U. S. District Court (District of Columbia):
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
DECLARATION OF ERICK G. KAARDAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A meeting was held this date of Mdewakanton Sioux in Minnesota lineal descendents who are members of the 3 Mdewakanton Communities in the state of Minnesota to discuss issues.
Left to Right
Sheldon Wolfchild, Dean Pendleton, Bruce Campbell, Michael Childs Jr.,
Margo Bellanger, Leonard Prescott, Tina Heinrich, Tina Jefferson,
Patricia Prescott, Karen Walker, Alan Eller Two Horses,
Darlene Campbell Roach, Michael Roach,
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke today filed the
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
This motion is incorrectly dated January 13, 2015.
Erick G. Kaardal of Mohrman, Kaardal & Ericson, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota, Margo Bellanger, Tina Jefferson, Michael J. Childs, Jr., today filed a
MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A SURREPLY MEMORANDUM because Defendants in their April 7, 2017 Reply Memorandum (see below 04/07/2017 post) had a new argument
which was not raised in their initial February 21, 2017 memorandum to support a motion to dismiss (see below 02/23/2017 post).
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
If United States District Judge Rudolph Contreras does not grant federal defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS, he will then order a hearing for oral arguments and set a calendar of events leading up to the hearing.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants' now have three weeks to reply to the above Plaintiff' Memorandum in Opposition.
On March 2nd, Plaintiff Counsel Erick G. Kaardal filed a PLAINTIFFS' MOTION for Extension and Memorandum in Support for an extension of time to file the Plaintiffs’ response due to a family death. Counsel for the United States does not object to the extension. The requested new filing dates are as follow:
The Plaintiffs’ response would be due on March 17, 2017.
The Defendants’ reply would be due on April 7, 2017.
An ORDER from the Honorable Rudolph Contreras, United States District Judge was GRANTED immediately.
Below are copies of the four documents filed in U. S. District Court, District of Columbia on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 by Defendant Acting Secretary of Interior:
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
WOLFCHILD II PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
included as an attachment to the Federal Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice just above.
Two motions were filed yesterday by Kevin "Jack" Haugrud, Acting United States Secretary of the Interior:
MOTION to Dismiss and a MOTION to Take Judicial Notice.
The two MOTION comprise a total of 90 pages so I am not downloading them. Hopefully, MSIM or MKLaw will send me copies so I can post them later today or tomorrow.
Kevin "Jack" Haugrud is the acting United States Secretary of the Interior, serving since the end of the Obama administration on January 20, 2017. Until becoming Acting Secretary, Haugrud was deputy solicitor of the Department of the Interior. On December 13, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump picked Ryan Zinke as his nominee for the position of Interior Secretary.
So far the Senate has not yet confirmed former U. S. Navy SEAL Zinke. [Wikipedia]
Within 60 days after service of the summons on Sally Jewell in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, or her successor, she (or her successor) is required to serve on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, an answer (or a motion) to their complaint that was filed on November 23, 2016. A similar summons was filed on Attorney General of the United States Loretta E. Lynch, U.S. Department of Justice. The deadline date for an answer (or motion) is March 4, 2017.
On January 20, 2017 both ladies submitted their resignations to the President of the United States. As of this writing, nominated successor's to these two Executive Department positions have not been approved by the U. S. Senate. The two cabinet offices are functioning somewhat with "Acting" leadership. The "acting" positions are not "successor's," so what is going on!
Well, you are hearing and reading the news (or should be). The Elephants are crying that the Donkeys are spitefully delaying the successor's approval. The Donkeys are crying that the Elephants are cramming the nominations down their pie holes. So there is delay. D.C. delay! Beltway B.S.! Call it what you want. This is the way the federal government works, nothing is new. But please understand why the federal government works this way. When the framers of the U. S. Constitution put to paper the highest law of the land, they took into consideration their biggest fear - they absolutely did not want of the President of the United States to become another "King George" that the thirteen colonies had just successfully rebeled against. So three branches of the federal government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) where devised and they must work together in governing the citizens of the United States.
Some sort of reply will be forthcoming on or before March 4, 2017 because both summons contained a final sentence: "If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint." That will never happen! So the complaint process plods ahead.
As soon as information becomes available, it will be posted here.
A scary disenrollment Supreme Court decision recently happened in Indian Country. There is now essentially no recourse to being disenrolled from a community or tribe by the community or tribal leadership. Read on. . . .
Supreme Court Denies Hearing in Pala Enrollment Case, More Disenrollment Cases Expected
Sparking a Firestorm in Indian country over culture, Native identity, treaty rights and tribal sovereignty
Suzette Brewer - January 27, 2017
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court denied hearing Aguayo v. Jewell, a case regarding the disenrollment of dozens of tribal members by the Pala Band of Mission Indians in California, which has sparked a firestorm in Indian country over culture, identity, treaty rights and tribal sovereignty.
Filed in November 2016, the suit brought by plaintiff Tiffany Aguayo, along with dozens of other disenrolled tribal members, petitioned the court seeking to restore their citizenship. According to their petition, the Pala began stripping their rolls in 2011 after a six-member executive committee determined there was "insufficient evidence" that one of the tribe’s ancestors, Margarita Owlinguish Britten, who died in 1925, was full-blood. Some 162 of Britten’s descendants have been disenrolled.
Since then, the Pala have ejected approximately 18 percent of the tribe from its rolls.
The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affair’s decision to uphold the tribe’s decision to strip petitioners of their tribal membership violates their due process rights and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Aguayo, along with Alto v. Jewell, a similar case involving the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, have been closely watched by tribes across the country. Both cases emerged from the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii and parts of California, with more expected as other disenrolled tribal members continue to file their own litigation.
Although the denial came as no surprise, according to Gabe Galanda, a Seattle-based attorney involved in similar litigation involving a group known as the "Nooksack 306," the fight over what his clients say are "capricious and unjust" disenrollments is not over.
"Indian country dodged a bullet" Galanda told ICTMN. "No tribal politicians should ever again tempt SCOTUS to ask and answer the question, 'Who’s a tribal member?' In other words, disenrollment must stop before SCOTUS or the Congress is allowed to ask and answer that existential question for Indian country. Rest assured we wouldn’t like their answer."
"Illegitimate tribal disenrollment is currently an epidemic across Indian country that has caused severe hardship to thousands of disenfranchised Indians," said Dr. James Diamond, director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona. "The urgency of the government protecting Indians from arbitrary tribal disenrollment outweighs the tribe’s interest in restricting [citizenship]."
One of the thornier issues to emerge out of the Pala case also involves the issue of children who may fall under ICWA. In 2015, two children became the subject of an ICWA case in which the tribe had intervened and objected to their being adopted out of the tribe. During the course of their dependency proceedings, however, the children were disenrolled, though their mother was allowed to remain on the rolls. Subsequently, a California appeals court judge determined that the children could no longer be considered “Indian children” and were not granted the federal protections as enumerated under ICWA. Both children were subsequently adopted out of the tribe.
Legal experts say that the line of precedent for the current string of cases before the courts originates from Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo, a 1978 case in which female members of the Santa Clara Pueblo of New Mexico sued under equal protection enumerated in the Indian Civil Rights Act after their children by non-Indians were denied enrollment in the tribe, which has a patriarchal enrollment system. In that case, and all subsequent cases, the Supreme Court upheld the tribe’s sovereign ability to determine its own citizenship.
"This is not about money, this is about what’s right," Pala’s chairman Robert Smith told the Los Angeles Times in 2012 in reference to the disenrollments. Regarding the high court’s denial of Aguayo’s petition this week, the Pala Tribe did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Source: Indian Country Media Network
After further consideration, the December 15, 2016 letter and FAQ enclosure issued by the Prairie Island Indian Community Council to members of the Prairie Island Indian Community that was posted on this webpage January 6, 2017 and subsequently removed yesterday January 7, 2017 because of some consternation, is again available for public consumption on this webpage.
The copy linked below was received from a source who is not a member of the Prairie Island Indian Community and who is not one of the 7,440 names listed in the November 23rd, 2016 Compliant's Exhibit A
[ALPHA-NUMERIC PLAINTIFF LIST]. Nor was the letter and FAQ received from a member of the Prairie Island Indian Community council.
Prairie Island Indian Community Council letter
and enclosed "Frequently Asked Questions"
regarding the November 23rd, 2016 Complaint filed against
the Secretary of Interior
Sally Jewell, or her successor.
The supposed questions asked frequently by Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) members were obviously not asked by the members.
Instead the questions and answers appear to be contrived by the PIIC council to frighten the PIIC membership.
Contrary to the PIIC council's eleven pages of propaganda, if one takes the time to read the Complaint, the complaint does not seek justice at the expense of other PIIC members.
Further, to make it empatically clear, this webpage does not speak for the plaintiffs in the Complaint, it publishes whatever becomes public knowledge.
The letter and FAQ enclosure issued by the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) Council to the PIIC Members previously uploaded January 6, 2017 to this webpage has been removed pending further thought.
Documents filed and entered in the PACER system regarding this litigation will continue to be posted as information is made available to the public.
Affidavits of Process Server Brandon Snesko, Same Day Process Service, Inc. were added to the Docket Report for Case Number: 16-cv-02323-RC (MDEWAKANTON SIOUX INDIANS OF MINNESOTA et al v. JEWELL et al) stating
that a Summons was served on:
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
U. S. Department of the Interior
Attorney General of the United States Loretta E. Lynch
U. S. Department of Justice
U. S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips
for the District of Columbia
The following notation was added in regards to the above three summons:
"Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 2/18/2017."
All new litigation updates regarding the Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota verified complaint agains the Secretary of Interior will be reported here as it becomes available.
MSIM 2016 LITIGATION
On November 23, 2016 tribal members of the Prairie Island Indian Community Margo Bellanger, Tina Jefferson and Michael J. Childs, Jr., held a press conference to discuss an Administrative Procedures Act lawsuit they had just filed as
plaintiffs individually, and on behalf of the Minnesota Mdewakanton Sioux Indians, against the Department of the Interior.
The Verified Complaint was filed electronically in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Erick Kaardal of Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. who is the attorney representing the Plaintiffs.
A video of the press conferenced appeared on Facebook immediately after the press conference.
The Verified Complaint and Exhibits A-I, K-R
were filed electronically against Sally Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, or her successor.
The Verified Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was recorded as Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-02323-RC and
the case was assigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras.
Further, on this day, a summons was issued electronically as to Sally Jewell in her official capacity as Secretary of the U. S. Department of Interior (SOI) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Note: Pages 3 & 4 in the above Summons document regarding the United States, Service to: U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General were not issued.
On 11/29/2016 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia further issued summons electronically as to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch
in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States and to
U. S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips
in his official capacity as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Send comments, questions or suggestions to:|
© 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018