Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11 from the timber fund after 1988, the partitioning actually occurred in 1988 by act of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. There are two time periods Mr. MCCALEB. Yes; there are. The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell the committee what disbursements have been made from the settlement fund, when the disbursements were made and to whom these disbursements were made Mr. MCCALEB. From the settlement fund, $15 million was disbursed to individual Indians who elected to become Yurok. There was another $10.6 million distributed to individual Indians who elected to buy out. That $10.6 million was offset by a $10-million direct appropriation of Congress. There has been another $1.5 million distributed to the Yurok Tribe since 1991 given they were provided about $500,000 a year for 3 years to help them in the process of establishing their tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Anything distributed to the Karuk Tribe Mr. MCCALEB. None directly to the Karuk to my knowledge. There was another $34 million distributed to the Hoopa Tribe, $34,651,000 pursuant to their signing their waiver in keeping with the act. The CHAIRMAN. Given the Department’s position as set forth in the Secretary’s report that neither the Hoopa Valley Tribe nor the Yurok Tribe is entitled to the balance of the funds remaining in the HYSA fund, what benefits of the act or activities authorized in the act does the Department envision should be carried out and funded by the recommended two separate permanent funds to fulfill the intent of the original Act in full measure Mr. MCCALEB. I think all the funds should be distributed that are in the settlement fund. I don’t think there is much debate over that. I think the issue is over the distribution, how the money should be distributed. The CHAIRMAN. How shall the distribution be made Mr. MCCALEB. I guess if you go to our third recommendation, it touches as closely as anything on that: The settlement fund should be administered for the mutual benefit of both tribes and the reservations taking into consideration prior distributions to each tribe from the fund. If you assume that 30–70 percent distribution was appropriate originally and take into consideration the prior distribution of the funds, that would provide some guidance in that area. The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, were all the provisions of the Act benefiting the Hoopa Valley Tribe implemented Mr. MCCALEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Would you say the same of the act benefiting the Yurok Tribe implemented Mr. MCCALEB. No; that’s not correct. The CHAIRMAN. So the Hoopa Valley got all the benefits, Yurok did not Mr. MCCALEB. One of the provisions was the partitioning of the tribal lands. That was done, that was accomplished but the Yuroks got none of the money except for the $1.5 million I indicated. There were other provisions for economic development that were supposed to be carried out pursuant to an economic development plan submitted by the Yuroks. The plan was never submitted, so it was
12 never implemented. For example, there was some roadbuilding to be done pursuant to that economic development plan that has never been done. The Yurok only received a partitioning of tribal lands plus the $1.5 million. The CHAIRMAN. Because of the obvious complexities, may we submit to you questions of some technicality that you and your staff can look over and give us a response Mr. MCCALEB. I would appreciate that because I really need to rely on the historical and technical views of the staff to answer the meaningful questions that are attendant to this really sticky issue. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. MCCALEB. May I be excused at this point The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and thank you very much, sir. The second panel consists of the chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council of Hoopa, California, Clifford Lyle Marshall, Sr., accompanied by Joseph Jarnaghan, tribal councilman, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council and Thomas Schlosser, counsel, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council and Sue Masten, chairperson, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, CA. STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD LYLE MARSHALL, SR., CHAIRMAN, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY JO- SEPH JARNAGHAN, TRIBAL COUNCILMAN, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL AND THOMAS SCHLOSSER, COUNSEL Mr. MARSHALL. I am Clifford Lyle Marshall, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. At this time, I ask that our written testimony be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Hoopa Tribe’s position on the Interior Report on the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. I am here today with council member Joseph Jarnaghan and attorney Tom Schlosser. First, let me express the Hoopa Tribe’s deepest gratitude to Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Campbell and the other members of this committee for the leadership in achieving passage of the landmark Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. We also acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of your dedicated staff. This act could not have occurred without your decision to resolve the complex problems that had crippled our reservation and tribal government for more than 20 years. The years since its passage have demonstrated the outstanding success of the Settlement Act. It resolved the complex issues of the longstanding Jesse Short case, the act vested rights and established clear legal ownership in each of the tribes to the respective reservations. It also preserved the political integrity of the Hoopa Tribe by confirming the enforceability of our tribal constitution. The Hoopa Tribe waived its claims against the United States and accepted the benefits provided in the act and since then we have accomplished a number of tribal objectives. We immediately embarked on a strategy to reestablish control of our small Indian nation and were one of the self-governance tribes. We believe that tribal self-governance is the true path to trust reform. Although the Yurok Tribe rejected the settlement offer provided in the act, it nevertheless provided a means for organization of the
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 234 and 235: United States, 982 F.2d 1312, 1321
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: 10 Mr. MCCALEB. Senator, I was hopi
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?