Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

More documents

Recommendations

Info

United States, 982 F.2d 1312, 1321 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 903 (1993). The Shermoen plaintiffs and others had already initiated precisely such a suit. On December 7, 1990, the Karuk Tribe of California filed the first taking claim in the United States Claims Court. Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, No. 90-3993L (Fed. Cl.). The Karuk Tribe alleged that the Act’s partition of the 1891 Reservation extinguished Karuk rights in the 1891 Reservation and effected a taking of Karuk property without just compensation. The Karuk Tribe alleged that Karuk possessed real property rights in the 1891 Reservation, in addition to hunting, gathering, fishing, timber, water, mineral, and other unenumerated rights. The second taking claim was filed on September 16, 1991, by 13 individual plaintiffs and an “identifiable Indian group,” defined much as was the plaintiff group in Short v. United States. Ammon v. United States, No. 91-1432L (Fed. Cl.). Ammon plaintiffs also claimed that the land partition authorized in the Settlement Act extinguished or diminished their rights in the 1891 Reservation and effected a taking of their property without just compensation. The Yurok Tribe filed the third and last taking claim on March 11, 1992. Yurok Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 92-CV-173 (Fed. Cl.). The Yurok Tribe, all of whose members were encompassed in the identifiable Indian group ofplaintiffs in Ammon v. United States, made claims for a compensable taking similar to the claims made in Karuk and Ammon. On the United States’ motion, the Court of Federal Claims consolidated the three lawsuits. In 1993, the Hoopa Valley Tribe moved to intervene in the consolidated case as a defendant, and Judge Lawrence Margolis (who has retained jurisdiction ofthe Short case since 1983) granted the Tribe’s request. Karuk Tribe ofCalifornia v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 694 (1993). Judge Margolis noted that, unlike the Shermoen litigation, the takings cases did not challenge the -11-
constitutionality ofthe Settlement Act. However, the Court concluded that in rendering a judgment it would necessarily resolve (1) whether the plaintiffs had property rights in the 1891 Reservation; (2) if so, whether the Settlement Act took those rights away from the plaintiffs; and (3) if it did, whether the taking was compensable. The Court concluded that the Hoopa Valley Tribe had a legally protectable property interest in its exclusive rights in the Hoopa Square and that the United States could not adequately represent the interests involved, particularly in light of the issues that would arise at stages (2) and (3) of the case. On cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Margolis determined that the plaintiff groups did not possess a vested, compensable property interest in the 1891 Reservation. As a result, the Court held that plaintiffs never had a compensable property interest prior to 1988, and the Settlement Act did not take away any private property owned by plaintiffs. See Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 468 (Aug. 6, 1998). On April 18, 2000, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Margolis, by a two-to-one vote. Karuk Tribe ofCalifornia v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Like Judge Margolis, the appeals court concluded that the 1864 Act which authorized establishment of the 1891 Reservation did not give California Indians vested property rights in the land set aside. However, pursuant to the Settlement Act, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe did obtain permanent property rights to their reservations in 1988. After the appeals court panel issued its opinion, plaintiffs asked the full Court to reconsider the issue and revise the panel’s conclusions, but the Court refused. Plaintiffs petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review, but on March 26, 2001, the United States Supreme Court decided not to review the case. 121 5. Ct. 1402 (2001). The denial of certiorari marks the final decision in the -12-
Page 1 and 2:
Electronically Filed April 2, 2008
Page 3 and 4:
Exhibit 12 Notice to Convene Genera
Page 5 and 6:
Exhibit 37 Letter of Special Truste
Page 7 and 8:
2 Account 7153 - Proceeds of Labor,
Page 9 and 10:
App. 4
Page 14 and 15:
3 II 100TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 2
Page 16 and 17:
5 3 1 (4) “Hoopa Valley Tribe”
Page 18 and 19:
7 SEC. 2. RESERVATIONS; PARTITION A
Page 20 and 21:
9 7 1 shall thereafter he held in t
Page 22 and 23:
11 1 SEC. 3. PRESERVATION OF SHORT
Page 24 and 25:
made pursuant to subsections (c) an
Page 26 and 27:
15 13 1 from applicants not include
Page 28 and 29:
1 can meet any of the enrollment cr
Page 30 and 31:
(4) Any person making an election u
Page 32 and 33:
21 19 1 (b) INTERIM CouNcn~EsT~LIsi
Page 34 and 35:
(5) Vacancies on the Interim Counci
Page 36 and 37:
25 1 merge with the Yurok Tribe and
Page 38 and 39:
27 25 1 SEC. 13. LIMITATIONS OF ACT
Page 194 and 195: United States Department of the Int
Page 196 and 197: REPORT TO CONGRESS HOOPA-YUROK, Pur
Page 198 and 199: Subsequent to enactment of the Act,
Page 200 and 201: IV. That Congress in coordination w
Page 202 and 203: FINANCIAL INFORMATONA.L SHEET - “
Page 204 and 205: —2— The balance due vas distrib
Page 206 and 207: YIJROK TRII3E -- ~ ~ ~ ~ 15900 Hwy
Page 208 and 209: BACKGROUND April 2, 2001 Page 3 rec
Page 210 and 211: REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE HOOPA-YUR
Page 212 and 213: In 1892, Congress opened the Kiamat
Page 214 and 215: esource management, and spending of
Page 216 and 217: The HYSA established procedures for
Page 218 and 219: Consistent with this reasoning, the
Page 220 and 221: On April 18, 2000, a sharply divide
Page 222 and 223: the funds. While the balance ofthe
Page 224 and 225: DRAFT REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF TH
Page 226 and 227: the Kiamath River and Hoopa parcels
Page 228 and 229: No. C 80 2908 TEH (N.D. Cal.). The
Page 230 and 231: the Yurok Reservation on December 7
Page 232 and 233: By memorandum to the Area Director,
Page 236 and 237: claims brought pursuant to 25 U.S.C
Page 238 and 239: secured under the Constitution ofth
Page 240 and 241: After due consideration, the Secret
Page 242 and 243: The existing governing documents of
Page 244 and 245: On February 28, 2001, the Ninth Cir
Page 246 and 247: S. HRG. 107-648 HOOPA-YUROK SETTLEM
Page 248: C O N T E N T S Page Statements: Ca
Page 251 and 252: 2 STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE
Page 253 and 254: 4 ership and management of the Squa
Page 255 and 256: 6 The U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Page 257 and 258: 8 is not entitled to further distri
Page 259 and 260: 10 Mr. MCCALEB. Senator, I was hopi
Page 261 and 262: 12 never implemented. For example,
Page 263 and 264: 14 nues derived from one reservatio
Page 265 and 266: Mr. Schlosser. 16 STATEMENT OF THOM
Page 267 and 268: 18 The committee said while it didn
Page 269 and 270: 20 big conference. In some places t
Page 271 and 272: 22 plus in timber revenues projecte
Page 273 and 274: 24 courts have said. No Indian trib
Page 275 and 276: 26 Be that as it may, we pray Congr
Page 278 and 279: APPENDIX ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMIT
Page 280 and 281: 31 Unfortunately for all concerned,
Page 349 and 350:
100
Page 351 and 352:
102
Page 358 and 359:
II 108TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 287
Page 360 and 361:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 362 and 363:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 364 and 365:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 366 and 367:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 368 and 369:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 370 and 371:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Page 372:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 18 mo
Page 384 and 385:
43 C.F.R. § 4.318, which allows th
Page 386 and 387:
the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affa
Page 388 and 389:
Special Trustee’s letters make no
Page 390 and 391:
In Short VI, plaintiffs pointed to
Page 411:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer
show all

Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?