Tuesday, August 9, 2016
pechangajournal: Galanda Broadman 'Watershed decision' in #tribald...
pechangajournal: Galanda Broadman 'Watershed decision' in #tribald...: Galanda Broadman 'Watershed decision' in #tribal disenrollment case could affect epic Nooksack saga https://t.co/bwHCcDvcQY
Galanda Broadman 'Watershed decision' in #tribaldisenrollment case could affect epic Nooksack sagahttps://t.co/bwHCcDvcQY
'Watershed decision' in #tribaldisenrollment case could affect epic Nooksack sagahttps://t.co/bwHCcDvcQY
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
thttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/02/08/national-stop-disenrollment-visual-advocacy-movement-launches-163337
Good to hear and watch some "acknowlegement" that there is a great degree of disparity between those Indian Tribes that are "wealthy" and the rest of Indian Tribes that are poor. Obviously more, there is a greater degree of difference and concerns especially in what Western Indian Tribes, Southern Tribes contend with versus what those greater, wealthy, politically-savy Indian Tribes have (which is much more than what most Indian tribes live with). Its apparent what disenrollment is especially if there is surplus money involved, i.e. casino-gaming revenues.
Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/02/08/national-stop-disenrollment-visual-advocacy-movement-launches-163337
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
House panel considers draft of Pechanga Band water rights bill The southern California tribe has been pushing for a water rights settlement for a decade. indianz.com
House panel considers draft of Pechanga Band water rights bill The southern California tribe has been pushing for a water rights settlement for a decade. indianz.com
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
WASHINGTON (CN) - The federal government cannot dismiss claims over its handling of tribal trust accounts, a federal judge ruled, advancing a lawsuit by the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation and nine other federally recognized tribes.
Feds Can't Shake Tribes Suing for Accounting
WASHINGTON (CN) - The federal government cannot dismiss claims over its handling of tribal trust accounts, a federal judge ruled, advancing a lawsuit by the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation and nine other federally recognized tribes.
"The federal government has held funds and assets in trust for American Indian tribe beneficiaries for well over a century," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan wrote. "Unfortunately, the federal government has failed to discharge its fiduciary duties in its role as trustee for the tribes, and those trust accounts have been mismanaged for almost as long as they have been in existence."
The 10-page decision notes that the plaintiff tribes that the government still has not fulfilled the responsibility it owes in providing them "a complete and accurate accounting" of their trust accounts.
Though the secretaries of the U.S. Departments of the Interior and the Treasury contended that the court lacks jurisdiction, Judge Hogan disagreed Thursday and refused to dismiss the case.
Courthouse News Service
"The federal government has held funds and assets in trust for American Indian tribe beneficiaries for well over a century," U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan wrote. "Unfortunately, the federal government has failed to discharge its fiduciary duties in its role as trustee for the tribes, and those trust accounts have been mismanaged for almost as long as they have been in existence."
The 10-page decision notes that the plaintiff tribes that the government still has not fulfilled the responsibility it owes in providing them "a complete and accurate accounting" of their trust accounts.
Though the secretaries of the U.S. Departments of the Interior and the Treasury contended that the court lacks jurisdiction, Judge Hogan disagreed Thursday and refused to dismiss the case.
Courthouse News Service Thursday, April 9, 2015
The claim of the "protestors" cannot be properly represented by the OHA as it is a state agency set up to neuter all such claims in protection of the royal land trusts/the state/the public.
COMMENTS
(3)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment
manakuke wrote:
Special sacred places must be respected.
on April 9,2015 | 03:49AM
Mythman wrote:
Actually, it's not all that complex: it is a simple, straightforward legal question at most, the rest is added on. Whatever one wants to label it, the land use issue involves the real fact that the folks "protesting" are descendants of Hawaiians who used to own the Mauna Kea land and all the land making up the present state of Hawaii. That ownership is recognized in federal law as they had what is known as "Indian land title" - that is, they had a kind of deed even if it was not recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances. This deed is acknowledged by the US. However, in Hawaii, alone among all the states now, this deed is only symbolically respected, not actually considered in land disputes. Now this is interesting: the way this happened turns out pursuant to Rice and other precedents to have been unconstitutional. As such it is reversible, leaving the issues actually undetermined as such. The claim of the "protestors" cannot be properly represented by the OHA as it is a state agency set up to neuter all such claims in protection of the royal land trusts/the state/the public.
on April 9,2015 | 04:22AM
Mythman wrote:
Oops, turns out to be UNconstitional, not constitutional, sorry for the confusion....
on April 9,2015 | 04:24AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)