Cobell Settlement Fairness Hearing Transcript

Here.

Cobell Settlement Approved

Here is the story.

Press release here.

Government Moves to Dismiss Goodeagle v. U.S. under SCt’s Decision in Tohono O’odham

Here is that motion:

US Motion to Dismiss Goodeagle Claims

An excerpt:

It is now well-established that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the plaintiff has a suit in another court based upon substantially the same operative facts. Plaintiffs’ instant Complaint and the class action, currently pending before the District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”), Cobell, et al. v. Salazar, et al., No. 96-cv-1285, have asserted claims based on substantially the same operative facts. Thus, Congress, under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, has explicitly deprived this Court of jurisdiction to entertain a case containing claims that are for or in respect to claims which Plaintiffs have asserted in another pending case.

We reported the complaint here.

Jerilyn DeCoteau on Opting Out of the Cobell Settlement

Here.

An excerpt:

I feel cheated because my grandmother was cheated and her heirs were cheated and cowed by the very lack of information, by the lack of answers when questions were asked, cowed into believing we had little or no right to ask about our interest in her allotment. This is one of reasons I opted out: I still don’t know what resources are on the allotments (there are 3) that I have interests in. To say on quarterly statement, which have miraculously appeared in recent years, that the land is leased for “business purpose” or “agriculture” tells me very little. The point is, these leased lands are the source of the trust accounts that are the subject of Cobell and I still don’t know enough about the value of my interests to make an informed decision about whether to agree to settle.

I do know that I continue to feel cheated. My family has never benefited in any meaningful way from our allotments. Now some 110 years later, I have the offer of another paltry piece of paper with a few small numbers typed on it. What am I supposed to do with $500? What would you do? What would you do if you didn’t feel so powerless and like you deserved at least something, even if it is this silly amount called a “settlement”? My daughter pointed out the plain reality, “There are poor people who would gladly take $500, a month’s worth of fuel oil [in a cold North Dakota winter], or a couple of week’s groceries in exchange for a piece of land they will never see and have no money to ever see.”

The fact is, the settlement will make no real difference in the lives of most account holders and can hardly be considered justice in any real sense of the word. It is just a way to put an ugly chapter in American history to rest for the perpetrators, while conveniently ignoring that it is largely a meaningless act for most Indians.

It is not a meaningless exercise, however, for those few who stand to reap large benefits despite the very fact that the suit failed in it essential mission: most trust account holders still don’t know any more about how our lands were mismanaged. Even after 12 years of litigation and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, we still don’t know. But when the few get their big money, the rest are expected to walk away happy with the equivalent of a peanut.

I am not complaining about the named plaintiffs or lawyers in this case. They undertook a noble and heroic mission, though it proved impossible. They went forward, I believe in good faith, with the vision and strength of the best warriors of any Indian nation. They did what they could, but like Red Bear, like Chief Joseph, like Sitting Bull, like Geronimo, like Black Hawk, like Red Cloud, like Louis Riel, like Ira Hayes, like so many good warriors (men and women) trying to make a living and a life on our reservations and from our allotments, it wasn’t enough, it is not enough. They could not turn the tide of history or turn aside the bands of thieves wanting to hand Indians trinkets for their eternal treasures. Still, I honor them, although I can’t help begrudge the real money they will get. And I can’t help but wonder if the large amounts didn’t entice them to “opt in” for all of us.

But again, that is not why I opted out. With the Cobell settlement, I feel like I am standing between “eternity” and a hard place. Some things you just have to hold on to no matter what. Five hundred dollars, on the other hand, is meant to be let go of. Like my grandfather waiting for his allotment, I will likely die waiting to know the truth, but better to wait than to give up on what is right.

Jerilyn Monette DeCoteau is a member of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa. She is on hiatus in her 27 year practice of Indian law. She has three children, six grandchildren and two great grandchildren. She lives in Eldorado Springs, Colorado with her husband, Tod Smith, and son.

Federal Circuit Rejects Treaty Claims in Harvest Inst. Freedmen Federation

Here is the unpublished order. The Federal Circuit had previously ruled against the plaintiffs (and the Supreme Court had denied cert) here, but the plaintiffs asserted that the D.C. Circuit’s 2009 decision in Cobell v. Salazar had changed the law. It did not, according to the Federal Circuit.

Is Cobell Being Used as a Test Case to Challenge Class Actions by Tort Reform Interests?

The Center for Class Action Fairness now represents at least one IIM account holder, filing an objection to the settlement (link here).

Here is an ABA Journal article on the Center.

And the Indianz article.

BLT: Cobell Lawyers “Object” to Fee Cap in Cobell Settlement

From the BLT:

The nearly $100 million legal fee cap in a landmark class action in Washington is less than half of the amount the plaintiffs’ attorneys could have received through a contingency fee arrangement, the attorneys for lead class member Elouise Cobell said in court papers.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers representing a class of Native Americans agreed in the settlement to a range of fees between $50 million and $99.9 million—money that will be cut from the roughly $1.5 billion in compensation for potentially hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries. The suit, filed in 1996, challenged the government’s mismanagement of billions of dollars of trust fund assets stemming from private use of Indian land.

The fee cap is a far cry from what the plaintiffs’ attorneys call “fair compensation” for a complex civil case that has dragged on in Washington’s federal trial court with no end in sight. The attorneys, including Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold and Kilpatrick Stockton partner Keith Harper, argue that more than $223 million is appropriate for legal fees. Click here for a copy of the plaintiffs’ fee notice.

Continue reading

Obama Signs Cobell Settlement

From BLT:

Obama Signs Indian Trust Legislation: President Barack Obama said legislation he was signing Thursday to implement settlements with American Indians and black farmers was about American principles of “fairness and equality and opportunity.” TPMMuckraker has the story of the signing.

Waiting Begins for Cobell Plaintiffs

From WaPo:

Native Americans who sued the federal government over lost royalties have been waiting nearly 15 years for the $3.4 billion settlement Congress passed last month. Now they’ll have to wait some more.

The plaintiffs expect it will be at least next August before Indian trust landowners see a dime, and six months after that before the last claims are settled with trust account holders.

That’s because when the political wrangling ends, the red tape begins.

Continue reading

Senate Passes Cobell Settlement; Leaves Attorney Fees Question to Federal Judge

Here is the coverage from BLT and the announcement from Secretary Salazar.

An excerpt from the BLT story:

Debate over the settlements had drawn out for months over how to pay for them and over how much of the $3.4 billion settlements should go to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case involving American Indians. Named for plaintiff Elouise Cobell, that case centers around the accounting of royalties for resource extraction on American Indian land.

In the end, the authorizing legislation that passed the Senate left the question of fees to the judge in the case, without a cap from Congress. The legislation also appropriates $1.15 billion for a settlement with black farmers, including name plaintiff Timothy Pigford, who were denied the full benefits of a U.S. Department of Agriculture program.

In order to pay for the settlements, the legislation draws money from a surplus in a fund for nutrition programs and by extending customs user fees. Senators approved the legislation without a formal vote, sending it to the House of Representatives for a potentially final vote.