|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 25, 2016 0:35:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 25, 2016 0:43:47 GMT
I suspect that is a drop in the bucket to what is owed. BTW it has to clear Congress so frankly they're not going to be getting that money soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 25, 2016 1:01:31 GMT
Beth,
They are already sitting on this and others. Below was issued in 2012. congress already approved.
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) – Individual members of the Sioux tribes cannot persist with a lawsuit seeking a share of hundreds of millions of dollars awarded in old court cases for the improper seizure of the Black Hills and other land more than a century ago, a federal judge has ruled.
In a ruling issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol dismissed a lawsuit filed by 19 members of Sioux tribes. He said individual tribal members have no legal standing to seek the money because it was awarded to eight tribes, and prior court decisions have found that individual American Indians do not have a right to tribal property or a claim to a share of money from the sale of tribal land.
The Sioux tribes have refused to accept money awarded for the Black Hills in a 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision, and instead have sought the return of the land, Piersol noted. The lawsuit seeking payments for individual tribal members could not continue without the participation of the tribes, but they have refused to give up their immunity to being sued, he said.
“That difference of position is an internal tribal matter into which the federal courts cannot intrude,” Piersol wrote.
A lawyer representing the individual tribal members who filed the lawsuit did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
Terry Pechota of Rapid City, a lawyer representing the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, said the tribes welcome the decision because any distribution of money from the 1980 court case would weaken the tribes' efforts to regain land in the Black Hills. The Rosebud Sioux filed documents in the lawsuit stating it seeks the return of land and rejects any monetary settlement.
“The consensus is, the tribes want this land back,” Pechota said Monday.
The dispute is more than 130 years old.
In an 1868 treaty, the U.S. government agreed that a huge area west of the Missouri River would be set aside for use by the Sioux. After gold was discovered in the Black Hills, miners and other fortune-seekers flocked to western South Dakota. That led to military battles that culminated in George Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn in 1876.
When the Sioux refused to ratify a new treaty giving up the Black Hills, Congress passed a law taking the land in 1877.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1980 upheld a lower court ruling that awarded eight Sioux tribes $106 million in compensation, the 1877 value of $17.5 million plus interest. The nation's highest court said the government had to pay for taking the tribal property, and Piersol said that award has now grown to $650 million or more.
All the Sioux tribes have refused to take the money, with tribal officials and others saying the Black Hills are not for sale.
The lawsuit by the individual tribal members also sought distribution of a smaller amount of money awarded for land taken in the 1868 treaty. Filed two years ago, the lawsuit argued that because the court system cannot return the land to the Sioux, the only remedy is to distribute money to individuals.
Piersol said federal law provides that no money from the Black Hills case can be distributed until Congress appropriates funds and federal officials agree with the tribes on a distribution plan. Congress has not provided money and all eight tribes have passed resolutions opposing distribution of the money.
The return of any land is up to Congress, the judge said.
“The fact remains that resolution by the courts is at an end. If there is to be any result other than the current stalemate, then it must come from tribal government and the Congress of the United States,” Piersol wrote.
The eight tribes listed in the lawsuit were the Crow Creek Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Lower Brule Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Oglala Sioux, Fort Peck Sioux and Santee Sioux.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 25, 2016 12:04:36 GMT
The trouble is were to stop with this? and what if it spreads? imagine if the Africans or South American tribes went to the UN to claim compensation for land lost to them over 200 years ago, look at the Kurd's they have lost their entire nation (mainly down the British and French), even the British might feel the backlash from places like Yorkshire and Cornwall, hell they even forced the Scousers (Liverpool People) out of their homes and sent them to places like Widnes, apparently Liverpool got bombed so bad that they had to level the place, but that land was probably sold for millions afterwards.
Yan.
|
|
