POSTED: February 28, 2014
The Plaintiff/Intervenor(s)have all filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Supreme Court accepts the writ, we will be able to aruge the matter to the Supreme Court sometime in the late Spring of this year. If the Supreme Court denies our writ we will have to review the case and decide if there are any other legal avenues for relief to exhaust.
We will keep you informed.
POSTED: November 21, 2013
Dear Clients: On September 27, 2013, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal District issued an order reversing the Federal Court of Claims. The reversal equates to all Plaintiff(s) and Intervernor(s) who are parties to Wolfchild v. United States, being denied any relief under the three (3) appropriation Acts of 1888, 1889 and 1890, as well as, the Acts of 1863. Other arguments made by other attorneys, as well failed i.e. treaty, non-intercourse act nd takings.
We are now contemplating appealing the decision of the Federal Court of Appeals to the United Supreme Court. The issues on appeal will consist of the following:
1. Whether the Federal Court of Appeals through misapplication of the Indian Trust Accounting Statute, 25 USC, Section 2501 failed to hold the United States to its Trust responsibilities to provide a final accounting and attendant notice to trust beneficiaries as to income generated from lands held for individual statutory beneficiaries prior to said lands being directed to three newly recognized tribal commuities.
2. Whether the Federal Court of Appeals violated established precedent in failing to liberally construe legislative provisions of the 1888, 1889, and 1890 Appropriation Acts in favor of whether these acts can fairly be interpreted as imposing a money-mandating duty upon the United States.
3. Whether the Federal Court of Appeals failed to recognize the trust nature of the February 16, 1863 Act in rejecing Appellees “two basic claims” and thus issued a determination that conflicts with the Court’s previous authoritative decision in Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228 (2009) which found that the llanguage of an Act of Feb. 16, 1863, Section 9, ch. 37, 12 Stat. 652, “created an inheritable beneficial interest in the recipents of any land conveyed under the statute …[and] explicitly created a trust relationship” with the federal government.
A Writ of Certeriori is the only relief remaining and in most cases denied. In other words, whether the Supreme Court of the United States hears our appeal is discretionary and not mandatory.
We will keep you appraised as developments occur.
POSTED: April 27, 2013
Dear Clients: On May 6, 2013, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. at the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, oral arguments will occur on behalf of the Wolfchid Plaintiffs, Intervenors regarding several issues. The most important issue lies with the February 16, 1863 Act and also, abrogation of the treaties made with the four bands of Dakota.
Oral arguments will allow Mr. Kaardahl ten (10) minutes on his issues, five (5) minutes for myself regarding the violation of a statutory obligation relating to failure to transfer eighty acre parcels to the loyal Mdewakaton, which lands were never purchased, nor, granted to the loyal Mdewakton under the February 16, 1863 Act and finally, Mr. Zephier will be allotted tha last five (5) minutes for treaty arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff/Intervenors, which includes all of Montana & Associates clients.
Hopfully, all will proceed in a manner that is beneficial to all clients and descendants of the Mdewakanton of Minnesota.
Woplia Tanka
POSTED: February 10, 2013
Dear Clients: We are on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal District in Washington, D.C. and have been for several months now. The issues are varied, but narrowed they involve our cross-appeal as to the “statutory obligations” never fulfiled by the federal government (defendants) relating to the February 14, 1863 Act regarding the purchase of 80 acres of land for the loyal Mdewakanton; taking of lands without compensation and finally, the treaty obligations that were never fulfilled due to the abrogation of all the treaties with the Mdewakanton and other three (3) bands.
The Government has appealed the isseue of whether there was a violation of the Statutory Restrictions under the three (3) appropriation acts of 1888, 1889, 1890; those damage were assessed by the Federal Court of Claims at just over $650,000.
All briefing appears to be concluded, and we are now waiting for the Appeals Court to rule on several precedent issues and then the matter will be set for oral arguments; probably sometime in June or July, 2013.
Good news is that most all of Montana & Associates clients will be considered part of the case….we hope, but no formal decision as been made as of this date.
WE will keep you posted as to any new developments and will notify you of the date of the oral arguments.
POSTED: September 17, 2012
Dear Clients: Our briefing schedule is proceeding and we are working on our response brief to the U.S. Governments Opening Brief regarding their appeal as to the decision of the Court of Claims in Wolfchild VII that the government was liable for breach of their “statutory duty” to distribute the land revenues from the 1888, 1889, 1890 appropriation acts to the “loyal Mdewakanton”.
Further, our appeal will include the issue of the government’s “statutory obligation” breach regarding its failure to distribute and purchase “eighty acres” per loyal Mdewakanton as per the 1863 Act ~ will as well be argued in our response brief.
We will keep you posted as to the scheduling relating to the next court hearing before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as soon as it is posted by the Court.
POSTED: July 20, 2012
Dear Clients: We are in the process of appealing Judge Lettow’s denial of our requested relief relating to violations of the February, 1863 Act as a “statutory obligation” to purchase eighty (80) acres of land for the loyal Mdewakanton. Also, on appeal is the issue of abrogation of the numerous treaties by the 1863 Act and whether those lands were ever paid for under Docket 363 regarding the claim of Mdewakanton and Wapkoota Dakota for illegally taken lands. Those two (2) issues are on appeal as well as the governments appeal regarding whether the Court\\\’s ruling that there was a “statutory restriction violation” by the federal government when they transferred certain monies to the three (3) Minnesota Dakota Communities in 1980. As you remember the Court of Claims as per Judge Lettow’s corrected opinion of August 18, 2011, rendered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $673,944.00, plus costs.
The government is appealing this ruling and is appealing the decision of the Court of Claims regarding retention of jurisdiction over which plaintiff(s) should be considered part of the lawsuit and those that should not, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Section(s) 1401-07, of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use and Distribution Act.
Our first Brief will be due on August 19, 2012 and we will attempt to post portions of it on the website.
POSTED: December 20, 2011
Dear Clients:
As you are aware we lost the arguments relating to the 1863 Act which I brought forth to the Court in October, 2010, and in adddition we were denied relief on several other grounds argued by Mr. Kaardahl and Mr. Edwards. I have decided to appeal the judgment of Judge Lettow and will file with Mr. Zephier, Hogan and Edwards a Notice of Appeal regarding the inter alia, 1863 Act – failure by the United States government to transfer the 80 acres into trust for each of the “friendly Sioux”.
Those who are interested must let me know before December 25, 2011 and agree to pay on final payment of $25.00 per adult. This appeal will be costly and as solely practitioner it has been very difficult to keep this legal action going for the last six (6) years due to financial issues. Only a small group has paid their expense and cost fees over this period, consequently, for us to continue on with the appeal we need additional financial resources to draw from so that our appeal is efficiently and effectively drafted and filed in a timely manner.
If you are not interested please e-mail my office and list those who desire not to appeal and if you have decided to appeal please mail your $25.00 per adult to our office by January 15, 2012.
Thank you,
POSTED: November 7, 2011
To all clients, we are still determining whether to appeal the 1863 Act issues to the United States Federal Court of Appeals. We have until December 15, 2011 to make our decision.
POSTED: July 10, 2011
The Court of Federal Claims, which is the original court of jurisdiction in this matter issued an Order on August 5, 2011, which extinguished all claims other than the statutory restiction violation of the Department of Interior regarding monies collected pursuant to the 1888, 1889 and 1890 appropriation acts relating to certain lands purchased by those appropriations. The Court awarded damages in tha amount of $654,514 in damages, not including interest for 2011.
The Court denied our claims under the 1863 Acts; Indian Non-Intercourse Act and Takings claim pursuant to the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution relating to the “eighty acres” of land that was to be set aside for the “friendly Sioux”. The Court delegated the authority to the Department of Interior to determine which ancestors are to be included as beneficiaries under said appropriations acts, with retained jurisdiction to determine within one year whether the Department of Interior has completed it’s task in a manner acceptable to the Court.
We will be determining over the next 30 days if we will be appealing this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal District. I will keep you posted as to any new developments.
****************************************
POSTED: June 6, 2011
The haaring held on May 13, 2011, went extremely well, although I was required to leave the hearing about 40 minutes early to catch my plane, I was informed the remaining issues discussed surrounded how the payments were to be distributed to those who qualify for the 1886 proceeds. Also at no time during the hearing did Judje Lettow indicate that the Scouts or any other groups were out of the lawsuit. Jude Lettow will have to review the requirements under the three (3) Appropriation Acts and decide who meets those requirements. Mr. Robin Zephier did a very thorough job of arguing on behalf of the other groups, those groups not tied to an 1886 and 1889 Ancestor. Also the 1863 Act arguments I beleive went well and the Judge clearly has issues confronting him that are very complex legally and based upon my assessment of Judge Lettow he will decide the 1863 Act issues relating to the 80 acres per loyal Mdewakanton in an equitable manner.
My office has additional briefing due in the case regarding issues of distribution of the 1886 proceeds and then it will be left the Court to issue an opinion on all issues remaining. I believe Judge Lettow will issue an opinion by late July, 2011 or before. Please make sure you have made your 2011 payments. One is coming up on July 12, 2011. Thanks, Gary,
Fees this year are as follows:
February 15, 2011 – $25.00 per adult
April 15, 2011 – $25.00 per adult
July 12, 2011 – $25.00 per adult
*****************************************
POSTED: January 23, 2011
The hearing on January 21, 2011, was heard at 10:00 A.M., myself, Erick Kaardahl, Barry Hogan and Elizabeth Walker were present on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The hearing was for the purpose of scheduling, based upon a Joint Status Report that was filed by the government based upon a conference call with all parties on January 13, 2011.
The following is the next and appears to be the final schedule for amending complaints and briefing regarding the “money mandating” and “statute of limitation” issues surrounding the 1863 Act. That act and a subsequent act of March 4, 1863 relates to the issue of whether the government breach a trust and statutory restriction regarding purchasing “eighty” acres of land for the friendly sioux after the up-rising of 1862..
******************************
The scheduling order is as follows:.
Date Due: February 25, 2011;.
Filing stipulations and documents by both that bear on three issues:.
(1) amount of money involved in the claim delineated in the opinion of December 20, 2010;.
(2) the persons who qualify as proper claimants in this case, and.
(3) the role, if any, of the 1863 Acts..
Date Due: March 18, 2011;.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment..
Date Due: April 15, 2011;.
Defendant’s and any other party’s response to plaintiff’s motions, plus any cross-motions.
Date Due: April 29, 2011;.
Plaintiff’s replies and any response to any cross-motions..
Date Due: May 11, 2011;.
Defendant’s and any other party’s replies in support of any cross-motions..
*************************************
Also the Court indicated that no new borns after the 2007 filings will be allowed to be named, nor will any other party not on a groups listing be allowed to intervene in this matter.
*************************************
Payments Due: February 15, 2011-$25.00 per adult;
April 15, 2011-$25.00 per adult.
It is hoped that this will be the last fee payments due in this case, as the judge has indicated that we will attempt to conclude and issue a final order sometime early summar 2011.
*********************************
POSTED: December 30, 2010
The Court of Claims issued its opinion on December 20, 2010, regarding our issues surrounding the 1863 Act (violation of statutory obligation) and violation of statutory restrictions. The latter issue of violation of statutory restriction relates to certain monies set aside from land transfers to the Mdewakanton, which were disbursed among the three (3) communites sometime after 1980. The Court ruled that the 1863 Act was a cause of action and if we could prove the money mandating requirements under the law, we would have a viable cause of action against the government and possible liablity. This argument is one my office as made since the beginning of the lawsuit for my clients in 2006 and Court finally agrees that the 1863 Act requirements are a possible viable cause of action against the government. I and Robin Zephier will take the lead in filing a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof on this count. The other issue relating to violation of Statutory Restrictions will continue to be argued.
The Court has set the next hearing date of January 21, 2011 in Washington, D.C., at which time a scheduling order will be discussed on further proceedings in this case.
We are still in the fight!
POSTED: November 3, 2010
I attended the Washington, D.C. hearing on October 22, 2010 at the United States Court of Claims regarding certain issues involved in the case. I believe the hearing went well and Judge Lettow is finally recognizing the Act of 1863 as the cornerstone to the case now before the court. Also, Mr. Zephier argued that the 1851 & 1858 Treaties with the Mdewakanton and other Santee Sioux Bands was an important element tied to the 1863 Act. We will just have to wait now and see where Judge Lettow decides the case should be from a judicial stantpoint. His decision should be issued within the next few months. Keep you fingers crossed and your hope alive!
Remember your October & November, 2010 fees are due and please do your best to pay them on time.
POSTED: August 23, 2010
****************************************************
JULIA DUMARCE GROUP ET AL., which includes all of my clients filed their Fourth Amended Complaint on June 26, 2010. Included in that amended complaint were causes of action relating to violation of the “statutory use restriction” and “statutory obligation” of the United States relating to lands referred to as the 1886 lands. In addition, the latter cause of action relates specifically to the failure of the federal government to allot and set apart lands for the loyal Mdewakanton based upon the February 16, 1863 Act, which includes language to their “heirs forever”.
****************************************************
We are again back at the Court of Claims for further proceedings after the Supreme Court denied our Petition for Certiorari. The Plaintiff’s attorneys have decided to amend their complaints to include a cause of action for breach of a “statutory use restriction” by the government concerning certain funds now held in trust to best of our knowledge and damages. Damages will include we will argue the gaming revenues from each of the three (3) gaming communities.
****************************************************
A. Appropriation Acts Established a Statutory Use Restriction; B. The government has violated the statutory use restriction by failing to distribute those communities’ profits collected in a Statutory Use Restriction Account and by failing to collect and distribute other communities’ profits through a Statutory Use Restriction Account for equal distribution to the 1886 Mdewakanton — instead the moneys have been acquired by the communities and distributed as per capita payments to the community members; C. Interior’s failure to properly administer the Statutory Use Restriction Account has caused economic injury to the 1886 Mdewakanton; D. The 1886 Mdewakanton are entitled to damages for Interior’s violations of the Statutory Use Restriction. We will also amend to include arguments that I have made since the beginning of my representation regarding the importance of the 1863 Act relating to the language “to their heirs forever.” This argument will be brought forth more stringently in an attempt to bring the trust responsibility issue to the forefront again. Based upon a telephonic conference held on May 11, 2010 with Judge Lettow, which included all Plaintiff groups and their attorneys, as well as the Government’s attorneys; the Court issued the following Scheduling Order.
****************************************************
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint June 11, 2010; Defendant’s Response (government) July 26, 2010; Plaintiff’s Reply September 20, 2010.
****************************************************
If you intend on staying in the case you will need to make sure your fees are paid up and current. When my office amends our Complaint, some names may be excluded and removed due to the fact that we have not heard from nearly 1200 adult clients for over two (2) years now and have receive little or no fees. This case will proceed with only those clients that are serious about following through with the merits of the case as I am and those who are not serious should not be involved.
****************************************************
You all know who you are and if we do not hear from you either by e-mail or by telephone on or before June 2, 2010, we will not include your name on the amended complaint for damages.
****************************************************
THE FOLLOWING FEES SHOULD BE PAID TO DATE FOR 2010: January 15, 2010-$15.00; March 1, 2010-$15.00; April 15, 2010-$15.00; June 1, 2010-$15.00; July 15, 2010-$15.00; August 30, 2010-$15.00 October 15, 2010-$20.00 November 20, 2010-$20.00 No more fees for the fiscal year of 2010 These will be the fees due for the first half of FY 2010 year.
****************************************************
Minors do not pay any additional fees, however, once they have turned 21, they are requried to pay the adult fee owing once they become 21 years of age.
***********************************
PRIOR NOTICES REGARDING CASE PROCEEDINGS: THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, ISSUED A DECISION AND REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON TWO ISSUES. THOSE ISSUES INVOLVE THE MONIES NOW IN AN ACCOUNT FOR THE LOYAL MDEWAKANTON THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED AND WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COMMITTED MALFEASANCE IN ITS DEALING WITH THE LANDS AT ISSUE. ALTHOUGH, WE HAVE BEEN HIT WITH A SEVERE BLOW RELATING TO THE TRUST ISSUES WHEN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE COURT OF CLAIMS, HOLDING THAT NO TRUST EXISTED BASED UPON THE THREE (3) APPROPRIATION ACTS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO BREACH HAS THUS OCCURRED. WE HAVE APPEALED THAT DECISION AND REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION BASED UPON ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DENIED OUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. WE HAVE APPEALED THAT DECISION NOW TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WE HAVE FINISHED OUR PETITION FOR CERTEIROI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPPREME COURT AND WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR ON THE ACCOUNT MONIES THAT WERE PAID BACK IN THE 1940’S FOR LANDS TAKEN FROM THE LOYAL MDEWAKANTON AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT COMMITTED MALFEASANCE IN RELATIONSHIP TO SAID LANDS. I AND THREE (3) OTHER ATTORNEYS HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR CERTEIROI ON DECEMBER 6, 2009, REQUESTING THAT THE UNITED SUPREME COURT REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD NO TRUST EXISTED BASED UPON THE 1888, 1889 AND 1990 APPROPRIATION ACTS FOR THE LOYAL MDEWAKANTON. OUR PETITION ARGUED THREE DIFFERENT AREAS: 1. HISTORIC FACTS LEADING UP TO THE ALLEGED UP-RISING OF 1862; 2. THE 1863 ACT WHICH STATED TO THEIR “HEIRS FOREVER” CREATED THE TRUST AS SUCH WAS AN ENABLING ACT FOR THE THREE (3) APPROPRIATION ACTS OF 1888, 1889, 1890; 3. THE GOVERNMENT’S ACKNOWLEDEMENT OF A TRUST OVER THE PAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS OR SO, “JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED” THE GOVERNMENT FROM NOW ARGUING NO TRUST WAS CREATED FOR THE LOYAL MDEWAKANTON IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION. WE ALSO INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ALL THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY KAARDAL AND HIS CLIENTS IN THEIR PETITION FOR CERTEIROI. HOPEFULLY THE COURT WILL HEAR OUR CASE BUT WE WILL NO KNOW FOR AT LEAST FOUR TO SIX MONTHS. THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY REPLIED ON MARCH 16, 2010, TO OUR PETITION FOR CERT. TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. NOW WE MUST JUST WAIT TO SEE WHAT IS DECIDED, WE WILL KEEP YOU POSTED.
****************************************************
The United States Supreme Court denied the petitioners in the Wolfchild et al. case their Writ of Certiorari, consequently, our appeal will not be heard by that Court. We are however, having a telephone conference with all the plaintiff’s legal counsel on April 23, 2010 to discuss our alternatives to this set-back.
****************************************************
We will continue our case in the United States Court of Claims regarding our other issues that need to be resolved judicially relating to malfeasance and misfeasance of the government regarding their oversight of assets belonging to the loyal Mdewakanton. Further, there is the issue of monies still in trust for the loyal Mdewakanton relating to certain lands were transferred to the United States government. Those monies remain in trust.
****************************************************
In addition we will attempt to attack the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal District on other grounds. In essence the case is not over and we will continue to push forward. If you desire to remove your name from our listing, just let us know and well take the necessary steps to accomplish your request to be dropped from the case. Stay positive and we will continue to pursue any and all claims of the loyal Mdewakanton.
*******************************************
Like the miner’s canary, the Indian marks the shifts from the fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith …. Felix S. Cohen (1953) A good man takes care of those in his own family circle, but a great man takes care of those less fortunate and outside of his family circle. Jon Brings Three White Horses (2006)
*******************************************
CLIENT MEETINGS
No client meetings are scheduled.
********************************************
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF INDIVIDUAL CLIENT REQUIREMENTS IF YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED A PACKET
EACH CLIENT MUST SUBMIT AN INDIVIDUAL PACKET, INCLUDING ALL MINOR(S) WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE SPECIFIC CLIENT. FAMILY PACKETS ARE NOT PERMITTED AS PER ORDER OF THE COURT.
NOTICE
EACH ADULT PACKET WIILL REQUIRE A $25.00 PROCESSING FEE, WHICH IS NON-REFUNDABLE TO COVER ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND MAILING TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS. IF A PACKET IS RECEIVED WITHOUT THE $25.00 FEE IT WILL BE RETURNED COD TO THE SENDER.
EACH CLIENT PACKET MUST BE BOUND-EITHER PROFESSIONALLY OR BY OTHER MEANS THAT ENSURES THAT THE CONTENTS WILL REMAIN IN THE CLEAR AND ORGANIZED MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE SUBMITTED.
EACH CLIENT PACKET MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING:
****************************************************
1. COVER PAGE COVER PAGE SHOULD SHOW THE NAME OF THE ADULT CLIENT AND AFFILLIATED MINORS. Beneath the adult clients name should be their current address and contact information. A list of all minors with DOB(s) AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE: THE NAME OF THE MDEWAKANTON ANCESTOR THAT YOU ARE RELATED TO AND THEIR DOB AND DATE OF DEATH IF KNOWN
EXAMPLE:
CLIENT: JOHN DOE 444 1ST AVE PIERRE, SD 57501 MINORS: JANE DOE DOB: 10/10/1999 JOHN DOE JR. DOB: 11/11/2003 MDEWAKANTON ANCESTOR: JOHN TRUDELL DOB______ DIED _______
****************************************************
2. EACH PACKET SHALL CONTAIN A TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SHOULD INCLUDE ALL RELEVENT DOCUMENTATION COPIES OF ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES SHALL BE MANDATORY. ANCESTOR DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE COPY OF ORIGINAL IF AVAILABLE OR CERTIFIED BY THE ORGANIZATION FROM WHICH THE DOCUMENTATION WAS OBTAINED.
****************************************************
3. EACH PACKET SHALL CONTAIN A FAMILY TREE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS SHOULD BE A FAMILY TREE, BIA FAMILY TREES ARE PREFERRED, BUT ANY FAMILY TREE THAT CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED BY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PERMITTED, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY THE COURT.
****************************************************
4. SUB-SECTIONS OF DOCUMENTATION THE SUBSEQUENT PAGES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH A COVER SHEET DIVIDING OR SEPARATING EACH DOCUMENT THAT SUBSTANTIATES OR PROVES THE FAMILY TREE LISTINGS.
****************************************************
5. DOCUMENTATION OF ANCESTOR IN RELATION TO THE LISTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN DETERMINING BENEFICIARIES The following is from the opinion issued by the Court August 22, 2006 http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Lettow/06/LETTOW.WOLFCHILD- CERMAK.082206.pdf
****************************************************
THE FINAL PAGES SHALL INCLUDE THE CITING OR PROOF OF ANCESTOR ON THE 1886, 1889 CENSUSES, OR OF A MDEWAKANTON INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN MINNESOTA OR REMOVING THERETO AT THE TIME OF THE CENSUSES. IF USING THE 1899 AND 1917-1924 MCLAUGHLIN ROLL AS SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, REMEMBER THE ANCESTOR OR ANCESTORS MUST HAVE BEEN LOCATED IN MINNESOTA DURING A PERIOD OF TIME RELEVANT TO THE LISTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. EXAMPLE: MAY 1886 TO CIRCA 1905. IF YOU ARE AN INTERVENING PLAINTIFF WHOSE ANCESTOR IS A LOYAL MDEWAKANTON BUT NOT RELYING UPON INCLUSION IN THE 1886 OR 1889 CENSUS, INCLUDE IN THIS SECTION OF YOUR PACKET THE DOCUMENTATION THAT PROVES FOR EXAMPLE: THE ELROD LIST OF SCOUTS, SAMUEL BROWN’S LIST OF SCOUTS OR OTHER RECORD
****************************************************
6. SUBMITTING PACKETS IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EACH FAMILY ELECT A SPOKESPERSON TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF A COLLECTION PERSON FOR ALL PACKETS TO REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS. PLEASE SEND IN ALL FAMLY PACKETS IN ONE BOX OR SEVERAL BOXES, IDENTIFING THE FAMILY ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BOX OR BOXES AND THE COMMON ANCESTOR EACH DESCENDS FROM.
****************************************************
7. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT IN A COMPLETED PACKET OR RANDOM SUBMISSIONS OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES, ETC. SHOULD YOU SEND IN RANDOM DOCUMENTS WE WILL ATTEMPT TO RETURN THEM AND WILL CHARGE THE CLIENT MAILING COSTS. ALL PACKETS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO OUR OFFICE BY JANUARY 30, 2007. HOWEVER, IF YOU NEED AN EXTENSION YOU MAY CONTACT US AND WE WILL WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF A DATE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR SITUATION. ANY PACKETS THAT ARE SUBMITTED THAT ARE NOT COMPLETE AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE CLIENT OR ARE LATE – THE CLIENT WILL BE CHARGED AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATION FEE OF $20.00 AND POSTAGE. IF PACKET FEES ARE NOT PAID BY JULY 10, 2007, CLIENTS INFORMATION WILL NOT BE FORWARDED ON TO THE COURT AND THEIR NAMES MAY BE REMOVED, PURSUANT TO MOTION TO CORRECT REVISED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. IF YOU’RE NAME IS REMOVED AS AN INTERVENOR/PLAINTIFF YOU WILL HAVE TO RETAIN OTHER COUNSEL AND FILE A SEPARATE LAWSUIT.
****************************************************
*Clients are responsible to research their own individual ancestry, we have never indicated we will research on behalf of any clients.
****************************************************
Clients who have concerns or questions regarding this case should contact the office of Montana & Associates directly. Please keep in mind that our office represents over 4,000 clients on this case alone, thus, we receive a large volume of telephone calls and e-mails every day. All clients are equally important to our firm and we will try our best to respond to each and every communication in a timely fashion. Our telephone number is 715.597.6464 and e-mail address is lakotagm@yahoo.com.