Posted on 10/19/2001 6:20:44 PM PDT by freedomnews
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:36:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Interior Department should be stripped of control of royalties from Indian lands because it continues to mismanage hundreds of millions of dollars, the Indians' attorneys contended Friday.
"Endless broken promises, chronic half-truths, outright lies to this court, and the fumbling paralysis" of Interior Secretary Gale Norton and other senior officials show the department cannot correct the historical mismanagement and is unfit to manage the money, wrote attorney Dennis Gingold.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
FN, I wonder where these two wonderful guys are plying their thieving ways today? Peace and love, George.
Historical Timeline
Indian Trust Funds Management
May 25, 2001 - The government's deadline passed for seeking Supreme Court review of the appeals court decision.
February 23, 2001 - The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Cirucuit affirmed that the federal government has a legally-enforceable duty to properly manage and account for Indian trust assets. This is a historic ruling in this class action lawsuit that was filed nearly five years ago. This opinion sets the stage for the next phase of the case-the accounting-which will involve a second trial before Judge Lamberth to determine accurate trust fund account balances. The plaintiffs have requested that the second trail commence by the end of Year 2001.
December 23, 2000 - Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, issues an order directing officials to conduct "statistical sampling" of individual Indian trust accounts even though the project does not conform to a federal judge's ruling.
November 30, 2000 - NARF filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint a second Special Master to monitor trust reform. The motion was necessitated by the increasingly clear failure of the government to achieve meaningful reform on its own. NARF also requested that the defendants be sanctioned for misleading the Court and plaintiffs, and for failing to preserve evidence.
Settlement discussions having broken down, NARF currently continues to prepare for the second phase of the litigation -- the accounting trial -- which is expected to occur sometime in 2001.
September 5, 2000 – Oral argument on the government’s appeal of the Court’s December 21, 1999 ruling is scheduled before the Court of Appeals.
March 1, 2000 – The federal government filed its first quarterly progress report and a revised trust reform plan. In its progress report, the government admitted that the trust reform schedule it vehemently defended as reasonable at trial simply could not be adhered to because it was ill-conceived and unworkable. The government also admitted that due to poor planning and inadequate design, the Department of Interior’s new and highly touted trust asset management system, "TAAMS" is not performing as required.
January 13, 2000 - NARF filed a brief in opposition to the governments's petition and is awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals.
January 3, 2000 - Despite the fact that both the Treasury Department and the Interior Department publicly expressed their satisfaction with the Court's ruling, the Department of Justice filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seeking permission to appeal Judge Lamberth's order.
December 21, 1999 - Judge Lamberth issued a 126-page opinion ruling that the United States has breached its trust duties to individual Indian trust fund beneficiaries, and has "unreasonably delayed" trust reform efforts. The Court ordered continued judicial oversight for a period of at least five years.
December 6, 1999 - A report released by the U.S. District Court, revealed that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Treasury destroyed 162 boxes of documents relevant to the trust funds case and then covered it up. Special Master Alan Balaran submitted the report following a months-long investigation into the matter. He concluded in his report that the Treasury cover-up continued even during proceedings earlier this year which resulted in contempt citations against Treasury Secretary Rubin and Interior Secretary Babbitt for violating the Court's discovery orders. The plaintiffs and defendants have until December 20th to respond to the report’s findings.
October 14, 1999 – Judge Lamberth appoints Stephen Saltzberg, Law Professor at George Washington University School of Law as a Mediator. The Court will not issue its decision on the first phase trial for a brief period of time while the parties explore settlement. Judge Lamberth’s order makes clear that even during this period, he will not delay preparation of the second trial.
June 10, 1999 – July 21, 1999 - The first phase trial lasts seven weeks. During trial, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Gover admits the trust management system is "broken." Secretary Babbitt admitted that the "fiduciary responsibilities" of the U.S. are "not being fulfilled."
June 10, 1999 - Despite stalling tactics by the government, the first phase trial began. This first trial focuses on fixing the trust fund system and determining whether the United States is in breach of trust.
June 8, 1999 - Court appointed Special Master Alan Balaran issued a report based on an investigative tour of BIA field offices in May 1999. The tour revealed that thousands of Indian trust records are kept in barns and condemned building across the country, and that the Department of the Interior is continuing to destroy IIM documents relevant to this case, despite the contempt ruling in February against such an action.
May 11, 1999 – For the first time, the government admitted that between November 23, 1993 and January 26, 1998 the Department of Treasury destroyed 162 boxes containing documents relevant to the Cobell litigation. The Special Master is currently investigating the latest government destruction of IIM records.
February 22, 1999 - U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth held that Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, and Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs were in civil contempt of court for their failure to produce court-ordered records as required by the November 27, 1996 and may 5, 1998 court orders.
January 13, 1999 - Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell asks Secretary Bruce Babbitt to submit a written report to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs by January 31, 1999 explaining the discharge of the Special Trustee.
January 11 - 22, 1999 - Judge Lamberth holds a contempt trial against the Secretary of Interior, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
January 5, 1999 - Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt reorganized the Office of Special Trustee (OST) by way of Secretarial Order 3208, significantly reducing the powers and independence of the Special Trustee, Paul Homan. Homan, a presidential appointee and one of the main engines of reform, resigned in protest.
December 9, 1998 - NARF filed a motion for the federal defendants to show cause why the Court should not hold them in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's November 26, 1996 order. The Court granted and scheduled the contempt trial to commence on January 11, 1999.
November 24, 1998 - The judge raised the issue of the documents for the five named plaintiffs during a scheduling hearing. The government reported once again that not all documents for the five named plaintiffs had been produced.
November 5, 1998 - United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected the government's motions to dismiss the case. In doing so, Judge Lamberth issued a landmark ruling which essentially held that the federal government must adhere to the same standard as any other trustee -- specifically, the common law of trusts.
May 5, 1998 - At NARF's request, the Court set a firm deadline of June 30, 1998 on the production of the documents required by the November 27, 1996 order. In that same order, the court also required the government to file any dispositive motions by June 30, 1998. The government did so, filing separate motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims to compel the defendants to "fix the system" and perform an accounting.
March 3, 1997 - The government certified to the Court that it had produced all such documents. Later in the contempt trial, NARF established that this and many other representations were untrue.
February 4, 1997 - The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia certified the Suit as a class-action lawsuit.
February 1997 - The government reported to the Court that it would produce all documents for the five named plaintiffs by March 3, 1997.
November 27, 1996 - Judge Lamberth signed an order, one that both parties had consented to, requiring the government, among other things, to produce all records and documents pertaining to the IIM accounts of the five named plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest.
June 18, 1996 - John Echohawk, NARF Executive Director, and Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff, testified before the House Task Force on Trust Fund Management. The Task Force was created to investigate the of federal government mismanagement of both individual and tribal trust funds.
June 11, 1996 - The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing. Special Trustee Paul Homan testified that the IIM account system was "as bad or worse" than the tribal trust accounts. He also reported that the Tribal Trust found $2.4 billion of totally unreconciled transactions within a twenty year period.
June 10, 1996 - NARF files a lawsuit charging that the Departments of Interior and Treasury breached their fiduciary duties to prudently manage the trust funds, and consistently refused to fix an accounting system that is fundamentally flawed and completely ineffective. The intended goals of the Cobell v. Babbitt suit is to compel the government to do the following: 1) fix the system—i.e. put in place policies, systems and practices to soundly and safely manage Indian trust funds; 2) complete an accurate and full accounting, and 3) restate the accounts of Indian trust beneficiaries in accord with the accounting.
1994 - Congress enacted the Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (1994 Act) and appointed a Special Trustee to remedy the federal government's mismanagement of individual and tribal trust fund accounts. The Department of Interior vigorously opposed the adoption of the 1994 Act and since then has been an obstacle to reform, preventing the Special Trustee from carrying out the duties conferred upon him by Congress. In addition, Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient funds to implement the 1994 Act.
The Judge also set the groundwork for the second phase of the litigation, which will involve an accounting to the individual Indian beneficiaries. The Court confirmed in its opinion that the defendants will have the burden of proof in its second trial.
1992 - The House Committee on Government Operations issued a report entitled "Misplaced Trust: The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Mismanagement of the Indian Trust Fund" (also known as the Synar Report) documenting the severe, longstanding mismanagement of Indian trust assets.
1934 – The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 stopped further allotment. In addition, the IRA made the individual Indian trust perpetual.
1887 – The United States Congress enacted the General Allotment Act which instituted a policy to divide tribal lands among the tribes’ individual members, generally in 40, 80, 160 and 320-acre parcels. The "Allotment" policy, imposed on Indians, without their consent, was intended to break up tribes by creating self-interest among the individual members. It is universally considered a failed policy. Nevertheless, it created individually held trust lands, the proceeds of which are monies held in trust by the United States. It is these monies that are the subject of the Indian trust funds management case."
I wonder what sort of pattern would emerge if you plotted their locations over time and overlaid a graphic showing liquor store and 7-11 robberies for the same time period?
Attention: Christopher Hitchens one of them tried to sue you.
Like we're not paying the bureaucrats enough to do their damn jobs? BS.
Regards.
Since this matter arose in 1996, I suspect a lot of the missing money went to the DNC, but I suspect another large piece went to Bob Rubin's Plunge Protection Team.
You would be correct.
And, at another time, the Clintonian Dept of Interior claimed they could not produce the records under sub poena because of...rat feces.
Purportedly, a warehouse in Albuquerque contained said records, but rats infested the warehouse and had covered the boxes in question with their droppings. A high risk of hanta virus was claimed, making the records unavailable until the warehouse had been cleaned out and disinfected.
Thereby giving rise to the newest twist on "The dog ate my homework". In this case, "The rats crapped on my homework"...
Only the Democrats...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.