Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   


MADALINE ROCQUE
Tatanka-najin-win (Standing Buffalo Woman)
Informational Website


Home   -|-   Genealogy/Timeline   -|-   Obit   -|-   Descendants   -|-   Photos

Lawsuit 2006   -|-   Lawsuit 2007   -|-   Lawsuit 2008   -|-   Lawsuit 2009

Lawsuit 2010   -|-   Lawsuit 2011   -|-   Lawsuit 2012   -|-   Lawsuit 2013

Lawsuit 2014



Monday, December 24, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

Currently pending is the Appellant - United States' Reply Brief (GREY 1 BRIEF) which is due January 4, 2013.
  Comment:   This appeal was docketed January 4, 2012.   There are several more steps in the appellate process remaining before oral arguments will be scheduled.   Hopefully, before this coming summer, this second appeal will be finished by being remanded back to the Court of Federal Claims.

~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Just some minor activity to report:

12/14/2012 Document 1144
MOTION to Substitute Attorney R. Deryl Edwards in place of R. Deryl Edwards, Jr.   Response due by 1/2/2013.
Filed by VICTORIA ROBERTSON VADNAIS.   (Entered: 12/14/2012)

12/18/2012 Document 1145
ORDER granting Document 1144 MOTION to Substitute Attorney.   Added attorney Royce Deryl Edwards, Sr for VICTORIA ROBERTSON VADNAIS.   Attorney Royce Deryl Edwards, Jr. terminated.
Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow.   (Entered: 12/18/2012)

[Note: Neither of the above document were downloaded]

Judge Lettow still has not acted on the October 31, 2012 MOTIONS filed by MKLaw and subsequent RESPONSES from Plaintiff-Intervenor's and the Defendant USA.
Comment:   None.

Merry Christmas Everyone!







Sunday, December 16, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

One minor change; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changed the due date of January 2, 2013 to January 4, 2013 for the Appellant - United States to file their Reply Brief (GREY 1 BRIEF).
  Comment:   None!

~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Judge Lettow still has before him, the October 31, 2012 MOTIONS filed by MKLaw and subsequent RESPONSES from Plaintiff-Intervenor's and the Defendant USA.
Comment:   None!






Sunday, December 9, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

Nothing has changed again this week.   (See Saturday, December 1, 2012 post for latest).
  Comment:   Wait til next year!

~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Filed in the PACER system for the COFC this past week:

12/07/2012 Document 1142
RESPONSE by Defendant USA in opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenors' Cross-Motion (Document 1138) to Compel the Secretary to Pay Costs, filed by All Defendants.
(Entered: 12/07/2012)   Click on the Document 1142 below.

12/07/2012 Document 1143
Consented MOTION to Substitute Attorney Jay C. Shultz in place of Nicole Nachtigal Emerson, filed by FRANCINE GARREAU. (Entered: 12/09/2012)   DID NOT DOWNLOAD THIS DOCUMENT

Document 1142

  Comment:   None regarding Document 1142.   Same ol' crap.   I doubt if we will see an OPINION & ORDER until next year from Judge Lettow regarding the October 31, 2012 MOTIONS filed by MKLaw and subsequent RESPONSES from Plaintiff-Intervenor's and the Defendant USA.

I also checked Docket No. 1:01-cv-00568-CFL CERMAK, et al v. USA.   Nothing new on the Cermak side since I posted information back on Sunday, October 21, 2012.







Saturday, December 1, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

Nothing has changed this week since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set a due date of January 2, 2013 for the Appellant - United States to file their Reply Brief (GREY 1 BRIEF).
  Comment:   Patience.   Persistence.   Prevail.

~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

11/29/2012:   Document 1139
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1138 Response,, filed by USA.
Response due by 12/17/2012.   (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Schwarz, Jody)
(Entered: 11/29/2012)   Click on the Document 1139 below.

11/29/2012:   Document 1140
Consented MOTION to Substitute Attorney Jay C. Shultz in place of Nicole Nachtigal Emerson,
filed by FRANCINE GARREAU. (Shultz, Jay)
(Entered: 11/29/2012)   Click on the Document 1140 below.

11/30/2012:   Document 1141
ORDER granting 1139 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response.
Response to plaintiffs' reimbursement motion due by 12/7/2012.   Signed by Judge Charles F. Lettow. (jp) (Entered: 11/30/2012)   Click on the Document 1141 below.

Document 1139       Document 1140       Document 1141


  Comment:   Bull crap!   Quote from motion "lead counsel for the United States has been on leave caring for a sick child and does not anticipate returning to a full schedule until December 3."   I don't see why "Bimbo II" should get all the damn time she needs for her personal family business while plaintiffs are dying before this 9+ year lawsuit is finalized.   She would never be able to hold a job outside this "welfare program for untalented lawyers" that the federal judicial system is running in Washington DC.   I think her fitness to perform the duties of her office should be challenged.   She has become a pathetic drama queen in this lawsuit, especially in court, counting on that to outweigh her inability.   I believe in hiring the handicap, but not the inept.

I am sorry she has a sick child.   I wonder how many plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor's have sick children and dying parents.   Why is she so deserving of all the delays she has gotten over the years for her personal reasons?   Does Judge Lettow feel she is more deserving of special attention than we are of receiving final judgment in our lifetime?

Disgruntled.   Dissatisfied.   Disgusted.







Sunday, November 25, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Nothing new in this court since the defendant USA response and the collective Plaintiff-Intervenors’ response were both filed on November 19, 2012.
  Comment:   Being the two responses are timely filed and the COFC clerk has entered them in the PACER system, I don't believe Judge Lettow will do anything regarding Kaardal's October 31st MOTION and the two November 19th RESPONSES the rest of this year.   I would think he would need the defendant USA's appeal to be finalized in CAFC.

Maybe he issues a STAY, who knows!   Whatever, nothing positive happens until next year.   Enjoy the winter!   Or, hunker down until spring.   We'll be mowing grass again before the appellate process in completed.


~ ~ ~

U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set a due date of January 2, 2013 for the Appellant - United States to file their Reply Brief (GREY 1 BRIEF).
  Comment:   From what I understood of the appellate timetable, once the red brief was filed, the Appellant - United States would have fourteen days to file their Reply Brief (GREY BRIEF).   Apparently, the appellate court took into consideration the "holiday season" and established a due date into the new year.

So, what's next?   Once the Appellant - United States files their "GREY 1 BRIEF" response to the Cross Appellant - Wolfchild Plaintiffs "RED BRIEF" response which was in response to Appellant - United States initial "BLUE BRIEF" the appellate court (CAFC) will set a due date for Cross Appellant - Wolfchild Plaintiffs to file their Reply Brief (GREY 2 BRIEF).   I would expect the (GREY 2 BRIEF) due date will be within fourteen days of the (GREY 1 BRIEF) filed date.

So, do we finally get to the Oral Argument phase?   No, no, no; lot's to do yet!

Next, the appellate court (CAFC) will set a due date for the Appendix Filing (a combined document containing copies of all exhibits that are referenced in the briefs).   And I have not found information yet on how long this process takes.

After the Appendix filing, the appellate court (CAFC) will schedule oral arguments for a date that is usually three to four months out.   Then, late next year, the "Disposition of the Appeal" will take place with the appellate court's "Mandate."   The possibilities of what happens after the "Mandate" are too numerous to speculate so I'm taking the winter off to catch up on genealogy research.

Patience.   Persistence.   Prevail.







Tuesday, November 20, 2012
United States Court of Federal Claims
(Update)



Two responses to Wolfchild plaintiff's October 31, 2012 MOTIONS were filed November 19, 2012.   One by the defendant USA (Document 1137 below) and the other, a Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Collective Response (Document 1138 below).

Document 1137       Document 1138

Comment:   Hadn't had time to read either response.






Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Mid-Week Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

The corrected Brief by Cross-Appellants (Wolfchild plaintiffs), which was due November 19, 2012, was mailed yesterday, November 13, 2012.
Comment:   Thank you "Who wishes to remain anonymous" for the tip.   I was trying to get some other genealogical work done this week and was not paying attention.

The corrected brief is posted on the MKLaw website and is available there for downloading and/or reading.


~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

No change.   Response by defendant USA to the October 31, 2012 MOTIONS filed by MKLaw is still due November 19, 2012.
Comment:   So far, the defendant USA has not filed a MOTION to DELAY their response until after the November and December holiday/vacation period!   Sorry, just being fatuous this morning.






Saturday, November 10, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

Under "Motions and other Entries" the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 5, 2012, DENIED Cross-Appellants (Wolfchild plaintiffs) MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief out of time.   In the denial, the Court stated Wolfchild's conforming brief must be filed within 14 days of the date of this order.

Under "Brief Schedule" in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning WOLFCHILD vs. US (Docket 2012-5035) a change was posted:

The CORRECTED BRIEF by Cross-Appellants (Wolfchild plaintiffs) is due November 19, 2012.

Comment:   Being the due date is one day after my next weekend update, I will not post again until the morning of November 20th.   The corrected brief could be posted on the MKLaw website on or before November 19th so it would be a good idea to check that website first.

~ ~ ~

U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

No change.   Response to the several MOTIONS filed by MKLaw by defendant USA are still due November 19, 2012.
Comment:   Being the due date is one day after my next weekend update, I will not post again until the morning of November 20th.






Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Update


First of all, I apologize for not uploading last weekend's update.   I had it completed on Sunday but forgot to upload it until this morning.   I'm getting too old for all this!

Second, Dr. Butts commented on the two hearings on Facebook last week.   Here is the post:

Barbara Buttes 7:30pm Nov 1

The main thing is for everyone to be prepared with ORIGINAL CERTIFIED copies of what you have already submitted to me.   I used the copies of the certified documents that you submitted (and, of course, I have quite a few original documents) to scan into the database and create the files for Mr. Kaardal to submit to the court.   If you don't already have your original certified copies on hand, then order them now and hang onto them until further notice.   The "original certified copies" will have the raised seal on the paper. The courthouse/hospital/church will use a press to create the seal on your document.   Just have the documents in your possession.   Do not send them to us.


Comment:   You will not find the "by invitation only - closed forum" on Facebook where her message was posted.   It consists of a small group of MKLaw clients with nothing much ever being discussed.

My concern about it was that it was not being passed on to all "Lineal Descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton."   Anyway, make sure you have your original documents ready in case the database and copies of our documents are not accepted during the DOI/BIA review in developing a list of legitimate LD's who are entitled to the benefits of the land procured by the 88, 89 & 90 Appropriation Acts.

One further thing, just to be on the safe/prepared side; if you have children born after the cut-off date set by Judge Lettow in the Court of Federal Claims, make sure you have their original birth certificate ready as well.   I do not know if the DOI/BIA will extend the opportunity, just be prepared.   Expect the unexpected!.







Sunday, November 4, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Updates


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Docket No. 2012-5035

On October 26, 2012 (but entered in the PACER system after last weekend's update) the Appellant - United States filed a MOTION (by mail) to Stay Briefing Pending Ruling on the Filing of Appellee/Cross-Appellants' Briefs.

Background:
On August 15, 2012 Cross- Appellant - Wolfchild Plaintiffs filed a MOTION (by mail) for an extension of time within which to file brief.   On August 20, 2012 U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) GRANTED the motion, stating the Brief was due on or before September 18, 2012.

On September 19, 2012 Cross-Appellants - Wolfchild Plaintiffs filed a MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief out of time.(Brief submitted with the motion) On September 27, 2012 U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) REPLIED to the Cross-Appellants - Wolfchild Plaintiffs September 19, 2012 MOTION.   However, the CAFC reply is not available to the public.


Comment:   In his November 2, 2012 note on the MKLaw website, Erick Kaardal states "In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we are waiting on the government's response appellate brief."

Without knowing what the CAFC's September 27th reply stated, I assume from Kaardal's note, that although his September 19th MOTION was filed "out of time" the CAFC has accepted it and the Appellant - United States will be granted their October 26th Stay motion.

That's the best I can make of this "secretive appellate court business."   Only our lawyers know for sure and they do not have time to explain it to us.


~ ~ ~


U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012, MKLaw filed eight (8) MOTIONS in this court.   The first was the original motion; Wolfchild Plaintiffs’ Objection to Department’s October 1, 2012 Action on Remand and Motion for Further Proceedings Under Rule 52.2(f).

Motions two through seven were MOTIONS to Supplement Pleadings to earlier MOTION for Further Proceedings Under Rule 52.2(f) MOTION Further Proceedings Under Rule 52.2(f).   These motions constituted 850+ pages of documentation; specifically, copies of the four additional censuses the DOI/SOI intends to use in addition to the 1886/89 censuses to establish the plan and roll ordered last year by Judge Lettow.

The eighth filing was a correction to the first motion; Wolfchild Plaintiffs’ Objection to Department’s October 1, 2012 Action on Remand and Motion for Further Proceedings Under Rule 52.2(f) (Corrected)

Response by defendant USA is due by 11/19/2012.


Comment:   The eighth filing, the corrected motion, is available at the MKLaw website.   I did not download the 850+ pages of other census data.

In Kaardal's motion stating Plaintiff's object to Departments Oct 1, 2012 Action on Remand (See Hearings below) and motion for further proceedings, he concludes with:

1. The Court should issue a call for information to the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice under 28 U.S.C. § 2507(a) and conduct further proceedings because he suspects improper interference by SMSC, other communities representatives, attorneys and lobbyists.

2. The Court should order further proceedings to interpret the substantive meaning, if any, of the “mixed blood” phrase in the 1890 Appropriation Act.

3. The Court should order further proceedings to adjudicate the legality of the Department’s October 1, 2012 action that the 1886 Mdewakanton Group (called loyal Mdewakanton in the October 1, 2012 publication) includes individuals who descend from all persons on Indian Land Certificates (1905-1980), 1891-93 and 1895-98 Birch Coulee censuses, 1899 McLaughlin Roll and the misidentified “1917 Census of Mdewakanton Sioux Indians.”

4. The Court should enjoin the Department from ending the comment period – scheduled to end on November 1, 2012 – until 30 days after the Court completes its proceedings.


~ ~ ~


DOI/BIA Hearings
Federal Register

The hearings conducted by the DOI/BIA went off as scheduled on Oct 30 and Nov 1.   The departmental officials would not comment any further than the Proposed Distribution Plan promulgated in the Federal Register.   This is not unusual for this type of public hearing.   Their sole purpose is to listen to recommended additions, deletions or modifications to the proposed plan.

Comment:   I received input on the hearings from several people.   All their comments could be grouped into a description of uneventual.   Some people spoke, some attorneys were present.   In general attendance was nil and for good reason; nothing can be accomplished at this type of hearing.   Attorney for the original plaintiff's (Erick Kaardahl) was not there but as you can see above he is attacking the DIO/BIA plan back in the Court of Federal Claims.

What does this all mean?   It means this lawsuit is far from over.







Saturday, October 27, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA Lawsuit
Weekend Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) - Docket No. 2012-5035
and
U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

There were no PACER updates posted for either Court this past week.
Comment:   None


Department of Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs In-Person Hearings

The in-person hearings regarding the preliminary plan for distribution of judgment funds to the Loyal Mdewakantons will be held by the Department of Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs next week at two locations:

Tuesday, October 30, 2012, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Best Western Plus Sioux Falls Ramkota Hotel
3200 W. Maple St
Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Thursday, November 1, 2012, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Ramada Mall of America
2300 East American Blvd
Bloomington, Minnesota


Comment:   The expense of flying round-trip from Indianapolis to Minneapolis, even without staying overnight is "out of my pay grade."   But I would hope that a few interested persons living within reasonable distance of Sioux Falls or Bloomington will attend.   Nothing will be decided at either meeting, but it would be very interesting for all of us to know who spoke, other than SOI/BIA personal, and what did they have to say.

From all the eMail thanks I receive for posting updates on this website, I know there are several Madeline Rocque website watchers in or near both cities.   I would be honored and very happy to post reports I receive by eMail or by phone.   I will credit the writers of the reports or post the reports anonymously, if the writer prefers.   My eMail address is at the bottom of this website's Home Page and my phone number is 317-830-8618.   Thank you very much.







Sunday, October 21, 2012
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Weekend Review


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) - Docket No. 2012-5035
~ ~ ~
Another week has passed, and again, no changes have been made to the "Case Details" section.   The "latest entry" is still the notice that the Cross Appellant's CORRECTED BRIEF is due 10/9/2012.
Comment:   I hope these appellate court judges change their robes more often than they change their PACER system entries.


. . . . Meanwhile, back on the Conway bayou . . . . [Ooops, I'm watching reruns of Swamp People while I'm updating this lame no-action webpage!   Sorry!]


U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
~ ~ ~
Two documents were filed last week in this court, specifically:

Document 1127 - Judge Lettow's ORDER directing the clerk to file Mr. Raymond L. Cermak, Sr.'s October 1, 2012 submission electronically and to provide a paper copy of this order to Mr. Cermak. (Entered: 10/17/2012)

Document 1128 - October 1, 2012 Statement of Facts submitted by Raymond L. Cermak, Sr. re: United States Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, or in the alternative, Motion for Relief from Judgment in the form of an extension of time and Memorandum in Support. [filed by leave of Judge Lettow] (Entered: 10/17/2012)

Both documents can be downloaded and/or read by clicking on the two links below:

Document 1127       Document 1128

Comment:   Give 'em hell Raymond!






Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Latest Update


Comment:
I returned home last night from a weeklong genealogical research trip (unrelated to the Wolfchild lawsuit).   While on these trips I never bring along a computer because Internet access takes valuable time away from local research.   I did check the PACER system last night to see if it contained any new information from both courts.   Nothing new was posted during the time I was away.

In the U. S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), the latest piece of information posted is the October 1 filing by Erick G. Kaardal, counsel for the Plaintiffs which can be found in the Oct 6th posting below.

In the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the latest piece of information posted still states Cross-Appellant's "corrected brief" is due October 9, 2012.   The CAFC states in the PACER system that "Briefs are not available for download" which insures the Public will not be kept informed of what is going on in their court.

I suspect the Oct 9th Brief was received on time by the CAFC and there will soon be a PACER entry of when the SOI/BIA response to Kaardal's brief will be due.   I'll check again this coming Saturday for any possible updates to the CAFC schedule for this appeal.








Saturday, October 6, 2012
United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC)
Civil Docket for Case #: 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
Latest Update


In the U. S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC), Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL an additional document was filed October 1, 2012.   Erick G. Kaardal, for the Plaintiffs, filed a declaration which includes an attachment, the "Preliminary Plan for Distribution of Judgment Funds to the Loyal Mdewakantons" that was published in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Monday, October 1, 2012.   Click on link below to download and read:

DECLARATION OF ERICK G. KAARDAL

EXHIBIT A - Excerpt from the Federal Register


Comment:
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is developing a plan for distribution of judgment funds to the Loyal Mdewakantons if funds are appropriated in satisfaction of a final judgment.   The distribution plan includes a determination of the criteria for eligibility to participate in any award.   In addition to the 1886 McLeod Cenus and the 1889 Henton Supplemental Census, four (4) additional documents will be used.   Anyone who can submit proof of descent from any individual listed on these six (6) documents will be included in that class of persons eligible to participate in any final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.

The DOI will be holding in-person hearings on this preliminary plan Oct 30th in Sioux Falls, SD and on Nov 1st in Bloomington, MN.   The addresses for the hearings are listed in the the Federal Register Notice above in case anyone will be able to attend.







Saturday, September 29, 2012
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Latest Update


In the U. S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC), Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL there is a change.   Plaintiff's Consolidated Response due in Judge Lettow's Court by October 1, 2012, has now been filed.   Click on link below to download and read:

PLAINTIFFS’ COORDINATED RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR STAY, ETC.

In the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Docket No. 2012-5035 there is no change.   Cross-Appellant's (we Plaintiffs from the Court of Federal Claims Wolfchild lawsuit) "corrected brief" is still due October 9, 2012

Comment:
None.   MKLaw will probably have online Monday.   Later . . . .







Thursday, September 27, 2012
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Latest Update


In the U. S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC), Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL there is no change.   Plaintiff's Consolidated Response to the Defendant USA's MOTION FOR STAY or, in the alternative, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT IN THE FORM OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME is still due in Judge Lettow's Court by October 1, 2012.

However, in the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Docket No. 2012-5035 there is a change.   The docket history now contains an entry "corrected brief is due October 9, 2012."

Comment:
There is no explanation as to what the "corrected brief" statement means.   It could be the CAFC's cryptic way of saying the Cross-Appellant's MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief out of time has been granted.   Or, it could mean the overlength brief will not be accepted and a standard brief is now due October 9, 2012.   Being that nothing is posted on MKLaw's website, I will presume the overlength out of time brief will be accepted.   Instead of a one week extension, an extra day was added because Monday, October 8th is a federal holiday.

Later . . . .







Saturday, September 22 , 2012
U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
- Docket No. 2012-5035 -


On September 19, 2012, Erick G. Kaardal posted a note on the MKLaw website stating that the Cross-Appellants submitted a MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief out of time.   The Brief was submitted with the motion.   The Brief can be downloaded at the MKLaw website or by clicking the link below:

Cross-Appellants Brief filed September 18, 2012


Comment:

The legal terminology in the motion "Leave to File Overlength Brief out of time" can best be described as "Permission to file a brief that contains more pages than the CAFC guidlines normally allow and to also file later than the deadline normally allowed for an oversized brief.

On September 20, 2012 the above linked Cross-Appellant - Motion was entered in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.   As of this morning, September 22, the CAFC has not yet granted or denied the motion.

Trying to condense the 105 page brief into a few paragraphs is impossible.   Also, if the CAFC denies the motion, hours of intense studying of the brief would become moot.   However, the following excerpt from page 13 of the proposed brief summarizes best what I feel is being requested of the federal circuit appellate court:


"Simply put, regardless of what the government and communities have said prior to and after the enactment of the 1980 Act, the text of the 1980 Act does not repeal the five statutes.   The three reservations in Minnesota are for the 1886 Mdewakanton group, not the temporary subgroup communities.   And, the 1886 Mdewakanton group’s statutory rights were further violated when Interior completed the 2002 sale of the former Minnesota Sioux reservation without reserving 7,680 acres for the 1886 Mdewakanton group.

Accordingly, the Cross-Appellants request oral argument."

The five statutes mentioned above are the two 1863 Acts and the three 1888-1890 Appropriation Acts.   I will check the PACER system on Saturday, September 29, 2012 for any action taken by the CAFC.

Later . . . .







Thursday, September 6 , 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Docket Nos. 03-2684L & No. 01-568L


On August 20, 2012, Mr. Raymond L. Cermak, Sr. submitted a written statement of facts and argument for the court’s consideration in these consolidated actions.   On August 30, 2012, Judge Charles F. Lettow issued an ORDER to the Clerk of Court to a electronically file Amicus Curiae Cermak's written statement in the PACER system.   The two new documents are available for downloading by clicking the two links below:

Document 1123 - ORDER issued August 30, 2012

Document 1124 - Mr. Raymond L. Cermak, Sr.'s written statement

Comment:
The Judge's order reveals some very positive activity towards bringing these two cases to an end.   I believe everyone will find Mr. Cermak's "Amicus Curiae" statement very well written and his attached documents very enlightening.   Later . . . .






Thursday, August 23, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Update


U. S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC)
Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Late yesterday, Judge Charles F. Lettow issued an ORDER granting Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response.   The one page ORDER in PDF format is available for reading and/or downloading below:

Document 1122 - August 22, 2012 - ORDER

Comment:   Plaintiffs received a 42 day extension of time to file a consolidated response by October 1, 2012.   This allows Plaintiffs time to prepare their consolidated response in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) which is due September 18, 2012.







Wednesday, August 22, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Update


U. S. Court of Federal Claims - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
Today, Plaintiff's filed a MOTION (document 1121) for an Extension of Time to File Response until October 1, 2012, approximately 40 days from the August 20 response due date.   This response is to the Defendant USA's August 4th MOTION (document 1120) to Stay Order to prepare and submit distribution plan or, in the Alternative, Motion for Relief from Judgment in the form of an extension of time.   Response [from Defendant USA] due by 9/10/2012.   The motion, 3 pages in PDF format, is available for reading and/or downloading below:

Document 1121 - August 22, 2012
MOTION by Plaintiff for extension of time to file response.

Comment:
The motion states Plaintiffs wish to complete the appellate brief by mid September before addressing the Defendants request for stay or relief in the form of extension of time.


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) - Docket No. 2012-5035
Yesterday four August 13th entries appeared in the PACER system; three about matters that already took place in early August, which were, more or less, housekeeping matters.   The fourth, however, was a DENIAL of the 6/1/2012 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief on Behalf of Amici Curiae Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, and Lower Sioux Indian Community.
Comment:
The denial of Amici Curiae motion was without predjustice for refiling.







Tuesday, August 21, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Update


U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) - Docket No. 2012-5035
Yesterday the CAFC granted a motion by Cross-Appellant for an extension of time within which to file their brief.   Brief now due on or before September 18, 2012.
Comment:
No indication who the cross-appellant is.   Could be Kaardal.   Could be Kaardal & Intervening plaintiff lawyers.   Could be just the Intervening plaintiff lawyers.   Only our lawyers know for sure.



U. S. Court of Federal Claims - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
The Defendant United States' August 3, 2012 motion for stay or, in the alternative, motion for relief from judgment in the form of an extension of time is still pending in Judge Lettow's court.
Comment:
No indication in PACER whether Plaintiff's response to the motion, which was due yesterday, has been received. It has not been electronically filled as of this afternoon.






Tuesday, August 7, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES

U. S. Court of Federal Claims - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Update

A modification was added to the previously reported PACER entry for this lawsuit.   In addition to the availablility of the MOTION document previously reported there is an added "remark."   The remark added (emphasised in red text) is
"Response is due August 20, 2012."

Comment:
I am positive that the response due remark was not there three days ago.   I do not know what to make of it.   The response date in Court of Federal Claims coincides with the plaintiffs response in Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. I wish to hell that Kaardal had time to explain this to us.   Gary Montana and Jack Pierce could get off their expensive asses and say something as well on their websites, but they apparently hope Kaardal speaks for them.

Peace.







Saturday, August 4, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES

U. S. Court of Federal Claims - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Update

Yesterday, the Defendant United States filed a MOTION FOR STAY or, in the alternative, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT IN THE FORM OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME.   The motion, 40 pages in PDF format, is available for reading and/or downloading below:

Document 1120 - August 3, 2012 MOTION by defendant USA

Comment:
I would suggest reading the last 8 pages first which is a declaration by Michael R. Smith, BIA Deputy Director for Field Operations of why the BIA needs more time.   Each of his numbered statements are constantly referred to in the first 32 pages of the motion.   In his declaration, he warns/advises that "Consistant with 25 U.S.C. § 1405(a), Interior implements a plan, including development of an actual roll of individual beneficiaries (if that plan calls for some form of per capita distribution) after an approved plan becomes effective under the Act.

W.A.B.O.S.!







Friday, July 20, 2012
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES

U.S. Court Of Appeals, Federal Circuit Docket No. 2012-5035
and
U. S. Court of Federal Claims - Docket No. 1:03-cv-02684-CFL
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

Updates

An unopposed motion was filed in the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 16th, 2012 by Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor Cross Appellants' for a 30-day Extension of Time within which to file a Response Brief to the United States Opening Brief and Memorandum in Support.

As of this morning, Judge Lettow, U. S. Court of Federal Claims, still has not stayed his opinion and order of August 5, 2012, specifically; "In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1402, the Secretary [DOI] shall complete preparation of such roll and plan satisfying the criteria specified in 25 U.S.C. § 1403 within one year from the date of this decision and judgment.   Upon completion, the Secretary shall submit a report to the court setting out the proposed roll and plan."

Comment:
Presumedly the 30-day extension will be or has been granted and the new due date for Response Brief by Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor Cross Appellants' is August 20th, 2012 which is 15 days after the deadline for the Defendant United States to submit a report to Lettow's court regarding their completion of a roll of legitimate Mdewakanton lineal descendants and the plan for distribution of the nearly $700,000 judgment funds.








Saturday, July 7, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES (Docket No. 2012-5035)
Update

No change since the June 17, 2012 update.   The most recent MOTION or OTHER ENTRY in the Case Details for WOLFCHILD V US (Docket # 2012-5035) is still the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief on Behalf of Amici Curiae Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, and Lower Sioux Indian Community.   The entry does not state the law firm who filed this collective motion for all three communities.

Comment:
Also this morning, there was no new development found in the PACER system for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.   Judge Lettow still has not stayed his August 5, 2011 order.








Sunday, June 17, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES (Docket No. 2012-5035)
Update

The Defendant-Appellant United States did not wait until June 14, 2012 to file their corrected brief.   It was filed June 5, 2012.   Apparently it was a minor issue.   There is no entry indicating any rejection of the corrected brief (aka BLUE BRIEF).

On the Main or opening page of the website Public Access Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) it is stated that PACER "is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet." [emphasis added]   It continues further stating "PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service."

However once PACER subscribers log in, enter the specific case [in our case Wolfchild vs USA, Docket 2012-5035] you receive [and pay for immediately] 11 worthless pages of repeat information which lists all the lawyers involved and several plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors.   When you click on the Briefs Link, you immediately see the following statement: Briefs are not available for download. [emphasis added]

The Case Details Link brings up a page of abbreviated completed and upcoming case activity which I list below:

6/1/2012: Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief on Behalf of Amici Curiae Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian Community, and Lower Sioux Indian Community. SERVICE: by Mail on 6/1/2012

6/5/2012: Appellant Principal Brief filing date.   [This would be the corrected brief that was due 6/14/2012.   This is also referred to as the BLUE BRIEF]

7/19/2012: Due RED BRIEF

Comment:
The BLUE BRIEF is the Defendant-Appellant USA's opening brief in which they will explain how Judge Lettow ruled incorrectly in his last ORDER and OPINION.   The RED BRIEF is the Cross Appellant Principal [Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors] brief in which they will explain how the Defendant-Appellant USA is using an incorrect interpretation of the law.

Once the RED BRIEF is accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the "robed pillars of justice for all" will set a date for the Defendant-Appellant USA to vividly comment on how ridiculous the comments are in the RED BRIEF(S). [I do not know if it will be a collective RED BRIEF or RED BRIEFS from every attorney involved.]

Once the Defendant-Appellant USA counter comments are accepted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will set a date for the Cross Appellant Principal [Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors] to comment on the comments.

Next [and finally] there will be an Appendix Filing Date and some other in-house readying for oral agruments.

It is hard to tell whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will grant the three communities motion to file their Amici Curiae [Friend of the Court] brief and if we will ever see that document.   I'm sure it will be very self-serving and that we should all go away and leave them alone.

Then sometime this year, there will be the oral arguments where the government will be given plenty of time to rehash their stance and Kaardal will be cut off as soon as he states who he is.   Then hopefully by the end of the year, there will be a decision.

So far, Judge Lettow has not stayed his last opinion and order of August 5, 2012, specifically; "In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1402, the Secretary [DOI] shall complete preparation of such roll and plan satisfying the criteria specified in 25 U.S.C. § 1403 within one year from the date of this decision and judgment. Upon completion, the Secretary shall submit a report to the court setting out the proposed roll and plan."   I would expect he will stay it indefinitely pending the outcome in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Like Chicago Cubs fans say every year around this time, "Wait until next year!"

Peace.   Patience.








Wednesday, June 6, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES (Docket No. 2012-5035)
Update

The Defendant-Appellant United States opening brief was rejected and a corrected brief is now due June 14, 2012.

Comment:
In the PACER Briefs section for WOLFCHILD V US (2012-5035), there is this entry:

5/31/2012:   Opening Brief for the United States as Appellant.   BY United States (Appellant ).   SERVED BY Mail ON 5/25/2012.   REJECTED ON 5/31/2012.   (NON-CONFIDENTIAL)

In the Case Details section for WOLFCHILD V US (2012-5035), there is this entry:

6/14/2012: Due CORRECTED BRIEF

No date due is listed for Cross Appellant's Principal Brief.   I presume that date would coincide with the Defendant-Appellant's CORRECTED BRIEF.

Once these documents are finally accepted by the Appellate Court, then two more documents will be filed; Appellant Reply Brief and the Cross Appellant Reply Brief.   Then we will wait for a docket date for oral arguments.   I don't believe it is too pessimistic to believe that oral arguments will not start until September or October of this year.

What happens to the order still pending back in the Court of Federal Claims by Judge Lettow?   That order, abbreviated here, states "The matters of developing a roll of eligible claimants and a plan for distribution of the funds awarded shall be and are remitted and remanded to the Secretary of the Interior.   The Secretary shall complete preparation of such roll and plan within one year from the date of this decision and judgment (August 18, 2012).   Upon completion, the Secretary shall submit a report to the court setting out the proposed roll and plan."

As of today, there is nothing in PACER indicating that order is stayed pending the outcome of the appellate court.   If the appellate court rules in our favor by upholding Judge Lettow's August 18, 2011 order, I would expect to see the due date for the roll of eligible claimants and the plan for distribution of the funds extended until August 18, 2013.

Peace.   Patience.








Tuesday, May 29, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES (Docket No. 2012-5035)
Update

The Defendant-Appellant United States filed their opening brief.

Comment:  The document contains 177 pages and will require a couple days of reading before commenting.   Peace.   Patience.








Saturday, May 26, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD vs UNITED STATES (Docket No. 2012-5035)
Update

The deadline for Defendant-Appellant United States to file their opening brief expired yesterday.   The document is not yet available for download.

Comment:  Being that there is no document available this morning and that there is no third "Unopposed Motion by Defendant-Appellant United States for another delay, I assume they filed the opening brief via U. S. Postal Service.   If that is the case, the court will need to scan the document to make it available electronically.   Federal workers will not be back to work until Tuesday so I am not expecting to see the brief available on PACER until the first of June.   Peace.   Patience.








Thursday, April 26, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035
Update

Today, the CAFC has granted the United States' motion for another 21 day delay.   Their brief is now due on or before May 25th, 2012.

Opinion:  The attorney's for the United States apparently are having trouble coming up with good reason for overturning Judge Lettow's last ruling.








Sunday, April 22, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035
Update

Last Tuesday, April 17th, an Unopposed Motion of Defendant-Appellant United States for 21-day Extension of Time within Which to File Opening Brief was filed in the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system by the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit).   No action (granted or denied) has been filed by Judge Lettow regarding this latest motion.

Opinion:  The CAFC will allow another delay tactic by the defendant-appellant United States.   Probably due to the Entry of Appearance document filed earlier by the United States notifying the Court of Appeals that John L. Smeltzer has replaced Aaron Avila as the principal attorney.   Avila will remain on the case.








Saturday, April 14, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035
Update

The defendant-appellant's brief (USA brief) is still due May 4, 2012.   Oral arguments could begin as early as June.

Opinion:  I have not been optimistic lately regarding a positive outcome to the Wolfchild v. USA.   However, finding the link to the following news article on the 1886 board does makes me think - Maybe, just maybe!

Obama Moves to Settle 41 Tribal Trust Cases for $1 Billion
By Rob Capriccioso April 11, 2012
Indian Country Today Media Network.com


WASHINGTON – The Obama administration announced April 11 its intent to resolve 41 long-standing disputes with Indian tribal governments over the federal mismanagement of trust funds and resources.

Ignacia Moreno, assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, said the settlements will amount to a combined total of $1.023 billion to the 41 tribes for past federal mismanagement.

Beyond money, the settlements also set forth a framework for promoting tribal sovereignty and improving nation-to-nation federal-tribal relations, while trying to avoid future litigation through improved communication, Moreno said.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesman for the Justice Department, told Indian Country Today Media Network that the Obama administration is choosing not to announce a breakdown of monies to each tribe, “leaving it at discretion of the tribes.”   He said that the decision was made “in deference to the tribes” out of “respect for their confidentiality.”   Some of the settlements – about 35 – are available with the D.C. district court, Hornbuckle said, but the others are filed as “dismissed,” so they are not public record.

Hornbuckle said that the money for the settlements does not have to be approved by Congress; rather, it comes out of the United States’ Judgment Fund.

The announcement was made at a White House ceremony, with Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Senior Advisor to the President Valerie Jarrett, and other senior members of the Obama administration joining tribal leaders in attendance.

“May we walk together toward a brighter future, built on trust, and not acrimony,” said Hilary Tompkins, Solicitor General of the Interior Department, at the event.“   And when I say the word trust, I don’t mean the legal definition of that word, I mean the dictionary’s definition of that word—assured reliance on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship, or other sound principle of a person or thing….”

Tompkins is a Navajo Nation citizen, and she personally helped sort out the legal parameters of the deals.

“I know it hasn’t been easy to get to this point,” Holder later added, thanking tribal leaders and agency officials for their negotiation efforts.   He said the settlements represented “a model for fairness and success.”   The negotiations took 22 months, according to the White House.

Salazar called the settlements a “deliverance” on the promise Obama made to Indians when campaigning for president in 2008.   He added that some in his orbit had advocated continuing fighting lawsuits against the tribes, but advocates within the administration decided that settlement was the better and right route.

Charlie Galbraith, an associate director in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, called the development “a significant step forward in the resolution of tribal trust cases pending against the United States,” in a blog post on the White House website.

“Many of the cases include claims by the tribes that go back over 100 years,” Galbraith said, adding that the deal represented “good-faith cooperation and hard work of the administration and 41 American Indian tribes in working out fair and honorable resolutions of the tribes’ claims.”

The announcement is one of several settlements the Obama administration has announced with individual Indians and tribes since 2009.

In 2010, the administration settled the $760 million Keepseagle case brought by Native American farmers and ranchers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.   They alleged discrimination by the agency in its administration of loan programs.

President Barack Obama also signed into law the Claims Resolution Act in December 2010, which included the $3.4 billion Cobell settlement agreement that aims to resolve a lawsuit over the management and accounting of more than 300,000 individual American Indian trust accounts.   That settlement is still on appeal in federal court. It was first announced by the administration in December 2009.

The Claims Resolution Act also included four water rights settlements, meant to benefit seven tribes in Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico.

In October 2011, the Obama administration reached a $380 million settlement with the Osage Nation over the tribe’s long-standing lawsuit involving the federal government’s mismanagement of trust funds and trust resources.   That settlement featured measures designed to improve the trust relationship between the tribe and the United States.

Chief James Allan, Coeur d’Alene tribal chairman, said at the event that he believes Obama has done more for tribes than the last five presidents combined.

Gary Hayes, chairman of the Ute Mountain Tribe, thanked the U.S. agencies for moving to settle the lawsuits that have already proven costly to tribes as they have carried out their legal challenges for years.   He also thanked the Native American Rights Fund for its role in assisting tribes on the deals.

“The seeds that we plant today will profit us in the future,” Hayes said.   “These agreements mark a new beginning, one of just reconciliation, better communication…and strengthened management….”

The tribes affected by the settlements, as listed by the White House, are:

//// SNIP ////


For brevity, I have not listed the 41 tribes but 29th on the list is the Santee Sioux Tribe who would not be among the 'loyal Mdewakanton" allowed to remain in Minnesota in 1863.   We should understand that this settlement addresses "Indians living on Reservations" not "Lineal Descendants living on (& not living on) Minnesota Communities."   Although the three Minnesota communities profess to be "federally-recognized tribes" they are not included in the published Bureau of Indian Affairs Listing of Federally-Recognized Tribes.

Two government officials mentioned in the above article are two main officials involved in delaying the outcome of the Wolfchild v. USA lawsuit.   The name of Ignacia Moreno, assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice appears on all the governments motions against the Wolfchild case.   Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was directed by Judge Lettow in August 2011 to have a list of legitimate lineal descendants prepared by August 2012 and a plan for distribution of damages to those persons appearing on the list.

So what "government stance" is going to be in AAG Moreno's May 4th brief;

the S.O.S. or

one with an "assured reliance on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship, or other sound principle of a person or thing…."








Saturday, March 31, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035
Update

Nothing new; the defendant-appellant's brief is still due May 4, 2012.

My Opinion:  I do not expect to see any activity on this case during the coming month of April.   We will have to wait to hear how the Federal Circuit rules in May on the pending appeals by the defendant USA, plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor's.

There should however, be activity going on at the BIA in regards to preparing a roll of the "loyal Mdewakanton" which was ordered by Judge Lettow in August last year.

As I understand this simple matter (which is only complicated by repeated delays by the DOI/BIA), it is that, so far, Judge Lettow has not stayed his last opinion and order of August 5, 2012, specifically; "In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 1402, the Secretary [DOI] shall complete preparation of such roll and plan satisfying the criteria specified in 25 U.S.C. § 1403 within one year from the date of this decision and judgment.   Upon completion, the Secretary shall submit a report to the court setting out the proposed roll and plan."

If the Federal Circuit appellate court rules that Judge Lettow was correct in his August 5th opinion and order, we should finally see an up-to-date roll of "loyal Mdewakanton."   But as we have all come to expect, the BIA will not be ready come August 5th and will ask for another delay.   And Judge Lettow, as we have all come to expect, will again allow them all the time they desire.








Tuesday, February 28, 2012
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035
Update

The 2/20/2012 unopposed motion by defendant-appellant for a 60-day extension of time to file opening brief was granted by the CAFC on 2/23/2012.

The defendant-appellant's brief is now due May 4, 2012.

Notes:  Next update - whenever changes appear on PACER.






Saturday, February 11 2012
Case Details - Update
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035

HISTORY ADDITIONS/CHANGES:
[None - Appellant USA "blue brief" still due March 5th, 2012]

MOTIONS/OTHER ENTRY ADDITIONS/CHANGES:
2/2/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Aaron P. Avila as principal counsel on behalf of the appellant, United States.[no downloadable document]

2/3/2012 : Docketing Statement for the appellant, United States.[no downloadable document]

2/10/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Erick G. Kaardal as principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellants, Aaron Swenson, et al.[no downloadable document]

Notes:  Next update - whenever changes appear on PACER.






Sunday, February 5, 2012
Case Details
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
WOLFCHILD V US 2012-5035

The following activity history was downloaded from PACER:

HISTORY

3/5/2012 Due BLUE BRIEF
/ /         Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
/ /         Appellee or Cross Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
/ /         Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ /         Cross Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ /         Appendix Filing Date
/ /         Disposition: ; by
/ /         Mandated on
/ /         (Please Note: The briefs above are only the most current.)

MOTIONS AND OTHER ENTRIES

1/4/2012 : Official Caption.
SERVICE : by Court on 1/4/2012
DOC : : Wolfchild 2012-5035 (1.10.12 CAPTION).pdf
[NOT ADDED AS LINK - see next entry]
1/9/2012 : Letter from attorney, Erik Kaadal, informing the court that a listing is attached of the parties he represents. (noted-requested by clerk's office)

1/10/2012 : Revised official caption to reflect new cross appeals being filed.
SERVICE : by Court on 1/10/2012
DOC : : Wolfchild 2012-5035 (1.10.12 CAPTION)1.pdf

1/13/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Gary J. Montana as principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellant, Julia DuMarce, et al.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/6/2012

1/17/2012 : Certificate of Interest for cross appellant Harley Zephier Group, et al.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/13/2012

1/17/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Robin L. Zephier as principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellant, Harley Zephier Sr.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/13/2012

1/17/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Randy Vern Thompson as principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellant, Kristine Abrahamson.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/13/2012

1/23/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Creighton A. Thurman as principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellants, Charlene Wanna, et al.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/17/2012

1/24/2012 : Letter of counsel for Cross-Appellants Wolfchild, et al. advising that he is unavailable for oral argument 4/4/12.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/16/2012

1/25/2012 : Entry of Appearance for Garrett J. Horn as principal counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, Daniel M. Trudell, et al.
SERVICE : by Mail on 1/17/2012

1/30/2012 : Notice of Rejection: The Entry of Appearance for Larry Leventhal, principal counsel on behalf of the cross appellant, Dawn Burley, et al., received on 01/25/2012, cannot be filed; attorney is not admitted to the bar of this court.
SERVICE : by Court on 1/30/2012

1/30/2012 : Notice of Rejection: The Certificate of Interest for the cross appellant, Dawn Burley, et al., received on 01/25/2012, cannot be filed; attorney who signed the document is not admitted to the bar of this court and has not filed an EOA.
SERVICE : by Court on 1/30/2012

Notes: I have accumulated and condensed the following from several online sources:

When cases go up on appeal, the different briefs are color-coded.   The appellant [USA in the Wolfchild case] uses a blue cover; the appellee [the satisfied party in the original case] uses a red cover.   The practice makes it much easier to keep track of the relevant documents when you’re going through the filings in case.

Once the appellant files the “blue brief,” the appellee—the satisfied party in the original case—files a “red brief” in return.   The appellee has forty-five days in which to file this brief.

Once the red brief is filed, the appellant replies in a “gray brief,” which it has fourteen days to file.

In Wolfchild, the plaintiffs' and the plaintiff-intervenor's both filed cross-motions of appeal so I believe that there is no appellee [the satified party].   All three parties wish the appellate court to reverse some part of Judge Lettow's last opinion and order.

After all the briefs and the appendix—a combined document containing copies of all exhibits that are referenced in the briefs—have been filed, the court schedules oral arguments for a date that is usually three to four months out.

In oral argument the parties generally are limited to fifteen minutes per side for oral argument.   At oral argument, even more than in the briefs, it is not necessary to provide background to the Federal Circuit judges; they have read the briefs and are prepared for this discussion.   Opening statements setting forth the issues should be two to three minutes—and even then, an attorney rarely gets through before the judges start firing questions.   [This happened to Kaardal at the first appeal]

My Opinion: I believe there will be no "red briefs nor gray briefs" because all three parties are unsatified with something.   It looks like all briefs may be due on March 5th.   Noting that Kaardal notified the court he is not available for oral agruments on April 5th, this second appeal appears to be on the fast track.

More when I find it . . . .







Friday, January 27, 2012
Wolfchild vs. USA offically docketed at CAFC

There are no available appeal documents to read yet, but the case now appears on the list of new cases docketed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).   You can find the list at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/

I'm not anticipating any activity for a couple of months, but who knows.
Maybe MKLaw will "share something" with us soon.   As I get wind of anything, I'll post it here.   Later . . . .







Saturday, January 14, 2012
Nothing New on PACER This Week

Nothing new.   Would expect to see the appeals fairly soon to see what the defendant USA is belly-aching about this time.

NOTE:   W.A.B.O.S.!






Friday Afternoon, January 6, 2012
Trying to Better Understand
The Three Recent Appeals

Each of the three parties use different language for the same item so I am attempting here to make each notice of appeal easier to understand.

By Document 1113, the Defendant USA appealed
Document 1094 - the Corrected Clerk's Judgment dated August 5, 2011
as corrected by
Document 1098 dated August 22, 2011.

- - - -

By Document 1114, the Plaintiff-Intervenor's appealed
Document 1093 - the Judge's Opinion and Order dated August 5, 2011
as corrected by
Document 1098 dated August 22, 2011.

However, the document that corrected Document 1093 is
Document 1097 dated August 22, 2011
Plaintiff-Intervenor's are also appealing
Document 1094 - the Clerk's Judgment dated August 5, 2011
and
Document 1110 - the Judge's Reconsideration Opinion and Order dated October 25, 2011

- - - -

By Document 1115, the Plaintiff's has appealed the following:
Document 836 - the Judge's Opinion and Order dated December 21, 2010
Document 1093 - the Judge's Opinion and Order dated August 5, 2011
as corrected by
Document 1098 dated August 22, 2011.   However,
the document that corrected Document 1093 is
Document 1097 dated August 22, 2011

Plaintiff's are also appealing
Document 1094 - the Clerk's Judgment dated August 5, 2011
and
Document 1110 - the Judge's Reconsideration Opinion and Order dated October 25, 2011

- - - -

I've eMailed Attorney Kaardal for clarification on whether it is Document 1097 or 1098 that corrects Document 1093.

NOTE:   I'm confused . . . . (again)






Friday Morning, January 6, 2012
Wolfchild Plaintiffs File
Notice of Joint Cross Appeal

Kaardal, on his website yesterday, stated: "Today, the Wolfchild Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.   This cross-appeal was in response to the United States government appealing from the judgment favoring the Wolfchild Plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims."

Document 1115 - Notice of Joint Cross Appeal by Plaintiffs


NOTE:   Game on . . . . (again)






Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Two Notices of Appeal Filed Dec 27
Are Now Entered in the PACER system

The Notice of Appeal filed by defendant USA (Document 1113) & the Notice of Appeal filed by Group B Intervening Plaintiffs (Document 1114) on December 27th were entered in the PACER system this afternoon and are now available for reading and/or downloading.

Document 1113 - Notice of Appeal by defendant USA

Document 1114 - Notice of Appeal by Group B plaintiff-intervenors'


NOTE:   Later . . . . .









© 2006 - 2014