Here:
NCAI letter on 28 U S C § 1500 to DOJ
Section 1500 Letter w_Attachments 11_9_12
Nez Perce Tribe Comments to DOJ 11_09_12
Defs Post-Hearing Brief inSuuport of Sec 1500 Dismissal CFC 02_28_08
Court of Federal Claims
Federal Claims Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim to ANCSA Money
Here is the opinion in Evans v. United States:
Administrative Conference Recommends Repeal and Replacement of Section 1500
Tribal support needed. Here are the materials:
S 1500_ Revised draft recommendation _ 09202012
DOJ Statement Re Section 1500 Proposal
From DOJ:
The Department of Justice is seeking input from tribal leaders to assist the Department in formulating the official position it will take on a proposal that will be considered in early December 2012 by the Administrative Conference of the United States, of which the Department is a member. The proposal, which did not originate at the Department of Justice, would recommend to Congress that it repeal and replace 28 U.S.C. 1500, a Federal statute that prohibits consideration by the United States Court of Federal Claims of otherwise cognizable claims if the plaintiff also has pending litigation against the United States in any other court based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the type of relief sought. Additional information regarding the statute and the proposal are included in the attached letter and enclosures.
HUD Must Provide Hearing Prior to Recapturing NAHASDA Funds in Allocation Formula Dispute
Here are the materials in Lummi Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Denying US Motion to Dismiss Count 2
An excerpt:
In conclusion, we read Section 405 as governing HUD’s actions and thus as precluding HUD from exercising any common law right the agency might otherwise possess under circumstances not directly addressed by the statute. We further read that section as applying only in cases that do not involve a grant recipient’s substantial noncompliance with NAHASDA (which would fall instead under Section 401). In addition, we construe Section 405’s implementing regulations as requiring the Secretary to provide notice and the opportunity for a hearing before making an adjustment to a recipient’s grant amounts and as preventing the Secretary from recapturing grant amounts already expended on affordable housing activities. To conclude otherwise would allow HUD to deny grant recipients the protections Congress has afforded them when faced with a reduction in their grant funding, would further allow the agency to circumvent a process put into place by consensus rulemaking at the direction of Congress, and would lead to the anomalous result that a grant recipient in substantial noncompliance with NAHASDA would receive greater procedural protections before experiencing a recapture of their grant funds than recipients in full compliance (a target for recapture through a fault of HUD’s rather than their own). We are unwilling to endorse such an unsatisfactory result.
CFC Dismisses Trust Breach Suit by Blackfeet Tribe re: Black Mold Problems
Here are the materials in Blackfeet Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Dismissing Blackfeet Complaint
Klamath Claims Committee Trust Breach Suit Dismissed under Rule 19
Here are the materials in Klamath Claims Committee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Cheyenne-Arapho Tribes Allege Scary Federal Trust Breach
Here is the complaint in Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
If the allegations are proven true, then this is unbelievable. Here is what I mean:
16. On or about November 10th, 2011, the Concho Agency received a request from a person purporting to act on behalf of the Tribe to transfer funds from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at the Citizens State Bank in Ada, Oklahoma (“Citizens Bank”).
17. In response to the request, on or about November 18, 2011 the BIA Concho Agency transferred approximately $760,225.00 from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at Citizens Bank numbered xx8645 (the “Transfer”).18. The Tribe neither authorized nor had knowledge of the request, and at no time prior to the Transfer did the BIA Concho Agency contact or inform the Tribe about the request.19. The owner of the account to which the Tribe’s funds were transferred had no legal right to the funds, which were held by the United States for the exclusive benefit of the Tribe and its members.20. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe’s funds were placed beyond the control of both the Tribe and Defendant.21. On or about November 23, 2011, the BIA Southern Plains Regional Director vacated the actions of the BIA Concho Agency and demanded that the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer be returned with all possible haste.22. To date, none of the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer have been returned to the Tribe or its Trust Accounts.
23. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe was unable to provide its members with a year-end per capita distribution in December 2011.
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claims by “Florida Choctaws”
Here is the opinion in Williams v. United States.
We’d have briefs but the Federal Circuit PACER doesn’t have them available.
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Rejects Effort to Move Trust Breach Claims to Court of Federal Claims
Here is today’s opinion (the third Indian law opinion from the CA8 this week!) in Bernard v. Dept. of Interior:
The briefs:
Excerpts:
Maynard Bernard decided to develop some of the Indian trust land he owned on the Sisseton Wahpeton Reservation in a project planned with his cousin Grady Renville. Bernard and Renville consulted a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) realty officer about how to proceed. She advised Bernard to sign a gift deed to convey the entire property to himself and Renville asjoint tenants with the right of survivorship. The agency subsequently denied a request by Bernard and his wife Florine to set aside the deed. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal the Bernards brought an action in federal district court against the United States Department of the Interior (the Department) seeking review of the agency decision and money damages for breach of trust. The Bernards later amended their complaint to eliminate the damage
claim and subsequently settled with Renville, who agreed to deed back some of the land. After the district court affirmed the administrative decision and dismissed the Bernards’ action, they moved to alter the judgment, seeking transfer of their damage claim to the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The district court denied the motion, and the Bernards appeal. We affirm.
And:
We recognize that the facts of this case are troubling. Apparently on her own initiative, the BIA realty officer advised Bernard to sign a gift deed conveying half of his interest in his entire property to Renville in a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship. In addition she told Bernard that this would be only a “temporary” arrangement based on Renville’s alleged oral assurances, and she permitted Bernard to waive appraisal of his land before the transfer. She also allowed Renville to fill out the gift deed application, apparently because Bernard’s eyesight was so bad he could not do it himself.
Crow Creek Trust Claims Dismissed under Tohono O’odham Decision
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Crow Creek Sioux Tribe filed this suit on December 29, 2005, seeking damages for Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duties and mismanagement of Plaintiff’s trust corpus. Almost 19 months earlier, on June 2, 2004, Plaintiff had filed a similar case against the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. Norton, No. 1:04-cv-00900 (D.D.C.).
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s District Court [2] action is “for or in respect to” the same claim as the instant action and was pending at the time this action was filed. The Court is therefore bound by § 1500 to dismiss Plaintiff’s action.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.