12
Jul

Pro and con views on settlement in Native American trust case

   Posted by: admin   in Blackfeet, Cobell vs. Salazar, Interior Department, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate

Add Comment

The Casper (Wyo.) Star Tribune has featured the following back and forth on the $3.4 billion settlement in the Cobell v. Salazar case. The settlement requires congressional approval, and Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, a Republican who is vice-chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, has been particularly vocal in opposing some of its provisions.

Sen. John Barrasso (AP photo)

Sen. John Barrasso (AP photo)

On July 4, the Trib ran this opinion column by Kimberly Craven, a Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate member who would be affected by the settlement. She worked for Sen. Daniel J. Evans, R-Wash., when he served as vice chairman of the Senate (then Select) Committee on Indian Affairs

Craven writes:

    The great rush to approve this settlement without hearings or a record reflects the desperate nature of the plaintiffs and the Cobell attorneys’ need for a bailout. The named plaintiffs and their lawyers will be greatly enriched while Indians are left to the uncertain fate of possible unintended consequences that we will have to live with and explain to our Seventh Generation.

Elouise Cobell (AP photo)

Elouise Cobell (AP photo)

Yesterday, lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell responded, here.

In that response, Cobell, who is Blackfeet from Browning, Mont., likens Craven’s praise for Barrasso to “honoring Hurricane Katrina for what it did to the city of New Orleans.”

Read them both and see what you think.

Gwen Florio

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, July 12th, 2010 at 5:30 pm and is filed under Blackfeet, Cobell vs. Salazar, Interior Department, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 comments so far

Anita Ollinger
 1 

So Ms. Craven..explain to our 7th generation how we in the end received nothing.

July 12th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
JN Courtney
 2 

“solely as a result of the Cobell litigation, the government estimates that it has spent over $5 billion to rehabilitate trust systems, staff and records management”—excerpted from Plaintiff Cobell’s response to Craven—why not give tribes the $5b & let the govt make do with the $3.4 to comb the records? Resorting to a shameful Katrina smear and using sarcasm at length makes me wonder what kind of debating ruses were used to finally bring Pres Keel to heel. Actually, I was shocked and abit sickened, when months ago, I read the figure $3.4b and the exorbitant reimbursement to attorneys. After closely following the debate, I have come to see the settlement as one person’s magnificent obsession, along with the usual suspects regarding attorney shenanigans. Ms. Craven should be given more credence and time to bring better, more understandable transparency, which regardless of the massive evidence Ms. Cobell reamed forth somehow seems faulty.

July 12th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
question
 3 

the Cobell litigation did not include claims for damages resulting from the mismanagement of individual Indian lands and natural resources. The proposed settlement and the legislation that Congress has been asked to approve unequivocally expands the case to include those claims – excerpt from K Craven. Why is this issue always sidestepped with the sarcastic reply of you can opt out? Why does she have to opt of anything when she never gave anyone the permission to settle this claim for her? Anything can be historic, the allotment act was historic but that does not justify its approval, it still is mismanagement.

July 13th, 2010 at 5:58 am
Kimberly Craven
 4 

Just a clarification – I am not a former Barrasso staffer. I worked for Sen. Daniel J. Evans (R-WA) on the Senate Indian Affairs Committe. @Anita -What we have to give our Seventh Generation is the claims that we have not extinguished for pennies on the dollar. I thought we’d learned our lessons about being on the short end of a deal that benefits a few at the expense of many.

July 13th, 2010 at 7:17 am
question
 5 

I have another question. Since it looks like cobell is paying lawyer fees with grant monies obtained through the non-profit org. for econ. dev. and narf as another non-profit used lawyers to assist with the lawsuit how is the lawyers payments justified? As reimbursements? Ok but what about the expansion of the claim that they did not include in the lawsuit or get permission to include in the lawsuit, what percentage of the pie of lawyers fees does this include? At what price did this cost? Can this be considered a bribe to except and include the unauthorized portion in the settlement?

July 13th, 2010 at 8:08 am
admin
 6 

We apologize for the error, and have corrected the post.

July 13th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Striking Bear Hunkpapa Lakota
 7 

All Native Americans should be in Full dissagreement in calling this Settlement a Bailout!.

This is a hard Won Battle Fought Over Beauricratic Theft!.

Bailouts were not created by Native Americans!.

Americans should ask Sen. Barrasso who does he work for, Himself, or the American People; Maybe Halliburton?.

Sen. Barrasso is just stalling for time until Nov. 2; Perhaps Sen. Barrasso should be aware; He will run out of time; when it’s time for his reelection!.

October 18th, 2010 at 3:41 am
spirittraveller
 8 

wish i could fight for the ancestral abuses against my family,but we are not red enough,or white enough. Maybe we can reopen the scars of Iroquois suffrage, or make the government pay for the extermination of the California tribes by European gold- greedy settlers

November 20th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Kathryn Munden
 9 

Who is Ms Craven representing? Certainly not me. Who is paying for her Washington DC lawyer? And thanks for waiting for the last minute to file your appeal thereby making those of us who desperately need the money wait even longer.

August 15th, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

 
Back to top