Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

17
derway of identifying the eligible Indians of the reservation and
their heirs for inclusion in per capita payments.
This ruling precipitated other lawsuits, precipitated administrative
actions that brought tribal government to a standstill, jeopardized
public health, and made necessary the Hoopa Yurok Settlement
Act. The Settlement Act originated in the House and in the
House two hearings were conducted, one by the Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee and another by the Judiciary Committee,
and this committee conducted two hearings on its bill. And as you
recall, at least three law firms appeared and participated in the
proceedings on behalf of various groups of what have become Yurok
tribal members. This included the Faulkner and Wunsch firm
which represented most of the Short plaintiffs, many who became
Yurok tribal members, the Heller, Ehrman White & McAuliffe firm
which represented the Short plaintiffs, the Jacobsen, Jewitt &
Theirolf firm which represented the Puzz plaintiffs, and so although
the Yurok Tribe had not organized in a fashion to designate
its own attorney, its members participated completely and fully.
With the committee’s guidance, after all these legal issues were
discussed and the equities were considered, the parties came together
on a settlement package to be laid before each one of the
contestants. At the request of the House, the Congressional Research
Service analyzed the House bill to determine whether Congress
could lawfully do this or whether it would involve a taking
of property. The Congressional Research Service concluded that because
of the unique background of this reservation and the litigation,
it was possible that a court would conclude that non-tribal Indians,
Indians of the reservation, had some vested interest in reservation
property.
Ultimately, the courts didn’t conclude that but the fact that there
was a risk there is part of why the committee and Congress in the
Settlement Act went to great pains to offer benefits in exchange for
waivers of claims. So the settlement fund, for example, was allocated
essentially in three ways, partly to the Hoopa Valley Tribe
and the Yurok Tribe, if those tribes waived their claims, and partly
to Indians as individuals who qualified as Indians of the reservation
and appropriated money was provided which defrayed most of
the cost of the lump sum payments.
As Mr. McCaleb correctly said, the appropriated money was not
sufficient for the people who disaffiliated from both tribes, so some
of the Yurok and Hoopa escrow funds went to that payment.
This act nullified the Short rulings. That was the purpose of the
act. The act, this committee said in its report, was not to be considered
a precedent for individualization of tribal communal assets
but rather, sprang from the realization that there were some judicial
decisions that were unique and the committee concluded,
The intent of this legislation is to bring the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok
Tribe within the mainstream of Federal Indian law.
That is in the committee’s report on page 2.
The Settlement Act preserved the money judgments that had
been won by the individual Short plaintiffs, so they ultimately recovered
about $25,000 each from the treasury in addition to the
payments that were made to them in exchange for claim waivers
under section 6 of the act.