Hoopa appendix supporting summary judgment - Schlosser Law Files

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Special Trustee’s letters make no reference to the procedures required by the Reform Act adds nothing to his authority or his ability to act outside the Reform Act. It is a glaring omission by the Special Trustee that does not provide grounds to deny jurisdiction over this appeal. 6 Plainly, the Special Trustee plans to withdraw from trust status and distribute to the Yurok Tribe the balance of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Fund on April 20, 2007. This is a clear example of a withdrawal of funds within the meaning of 25 C.F.R. § 1200.11 and it approves the Yurok Tribe’s application for that withdrawal as provided in its waiver. Plainly, there is a “disagreement” concerning the lawfulness of the Special Trustee’s action and “any disagreements over application approvals are subject to the criteria and procedures in § 1200.21 of the regulation.” 61 Fed. Reg. 67,932 (Dec. 26, 1996) (emphasis added). 7 Because 25 C.F.R. § 1200.21 expressly authorizes appeal under 43 C.F.R. pt. 4, the Board has jurisdiction here. Because the Special Trustee’s decision concerns trust funds held for tribes and individual Indians, and allows withdrawal of such funds and distributions to a tribe, it must conform to the requirements of the Reform Act. If this act walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it should be treated as a duck. 6 The Board’s statement that because the Special Trustee’s decision “do not purport to be taken pursuant to 25 C.F.R Part 1200,” jurisdiction to hear the appeal cannot vest, can lead to absurd results. 44 IBIA at 212. Taken to its logical conclusion, Department officials might simply fail to cite controlling authority for their action to avoid the Board’s jurisdiction. Certainly, this cannot be a result that the Board desires. 7 The Board makes too much of the “Hoopa Tribe’s assertion that in this appeal it does not seek a share of the remainder of the Settlement Fund.” 44 IBIA 212. This is because the equal division plan for the funds proposed by the Hoopa Valley Tribe requires new congressional authority. The Board cannot allocate the fund. Indeed, any change in the status of the funds requires congressional direction. See Hearing before the Committee of Indian Affairs United States Senate, S. Hrg. 107-648 at 88 (Aug. 1, 2002) (Testimony of Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs Neal A. McCaleb). Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Petition For Reconsideration - 6
The Special Trustee’s limited authority here is also illustrated by Mr. Swimmer’s minimal involvement in the matter prior to March 1, 2007. Attached as Exhibits HVT-15 and HVT-16 are the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s March 22, 2006 letter to the Special Trustee (requesting a report on the Settlement Fund balance and investment information pursuant to the Reform Act) and the June 13, 2006 reply of the Deputy Special Trustee-Field Operation stating the balance of the Fund as of June 12, 2006. The Special Trustee’s duties regarding these funds are no different than those for other Indian trust funds. Neither Congress nor the Secretary of the Interior has bestowed upon the Special Trustee a wide-ranging power to dispose of Indian trust funds. The Special Trustee is bound by the regulations and these create jurisdiction in the Board in the event of exactly these types of disputes over the disposition of trust funds. There is an appealable disagreement within the meaning of 25 C.F.R. § 1200.21 concerning the Special Trustee’s rejection of the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s proposal for the funds and his approval of the Yurok Tribe’s request for 100% of the funds. 4. Reconsideration is in the Interest of Justice Because it Will Avoid a Likely Loss to the Judgment Fund. The Board should stay the effectiveness of Mr. Swimmer’s decisions pending consideration of the merits and thus protect the United States from damages liability in the Court of Federal Claims for misapplication of trust funds. The trust funds at issue are subject to particular statutory and judicial constraints. To the extent that the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act does not authorize this expenditure, as the Tribe’s Statement of Reasons shows, the standards of Short v. United and particularly Short III, 719 F.2d 1133, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Short VI, 28 Fed. Cl. 590, 595 (1993), aff’d, 50 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1995), must be met or the United States will be liable in damages for breach of trust. Hoopa Valley Tribe’s Petition For Reconsideration - 7
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 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 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?