Wampum

The terms of the Treaty of Algiers (March 6th, 1975), concluded between President Saddam Hussain and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, specific to the Shatt al Arab, was the frontier between Iraq and Iran would be adjusted, including the following of the thalweg (deepest flow) along the entire length of the Shatt al-Arab.

Iraq's stated war aims for its 22 September 1980 attack on Iran, abrogating the Treaty of Algiers, were to recover rights of exclusive navigation of the Shatt al-Arab, to regain several islands, the three Gulf islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb, held by Iran since 1971.

The theory of right was the appeal to median baselines (midpoints), rather than deepest flow. The latter was adopted by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (see Art. 5, Normal baseline, Art. 7, Straight baselines, Art. 9, Mouths of rivers, Art. 15, Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, and Art. 16, Charts and lists of geographical coordinates), and some prior international law treaties such as the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea.

The choice of mechanism, thalweg vs baseline, has been present in Shatt al-Arab boundary determination for all of the 20th century. In 1932 King Faisal I visited Iran. Shah Reza Pahlavi requested an adjustment of the border according to the thalweg principle, i.e. following the midpoint of the river's narrow and deep main channel of navigation. Faisal refused, and by 1934 Iraq appealed its case to the League of Nations. After the 1936 coup in Baghdad, Iraq agreed to make the border between Iraq and Iran follow the thalweg for four miles opposite Abadan. See the Iraqi-Iranian Frontier Treaty of 1937.

From the accessible page of Hussein Sirriyeh's Development of the Iraqi-Iranian Dispute, 1847 to 1975, a nice one-para backgrounder with a correction and a continuation in []:

The dispute over Shatt al-Arab (the channel constituted by the confluence of the Tigris and the Euphrates and stretching for about 50 miles before it flows into the Gulf) is traceable to the Ottoman-Persian frontier dispute in the seventeeth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was settled by the [Second] Treaty of Erzurm on 31 May 1847, which gave the Ottomans the right of confrol over the whole Shatt al-Arab. The Ottoman-Persian frontiers were demarcated in 1913 -- 1914 according to a protocol signed in Constantinople in 1913 and a demarcation ... [commission, which wasn't particularly successful and was interrupted by the Crimean War (1854-56), the Anglo-Persian War (1856-57), and the Russo-Turkish War of 1876, as Anglo-Russian colonial conflict completely subordinated Ottoman-Persian conflict. ]

Where Tony Blair enters this mess is in the wanton and willful choice of pretending there is no choice of mechanism, hence there is no boundary dispute, and that the absence of decenial adjustments to the boundary reflecting the natural movement of the watercourse, independent of mechanism (thalweg or baseline), since the Iraq-Iran War, or the better part of 30 years, has no effect in law of determining whether the HMS Cornwall was illegally in Iraqi waters, or illegally in Iranian waters.

As to the lawfullness of acts of belligerency arising over a dispute over the boundary, there is this to consider.

On 9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council:

That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of 22 September 1980, against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for conflict.

Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran -- which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict -- in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens.

On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts' conclusion that "chemical weapons had been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack.

See also Craig Murray's blog for another well-informed discussion.

There is Craig Murray's set of notes. I don't think he wrote about the choice of mechanism, and may not be aware that from an Iranian (or Persian), or even an Iraqi (or Mesopotamian, or an Ottoman) point of view, subordination of thalweg (mid point of deepest flow), that is, shared navagability, may be both a more rational (or useful) means to partition a shared maritime resource than median baseline from tidal or other fixed point markers, _and_ the better choice of law, being not imposed by the 19th century colonial actors and subsequently re-imposed as "international law".

I suspect that is why Iran will proceed to some law venue, to make the point that the choice of mechanism is not moot because it pleased Saddam Hussein in 1980 and it pleases Tony Blair in 2007.

Posted by EBW at 09:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Acting Associate Attorney General of the Department of Justice, William Mercer, testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee today when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to appear and answer questions relating to a proposal on Tribal Trust "reform"; specifically, a letter with his name on it, offering a $7 billion dollar "settlement" for all claims, past, current and future, from both individuals and tribes, as well as monies to deal with "fractionation" as well as updated computer systems.

A little background on William Mercer. He is acting (not yet confirmed) Associate General for DoJ, the number three man. He has also, since 2001, held the position of U.S. Attorney for the state of Montana, recommended for the position by former Senator Conrad Burns. He has never testified before the Committee on this subject.

A key issue in all this - just what, if anything, is the US government's liability in the mismanagement of the trusts?

To summarize, Chairman Dorgan, addressing William Mercer, brought up the fact that AG Gonzales, when testifying before another Congressional committee, suggested that the trust claims could total over $200 billion dollars. To which Mercer responded (transcribed from webcast:)

Mercer @ 2:10: A couple of points I'd like to make on the statement. I believe that that text was about the allegations that had been set forth in claims as part of the tribal trust litigation. And going to the question that you posed, Mr. Chairman, We've already seen the dismissal of a claim for a hundred billion dollars as part of that ongoing litigation. So we certainly believe that that is... that that figure represents claims that were set forth by the parties...We've already, as I said, prevailed in one of those cases and we believe that the ultimate value is much, much, much less than what the stated claims were by the tribes themselves.

At least on two other occasion, Mercer brings up the $100 billion claim dismissal, as justification as to either no liability on behalf of the US government, or very limited liability.

Enter the new Senator for Montana, Jon Tester (who seems to be quite familiar with his fellow Montanan, even calling him by his first name.)

Tester @ 2:31: It was either you or Bill Mercer, I can't remember which, and either of you can (inaudible)...talked about a claim dismissal of 100 billion dollars... Which one of you...was that you, Bill?

Mercer: Yes

Tester: When was that dismissed and by whom?

Mercer: I don't have a date. I can certainly get one.

Tester: A ballpark figure? Spring of whenever? Month?

Mercer: Evidently, in the past couple of years...

Tester: In the past couple of years.

Mercer: Obviously, it must have postdated...Well, anyway, past couple of years.

Tester: Well, if we could get a date on that...And who dismissed it?

Mercer: I don't know...We'll get that to you too.

Tester: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

As we mentioned in a previous post, Senator Tester did a fine job in his debut in a Tribal Trust hearing venue; now we only hope that his fresh perspective is able to move the Committee past its tradition of bending and scraping to the entities, particularly the extraction industries, which have exploited Indian Country for their own profit for over a century.

Posted by MB Williams at 11:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

1. Professor Bainbridge's Frivolous Disparate Impact Case by Dwight Meredith on April 27, 2005

2. Grave Injustice by EBW on April 27, 2005

3. Three sheets to the windby EBW on March 16, 2005

4. Why Not Raymond Burr? -- Thomas Griffith Edition by Dwight Meredith on March 14, 2005

5. Why Not Raymond Burr? -- William Myers Edition by Dwight Meredith on March 13, 2005

6. A Judicial Nominee Didn't Practice Law (enuf) With A License by EBW on March 11, 2005
   

Posted by EBW at 02:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Acting Associate Attoney General of United States and United States Attorney for Montana (recommended by Conrad Burns and appointed by George W. Bush, and not fired by AG Gonzales for ... "the standard narrative") Williams Mercer just said that Individual and Tribal Trust is not suitable for the courts.

We're off-grid in the Mojave, watching the Senate Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on Indian Trust Fund Litigation via the net.

Summary: Sen. Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Tester (D-MT), and Sen. Thomas (R-WY) held the first post-November oversight hearing on the Indian Trust Fund Litigation. The hearing was delayed by 90 minutes due to the vote on the floor on H.R. 1591, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. The first panel was composed of former member of the House of Representatives and Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, Acting Associate Attoney General of United States and United States Attorney for Montana Williams Mercer, and John Bickerman of Bickerman Resolution. The second panel was composed of Eloise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the Individual Indian Trust Litigation, John Echohawk, Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund, and William Martin, Vice-Chair, Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association on Indian Trust Funds.

Kempthorne answered the zeroth question. He is just as bad as Norton and the honeymoon is dead.

On the actual issues before the Committee, the so-called Kempthorne-Gonzales letter (which neither of them possess sufficient clue to have actually written, so its actual authorship is unknown), Kempthorne was fundamentally non-responsive.

Mercer continued this theme, and expanded it to argue that the Cobell litigants were responsible for the eleven years of complex litigation, and some delicious one-liners, such as an issue is not suitable for the courts, and the litigants have no choice but to accept (any) legislative outcome. When asked directly, Mercer refused to answer if there was a trust liability.

Both pushed the $7bn figure as fair and adequate, for Individual Trust, and Tribal Trust claims, all of them, now and forever.

Bickerman's contribution was that there was clear trust liability, and an estimation that the Individual Indian Trust liablity, for mismanagement of monies received by the Department of the Interior as trustee, was on the order of $7bn to $9bn.

In follow-up by either Dorgan or Tester to Mercer, if the Individual claim liability runs to $7bn to $9bn, then the Tribal claim liability must necessarily run to ... zero. [Or $2bn owed by Tribes to the DoI if you're comically inclined, ebw].

The second panel was factual and calm. Cobell presented the case, not as a simple, yet incomprehensible accounting snafu, but as one that impoverishes real people. She brought with her a man who's land has produced oil for his father since the 1910s, but for which no royalty has been paid since 1940. I'll add more to this when the morning zoo has settled, on Cobell's, Echohawk's, and Martin's testimony.

Jon Tester has handled this first pass of arms very well. Non-confrontational, kinda dorky, but he asked some of the right questions, and he'll ask more, on the record, via follow-up correspondence.

For those not familiar with the distinction between individual and tribal trust fund mismanagement, I offer the following analogy. The Administration is pushing a "settlement" of a class-action brought by some individuals for tobacco-injury related claims, but only if it "settles" all past, present, and future claims by all individuals, and also prevents any past, present, or future state claims for compensation for medical care provided for tobacco product injury and addiction education, and ends restrictions on tobacco product advertising to children.

Posted by EBW at 09:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Three of the US Attorneys fired were from states with very large federal and Indian trust land holdings, leased out to oil, gas, and mineral extraction companies. All three had relatively good relationships with the local tribes, especially David Iglesias of Arizona New Mexico [thanks to anonymouse in comments]. So what's the connection with yesterday's Committee on Resources hearing?

March 29, 2007
Ex-Auditor Says He Was Told to Be Lax on Oil Fees
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, March 28 - A former top auditor at the Interior Department accused senior officials on Wednesday of prohibiting him and other investigators from recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in underpayments from oil and gas companies that drill on federal land and in federal waters.

"There's hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars out there, and I don't think we should be scared of the oil companies," said Bobby L. Maxwell, a former senior auditor who, as a private citizen, sued the Kerr-McGee Corporation, claiming it intentionally cheated the government of royalties for oil and gas it produced in the Gulf of Mexico.

In February, a federal jury in Denver agreed with Mr. Maxwell and ruled that Kerr-McGee had underpaid the government by $7.5 million. Under a law intended to encourage whistle-blowers, the company could be liable for more than $30 million, and Mr. Maxwell would be entitled to keep as much as 30 percent of that.

"There were statements made: 'Don't bother the oil companies,'" Mr. Maxwell told the House Natural Resources Committee, which is investigating allegations of mismanagement in the royalty program run by the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department.

"The M.M.S. is the proverbial ostrich that has its head in the sand, that sees nothing, knows nothing, but says that no royalties are due," Mr. Maxwell continued.

Another former auditor, from New Mexico, Kevin Gambrell, told lawmakers that he had been repeatedly blocked from trying to recover payments for oil and gas production that were owed to Indian tribes.

You may or may not be familiar with a relatively obscure, purported non-partisan organization named the Fair Access to Energy Coalition (FAIR). While lengthy, I have included all the text from their "About Our Cause" page, as it truly cuts right to the heart of the matter on what they're all about:

Americans rely on energy corridors to transport natural gas, electricity and oil throughout our nation and some of our national energy transportation infrastructure crosses Native American tribal lands. Energy rights of way are available from private landowners, state and federal governments on reasonable terms, but there is no requirement that they be available from tribes. We need a reliable process for ensuring access and negotiating rights of way in order to ensure the reliable and cost-effective delivery of energy to millions of Americans.

Currently, tribal negotiations are governed by the 1948 General Right of Way Act, which under a disputed interpretation by the Department of the Interior, does not provide for an equitable means to renegotiate lease renewals or to determine value for new rights of way with the tribes. This has resulted in tribes demanding inflated compensation, unreasonable terms, or even transfer of infrastructure ownership to them.

Through Section 1813 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, recently passed by Congress, FAIR has called for a study of these issues to be conducted by the Departments of Interior and Energy. Our goal is to develop a fair and reasonable process for determining rights-of-way costs on Native American lands. There are a number of reasons why the study to be prepared under this legislation will be significant:

* Domestic transportation infrastructure for energy sources is vital to national security.

* Higher supply costs translate directly into higher prices for the retail customer. Increased costs for supply and transportation are ultimately paid by the consumer. Costly transportation increases mean higher energy bills for seniors, low-income families, small businesses - everyone.

* Energy rights-of-way are major income sources to many tribes. If energy companies are forced to reroute their existing pipelines off tribal lands, the negative economic impact to tribes and consumers could be extensive.

* Tribal demands are excessive. For example, in an area where land sells for $500 to $2000 per acre, one tribe is asking the equivalent of $75,000 per acre for a 20-year right-of-way extension on a pipeline that has been in the ground since the 1950s. This compensation equates to 35-70 times more than the average American family would receive. It is not FAIR to force consumers in other states to pay higher energy bills to cover these ridiculous costs.

* Equitable right-of-way settlements are a simple matter of FAIRness. Energy companies have a documented history of FAIR and respectful dealings with Native American tribes. They are not asking for special treatment, only for a way to ensure mutually beneficial relationships that allow them to continue serving their customers at reasonable prices.

Their cause boils down to this: When tribes were weak and most land held "in trust" by the federal government, energy companies were given carte blanche to build pipelines and hang transmission lines, paying ridiculously low amounts for such access. Now that tribes are regaining strength and demanding their sovereignty as guarenteed under their treaties with the US government (outranking even the US Constitution), they are reassessing this previous relationship with BigEnergy. BigEnergy, with this Administration and much of the Congress in its pocket, wants to revoke that sovereignty, and ensure its access as it does on US federal land, by having the Interior Department in its pocket.

These concerns by BigEnergy are further aggravated by current issues before Congress, in particular Indian trust litigation (hearing today) and yesterday's Resources Committee hearing, described above. Should it be officially uncovered that tribes were screwed out of billions in extraction and RoW royalties, tribes might not only act in a monetarily punative manner, renegotiating leases for much higher amounts, they might even outright cancel those leases with the companies who have acted in such bad faith for decades.

So why should red flags be raised over one of many pro-energy industry organizations? For one, FAIR is throwing around big bucks to get their agenda passed: In 2005, they spent $960,000 on lobbying efforts, in 2006, $941,210. And second, just who have they hired in that lobbying effort, namely for former Interior Solicitor (and failed Bush federal court appointee) Williams Myers III, former Assistant Attorneys General for the Department of Justice ((Environment and Natural Resources Division) Tom Sansonetti and Kelley Johnson, and Counsel to the AAG, Andrew Emrich. Of related concern is the identity of the political appointee who replaced Sansonetti and Johnson, who, up until last month, had Department of Justice oversite on all issues relating to such business activities on tribal land; one Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who, ironically came to her position at DoJ as Solicitor General to the Interior Department, a position in which she succeeded the aforementioned FAIR lobbyist, Bill Myers. Wooldridge resigned when her live-in partner, former Deputy Secretary of Interior, J. Steven Griles, was informed by the DoJ that he was a target of a criminal probe regarding perjury and obstruction of justice before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in November, 2005 (the month Wooldridge assumed her duties at DoJ.)

Now, I admit to sucking you all in with the first paragraph, alleging that there was some connection between the firing of at least three US Attorneys and mismanagement of royalty collection and managment on tribal and federal land; I have no proof that there was such a connection. However, the issue of trust management is so completely embedded in the corruption which has pervaded the Interior and Justice Departments under this Administration that it colors most everything those involved do, including, perhaps, threatening the Republican Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. On November 2, 2005, Steven Griles testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, headed by Arizona Senator John McCain on his connection to Jack Abramoff. Yet, as reported by Indianz.com, at the end of that testimony, after McCain gavelled the hearing closed, Griles interjected,

Senator, thank you, and I hope you well as you move forward in dealing with the Indian trust issue. This is so important to Interior to get that dealt with.

The statement, ironically, is only available on the hearing webcast, and is not included in the official transcript. However, Griles, having just perjured himself before the Committee, was apparently most concerned with the Indian Trust Fund, despite the fact he had resigned from the Interior Department the previous year and was then merely a lobbyist for oil, gas and mining companies.

I have much more to say about this issue, but have to take a sick cat to the vet. Eric will be updating on the Senate Indan Affairs Committee hearing on Tribal Trust Litigation, which, of course, is at the heart of all this as well.

(And no, I'm not really "out of retirement" - just can't let issues on which I reported so long to go neglected by the blogosphere.)

Posted by MB Williams at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm taking bets on how long it will take the Main Stream Bloggers to attribute this to ... something other than Indians, or attribute the presence of Norquist, McCain, Abramoff, Ridenour, Federici, Griles, Norton, and Shell, Exxon, Mobile, Peabody, National Mining Assn, Arch Coal, Duke Energy, and the RNC to ... benign interest in exotic and impoverished rural peoples.

From Acee Agayo's Indianz.com

Gonzales won't testify about trust fund settlement
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Bush administration won't be sending embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate hearing on Indian trust fund litigation tomorrow.

Gonzales, who previously told Congress that the trust lawsuits were worth more than $200 billion, continues to face questions about his credibility as the federal prosecutor scandal simmers in Washington. His support on Capitol Hill has slowly eroded over the past month.

But the Department of Justice official who will testify is also under fire for his role in the firings of several U.S. Attorneys. William M. Mercer, the acting associate attorney general, is slated to present the administration's $7 billion trust proposal to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee tomorrow.

As a top political appointee, Mercer repeatedly comes up in over 3,000 pages of e-mails and documents that have been made public. His involvement has put his nomination as the number three at DOJ on hold pending as Congress looks into the prosecutor firings.

It also highlights the dual roles Mercer plays. He has been serving as U.S. Attorney in Montana since April 2001 and has been holding his job in Washington for almost two years, shuffling to and from the state that is home to seven reservations.

Despite his high-ranking position, Mercer hasn't been directly involved in the Cobell case or any of the tribal trust fund cases. However, he sits on DOJ's Native American Issues subcommittee and at one point was asked to consider running the panel by Kyle Sampson, a former Gonzales aide who resigned as the U.S. Attorney scandal unfolded.

The absence of Gonzales stands in contrast to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who will make his first appearance before the Senate committee since taking over the Interior Department last May. It was Gonzales and Kempthorne who made the $7 billion offer earlier this month.

Also slated to testify is Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the case who is a member of the Blackfeet Nation from Montana. John Echohawk, the executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, the non-profit that serves as co-counsel in the case, and Bill Martin, the vice chairman of the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association, are on the witness list.

Cobell and the plaintiffs have already rejected the $7 billion proposal as a bad faith offer. They have pointed to Gonzales' testimony in March 2005, in which he said the tribal lawsuits along were worth more than $200 billion.

Martin, who serves as vice president of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, has criticized the administration as well for tying tribal issues to the Cobell case, which only affects money held in trust for individual Indians.

The committee will also hear from John Bickerman, who was appointed by Congress as a mediator between the plaintiffs and the Bush administration. He has suggested a settlement of the case of upwards of $10 billion.

The hearing takes place at 9:30am tomorrow in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The committee is urging people to watch the proceeding online due to a high number of expected attendees.

Posted by EBW at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

[I'm posting this as I suspect it'll be ignored by most blogs (as it has to do with Indians)]

Rick Green of the Hartford Courant is one of the few in the MSM to start putting pieces together regarding influence peddling and the federal recognition at Interior. Here's the meat of the matter:

In 2005, Bush's Interior Department reversed its own 2004 finding granting federal recognition to the Schaghticokes, making it illegal for them to open a casino. This development came after intense public pressure organized by influential Kent residents, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the state's congressional delegation.

In January of 2005, a representative from the Republican lobbying firm of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, working with this coalition, said that he could "get to Kissinger via a friend," in an e-mail obtained by the Schaghticokes.

There's no proof that anyone got to the Nobel Prize winner, who lives on a mountaintop in Kent. But the Schaghticokes' federal court challenge to its loss of recognition could be about to turn explosive. The tribe now has a shot at reviving its case.

The Schaghticokes, one of two tribal factions, are backed by Subway Restaurants founder Fred DeLuca. Both want a casino development in Bridgeport. Kent residents have feared that a federal reservation would bring gambling to their town.

Schaghticoke supporters say that the tribe has as much evidence documenting its historic survival as our two federal tribes, who operate Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos. Opponents argue that the Schaghticokes faded away generations ago.

In an unusual decision last week, U.S. District Judge Peter Dorsey ruled that the Schaghticokes may gather more evidence, including testimony from federal officials and Barbour Griffith.

"The evidence produced by STN raises some questions about whether there was improper political influence during the federal acknowledgement process here," Dorsey said.

Indianz.com also has lots more on the Schaghticoke in its archives.

Posted by MB Williams at 11:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Supremes didn't comment on why they declined to review the removal of Judge Royce Lamberth from the Indian Trust Fund lawsuit. So that's a dead end. On the up side, at least the troublesome Judge wasn't cut down in church by gentlemen friends of the King.

Posted by EBW at 11:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have a video file (the webcast found here at Senate Indian Affairs.) I only need the last three minutes. Can anyone help me convert those last three minutes to YouTube?

Thank you in advance. I've been trying, and failing miserably.

Posted by MB Williams at 10:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

We have been fortunate in the loan capture of a double kayak from a couple camped a few spots away, and we've spread terror in Arizona and California, and most importantly, on Duck Island. Some of the ships we've looted and left adrift are ... the Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), which in groups moving away from a pyrate vessel look like penguins. Mallards, Red Heads, Canvas Backs, and more exotic quackers and whistlers (I can't identify them, the proper scope of Real ID is waterfowl).

The green heron was much more elusive than the larger blue heron. While muscle boats thundered up and down river we snuck into a hidden inlet and discovered both this and a large turtle.

Yesterday morning Jonah said "i want boat for me please dadawa", which is the "i want xxxxx for me please dadawa" forumla (more words than just the desired label word, in this case "boat") and proceeded to don his PFD and trunks and set off for the boat-holding neighbors. Naturally, I followed.

On the way back from a shower this morning Jonah said "we go to white's house". After a few tries it became "we go to dwight's house", followed by "Bobby". So now we know for sure what that means. We'd only conjectured that meaning, because he'd not associated "Bobby". I wish we could, it's a long way away.

Posted by EBW at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

03/23/07 - Former Interior Deputy Secretary Pleads Guilty to Obstructing U.S. Senate Investigation into Abramoff Corruption Scandal

* Criminal Information
* Plea Agreement
* Statement of Facts

So, has anyone in our government or media raised the question as to why it took John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (at least from January, 2005, though previously still the lead Senator on the Abramoff investigation for the ten months prior) from March, 2004, when he first received emails and other documents implicating Steve Griles, until late October, 2005 - a full eighteen months, until Senate investigators even "informally" questioned him? And where was the DoJ all this time? They were only able to get Griles on perjury and obstruction of justice due to his lying to Senate Indian Affairs, eighteen months after alleged criminal discovery?

Perhaps we should be looking at the firing and hiring of Department of Justice attorneys in the Public Integrity division - as from 2001 until last week, there have been five new chiefs, and numerous "acting" chiefs (some for as long as a year, as in the most recent case.) (Note: Public Integrity oversees the Abramoff case.)

Note that Grover Norquist, also heavily implicated in the Abramoff emails, has yet to be interviewed, three years later, by anyone from from the Senate Indian Affairs office. I assume the same could be said for the DoJ.

So before returning to my regularly scheduled retirement activities (shuffleboard, bingo, book writing) I just want to nudge all those "the attorney purge is all about voter fraud, yadda, yadda" theorists (cough, JMM, cough) - they might want to be sure to aware of this:

9-85.210 Violations of Campaign Financing Laws, Federal Patronage Laws, and Corruption of the Electional Process -- Consultation Requirement

Consultation with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division is required in all federal criminal matters that focus on violations of federal or state campaign financing laws, federal patronage crimes, and corruption of the election process. These offenses include, but are not limited to, offenses described in: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 to 242, 592 to 611; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973i(c), 1973i(e), and 1973gg-10; 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 to 455; and prosecutive theories that focus on election fraud or campaign fund raising violations using 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346; 18 U.S.C. § 1952; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.

With regard to federal campaign financing matters arising under 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455, United States Attorneys shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before any inquiry or preliminary investigation is requested or conducted. United States Attorneys shall also consult with the Public Integrity Section before instituting grand jury proceedings, filing an information, or seeking an indictment charging a campaign financing crime.

With regard to all other election crime matters (other than those described in USAM 9-85.200 (Federally Protected Activities)), namely, alleged election fraud or patronage offenses, United States Attorneys shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before an investigation beyond a preliminary inquiry is requested or conducted. In this connection, the Department views any voter interviews in the preelection and balloting periods -- other than interviews of a complainant and any witnesses he or she may identify -- as beyond a preliminary investigation. Thus, the Public Integrity Section should be consulted before such interviews.

Finally, as with campaign financing matters, United States Attorneys also shall consult with the Public Integrity Section before instituting grand jury proceedings, filing an information, or seeking an indictment charging an election fraud or patronage offense.

Posted by MB Williams at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's a nice picture that has nothing to do with this post, but it's funny because white bears eat people, and it looks like Senator Kerry is offering this bear a hand, followed by a main course of Senator and three more sitting seals.

On to the task at hand wrist.

A few days ago Shahid Buttar wrote that the American Constitutional Society (which I really should join, if they'll have me) had a post (with streaming audio) on on their blog on the issue of the DC franchise. I read it in my usual I'm-wicked-dumb fashion until my head hit the lamp post.

Last Thursday, March 15, ACS hosted a panel discussion exploring voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia. As it has in past congressional sessions, Congress is currently considering legislation that would extend voting representation to D.C. residents. Some observers, in addition to a recent Congressional Research Service report have raised questions about the constitutionality of extending the right to vote to residents of a "non-state." Whereas proponents of the legislation -- including former D.C. Circuit Judges Patricia Wald and Ken Starr -- argue that Congress has broad power to extend voting rights to the District of Columbia. Does Congress possess the power to provide such voting rights through simple legislation, or would a constitutional amendment be required? Advocates from both sides of the issue presented their positions in a panel discussion that included questions from the audience.

I know this is outside the box, but a simple act of Congress was sufficient to impose American citizenship, and extend the Federal franchise (but not a State franchise) to Indians.

This isn't that post. I've been distracted by Spencer Overton's dumb piece on Chad Smith's October Surprise special election on race and retardation (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma), and work, and non-work.

The answer to the ConLaw question is wicked easy. Somewhere in our archives is my post on the act of congress (an appropriations bill) that ended the Senate's, and the Excutive's, ability to enter into treaties with Indian Nations. That's a bondo-free dent in Article II, Section 2. That answers the Amend or Act question. Then there's the imposition of the Federal franchise on Indians after WWI. That answers the specific non-state Federal franchise authority question.

Really, all that is left is the single representative or the representative plus two senators question. That's really a tactical question. One for the District and one for the Mormons, or the Missouri Compromise, lacking both Missouri and any Compromise.

However, today gun control stopped the DC franchise bill from coming to a vote.

I expect I will write a serious post, one worth linking to. This isn't it.

Posted by EBW at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes.

I will try to get the Koufaxes back on track. Why? Well, despite the fact that I have no freakin' time, with Eric now working full-time and the kids home (okay, un-) schooled, a publisher (who contacted Eric today, of all days!) is actually interested in putting together something from previous years winners, and I feel that obligated to not shut down this year's awards with essentially no notice.

But give me a couple of days to get my act together, as I've been thoroughly enjoying my new-found freedom. And it rained all day, which means by this time next week, the desert will be absolutely amazing.

Posted by MB Williams at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

(Note: All posts are copyrighted, to be used in my upcoming book on the subject - yes, I do have a plan for my "retirement".)

Forget about the little fish... (1/26/2006)
More on J. Steven Griles (1/30/2006)
Is the story even viable in the Lefty blogosphere? (2/1/2006)
Interior official was to join Abramoff as lobbyist... (2/1/2006)
More of the puzzle pieces fall into place... (2/3/2006)
More on CREA (2/5/2006)
Things heat up for Griles; Cummings doesn't do her homework (2/8/2006)
The missing link? (2/10/06)
More questions than answers (2/14/2006)
Ding dong, the witch is dead! (3/10/2006)
Griles Indictment Watch (3/10/2006)
Left in the drafts ... (3/11/2006)
One big happy cesspool... (3/22/2006)
CREA Connections (3/29/2006)
A documented history of a Republican front group, part 1 (4/4/2006)
CREA takes down its website... (4/5/2006)
Reframing the Abramoff scandal(s) (4/5/2006)
Answers to "Questions for the Abramoff-obsessed" (4/5/2006)
Even the Bush Interior Department leaks...(4/11/2006)
A new batch of pigs at the trough... (4/13/2006)
The WaPo starts to finally pick up the scent... (5/8/2006)
The recent Abramoff "leaks" and why we should care... (10/13/2006)
Circle them wagons... (10/24/2006)
Griles will look oh so good....in an orange jumpsuit (1/11/2007)
The impending Griles indictment: It's bigger than you think (1/12/2007)
Interior Department Org Chart, 2001-2002 (1/15/2007)
Griles update (3/15/2007)
Sampson participated in politically-motivated firings before... (3/13/2007)
So here's the summary of the Slonaker affair... (3/13/2006)

There, a gift for you Johnny-come-latelies. And now, back to shuffleboard and bingo for me.

Alright, here are the associated CREA (Federici) and McCain and sundry other Interior-related posts.

Scanlon's jilted fiance key to Abramoff's unraveling
Demand unredacted copies!
Who is Julie Finley?
Fun with typesetting....
McCain did have ties to CREA
"But I barely knew her..."
A front group here...a front group there...
Idle speculation
Putting the exposure of the Abramoff scandal in a larger context
Extortion, lies and (C-span) videotape...
More on the newly leaked Abramoff emails
Cassandra wrote...
A slip of the marker
Why provenance matters
A small issue of campaign ethics?

And a clarification: No, I did not mean the MSM, but blogs, particularly BigBoxers, who, now there's an indictment, pretend to own the story. Bah.

Posted by MB Williams at 07:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Out of retirement for just this once (and besides, it's raining here in the desert today.)

You all probably know by now of the horrific assault on justice, also known as the J. Steven Griles sweetheart plea agreement.

So let's talk about who approved the deal, and, well, is there any chance there's a link to the burgeoning US Attorney scandal?

Well, according to the AP, the judge in the case was U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. Ms. Segal Huvelle was a 1999 appointee to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Hence, one would assume the prosecutors on the case to be from the US Attorney's office in the District of Columbia. The newly appointed (September 2006) USA is one Jeffrey A. Taylor. Mr. Taylor previously worked as a close advisor to AG Alberto Gonzales, as well as an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch (hey, just like Kyle Sampson.)

Taylor was obviously a political appointment, at a time that more and more former Bush Administration official corruption cases were coming home to roost. Coincidence?

Update1: More on Taylor's close relationship to Gonzales:

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has appointed U.S. Attorney Leura G. Canary of the Middle District of Alabama; U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein of the District of Maryland; and U.S. Attorney Amul R. Thapar of the Eastern District of Kentucky to serve three-year terms on his 2007 Attorney General's Advisory Committee of United States Attorneys. He has also appointed Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to serve as an ex officio member. The Committee provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General.

(Note: Not to be bitter curmudgeonly or anything, but I'm already noticing as people start to "discover" Griles for the first time, that my extensive research on the cretin is overwhelmingly ignored. Well, I guess anyone is welcome to reinvent the wheel over and over again... But then, perhaps only the white viewpoint on this really matters.)

Posted by MB Williams at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The scope of the Griles, Federici and Abramoff scheme was not limited to a few casinos. It included defrauding the Federal Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and of course, Tribal Governments.

For reasons that either pass understanding, or are patently obvious, the media and its non-tribal alternatives construe Abramoff et alia as a morality play in which Indian Gaming alone occupies the central stage.

Similarly, the political control of US Attorneys, manifested in the Gonzales Eight, is construed as partisan voting rights, overlooking the peculiarity that six of the eight fired US Attorneys had significant MMS and Tribal lease prosecution responsibilities.

Griles was the big fish. He's not required to cooperate with the continuing, now gutted, federal investigation of the Abramoff network.

They won.

Posted by EBW at 10:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We put Sherrod Brown on Wampum's sidebar very early in the '06 cycle. We exchanged a lot of mail with Phillip de Vellis during the course of the campaign, and offered some suggestions on message and technique.

When the torture vote came up we were stunned that Brown voted for torture. There was no political necessity, he already had a safe lead. He just didn't have to vote against habeas corpus and for torture. We wrote to Phillip de Vellis and obtained an unsatisfactory response. In a nutshell, lump it or you're not a Dem.

We took Sherrod Brown off our sidebar.

After the '06 cycle ended, Phillip got work, and dozens of better people didn't.

I don't see the situation changing, and I expect Barack Obama's got more problems now than John Edwards had after flushing two women who signed what they wrote when they wrote it, not weeks later.

In '92 MB volunteered for Clinton-Gore and worked her way up from vol to deputy field director and acting field director for a battleground state. We don't see that now. The "grass roots" are now just a rhetorical device, a throw away liine meaning nothing.

Posted by EBW at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, that tiny crescent is the moon.

Posted by MB Williams at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been four and a half years. Time to hang up the keyboard and do other things.

Posted by MB Williams at 07:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (42) | TrackBacks (1)

Now that California has moved up its primary to February 5th, the state's 250,000 Indians, some with access to newly-created gaming wealth, are asking Democratic candidates to start paying attention to their issues and concerns. Former Oklahoma Democratic Congressional candidate and district attorney Kalyn Free (Choctaw) is organizing a Democratic presidential debate at the Morongo Indian Reservation (just a few miles from where we're currently camped) this August, with the hope Democratic candidates will actually care (I for one am not holding my breath):

Indian group hopes to lure presidential candidates to Inland debate
10:00 PM PDT on Saturday, March 17, 2007
By MICHELLE DeARMOND
The Press-Enterprise

MORONGO INDIAN RESERVATION - A political Indian organization predicted Saturday that all the Democratic presidential contenders will travel to an Inland reservation this summer for an unprecedented debate with tribal leaders from across the nation.

The unique event, dubbed "Prez on the Rez," is set for Aug. 23 at the Morongo Reservation and has New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson confirmed as a participant. Kalyn Free, president of the group organizing the event, said she is confident all of the candidates will participate.

California's decision last week to move its primary to February helps, she said, because the candidates will be aggressively courting California voters.

None of the other candidates has committed to the event at the Morongo Reservation yet, including the frontrunners: Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hilary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"This has never been done before," Free said at the Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa, where she spoke Saturday at a women's forum organized by the California Democratic Party's Native American Caucus. "The real practical reason (the candidates will come) is that they need us."

Indian voters have become the pivotal swing voters in some parts of the country, and candidates will want to win over those voters, she said. In California, American Indians make up a much smaller percentage of the population than in states such as South Dakota and Oklahoma -- just 1 percent in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A few of Abramoff's clients were California tribes, and may be looking to repair ties with Democrats in order to stave off Congressional attacks on tribal sovereignty, disguised as "concern" over gaming issues. Any candidate who doesn't understand that and reach out is a fool, from a fundraising perspective. But those who don't see the goldmine of scandal fodder in Republican dealings in Indian Country with which to pummel former Senate Indian Affairs Chairman John McCain are even more undeserving idiots.

For more information, visit PrezOnTheRez.org.

Posted by MB Williams at 10:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by MB Williams at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

France has a two-round system for its presidential elections, and until last week, it was a given that the two candidates that would make it to the second round would be the triangulation-is-everything winner of the Socialist Party's primary, and the immigrants-are-evil winner of the UMP primary.

If having a choice between two "I'll say any dumb thing to get elected" candidates isn't your cup of tea, you're not alone. This week François Bayrou polled above 20%, the psychological barrier, and even polled above one of the two "I'll say any dumb thing to get elected" candidates. For the past two weeks, when the question was Bayrou or either one of the two, the 2nd round poll question, Bayrou comes out more than a MoE ahead of both.

The photo is a Greenpeace event, a dump of frankencorn in the street at the doors of the party HQ of Mr. immigrants-are-evil.

Posted by EBW at 08:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We're camped for two days at Lake Perris SRA, trying to wait out the record heat which has plagued the Cali deserts for the past few weeks. Our hope is to be able to head into Joshua Tree and later Mohave, as the forecast for this coming week is "normal" temps, not the 98 degrees we experienced here while setting up camp at 3pm today. Fortunately, once the sun goes down, so do the temps, so now, at a bit after 10 pm, it's easy sleeping weather.

There are few "blooms" this year - a drought has developed in SoCal, and record low precipitation has rendered a no-bloom season. But we still have decided to head into the wilderness.

Posted by MB Williams at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Clinton is proposing that US forces garrison Iraqi Kurdistan. The rationale being a mix of "northern mission", continued combat operations targeting the active unites of the former Iraqi army and intelligence organizations, which target US and Iraqi collaborator forces, and the usual Iranian influence narrative.

Juan Cole makes the obvious points -- the Kurds are adequately self-protected, continued combat ops with half the forces isn't going to work better than continued combat ops with all the forces, and there are no Iranians, at least in the sense of intel or military operational units, discernible either forensically (in the combat dead) or in the 11,000 current capture live inventory.

Cole concludes that Senator Clinton is poorly advised.

I'm slightly more concerned. There was a "northern mission" during President Clinton's two terms in office, so perhaps it was the use of a familiar phrase, but in the present, a foreign military occupation of a semi-autonomous region is likely to turn into a war against Iraqi Kurdistan self-determination, whether as a semi-autonomous region of a still functioning Iraqi state, or as the independent state in continuous conflict with Arab Iraq, and fresh conflict with Turkey and Iran.

Its really just the partition Senator Biden has hung his hat on -- Kurdish north, Sunni west, and Shia south, with the force level details filled in, and the probable consequence of no reduction in the necessity for military operations by competing political factions written off as unavoidable, rather than as a good reason to avoid Senator Biden's happier, less detailed work of domestic US political fantesy. The only variation of significance is the choice of "north" from the set of "notrh, "west", or "south" choices for the face saving redeployment.

In domestic politics, which is the only politics there is, Senator Clinton's re-work of Senator Biden's message may be effective, but that's only as long as Dems (and cross-over likely independents in California's modified open primary), who are the only voters there are in the primaries, go along with the notion that US troops will be greeted with flowers in Iraqi Kurdistan indefinitely -- as if it was already NATO territory ... like some misplaced part of Turkish Kurdistan.

Winning an election at the cost of starting new military operations targeting any, and possibly all of two national, and two sub-national forces isn't a compelling vision for putting an end to the Iraq War, but it might work. George Bush managed to sell war-as-peace, and it may still work as message with the 'fraidest generation.

One thing that is clear is that either Senator Clinton hasn't found her core goals on the Iraq problem, or if she has, they're not worth thinking about twice.

Posted by EBW at 08:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In July, 2002, Special Trustee for American Indians Tom Slonaker (a Clinton appointee held over by Bush) testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee (chaired then by Sen. Inouye) that the Interior Department's handling of the Individual Indian trusts was pretty much as fucked fouled up as it had ever been, despite a federal court order that a "full accounting" take place. Slonaker had submitted his proposed testimony to his Interior superiors, namely Dep. Sec. J. Steven Griles and Gale Norton, who summarily demanded that he change most of it. Two Justice Department attorneys as well as Kyle Sampson, White House advisor to the President, also called Slonaker and demanded he change his testimony.

Slonaker did not submit his statement, but testified in person, saying that an accounting as Norton et al. were proposing would not meet the Court's requirement. After he appeared before SIAC, Slonaker was fired. Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in TAP, asserted at the time Sampson was involved, "Slonaker claims he was forced out, and sources close to the case say Griles and White House counsel Kyle Sampson barred Slonaker from telling the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that the Interior Department was unable to live up to its trust responsibility because documents had been destroyed."

Pete Dominici was at that SIAC hearing, as was Orin Hatch, for whom Sampson was a top aide before being placed at the White House. Sampson used twork for Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless, many of whose clients are leasors of federal and Indian land, thus potentially affected by Slonaker's testimony, i.e., if the government doesn't have the docs for a complete accounting, then they need to get that info from the lessors.

I know it's complicated, but I've argued for years that Interior and DoJ were in collusion to try and subvert the Court's order on a full accounting, as it could cost the government and/or the resource extraction industries many billions (Gonzales testified recently that it could be upwards of $200 billion - that was just before he and Kempthorne offered a paltry $7 billion to settle all the cases.)

Posted by MB Williams at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This is what got Slonaker fired by Griles and Sampson.

* * * * * * *

The Chairman [Sen. Inouye]. May I proceed by asking the Special Trustee questions? In the most recent report of the Court Monitor for the District Court in which the Cobell-Norton litigation is pending, the text of several memoranda that you have transmitted to Mr. Edwards was printed. In your memo of April 30, 2002, you stated:

"I do not believe an accounting as that term is generally understood in the established trust scholarship acceptable to either the beneficiaries or the Special Trustee can be constructed. Short of a settlement, the best that might be able to be accomplished is the identification of the gaps of information. With that, the Department could perhaps seek some instruction from the judge on how to proceed. I remain concerned, however, that I have not heard anyone in the Department define the characteristics of an accounting to include anything more than the funds actually collected by the Department. That of course is inadequate."

And in your memo of May 22, 2002, you stated:

"It is evident that the long term record of the Department's administration of the Indian trust accounts is incomplete to
some degree. In addition, during the past year, the Special Master has been able to breach the Department's electronic systems that house the trust data, thereby demonstrating that the data may not be accurate. Because it is the duty of the Trustee to know all the facts about the administration of the trusts, these flaws cause me to doubt the ability of the Department to show either itself or the beneficiaries in sufficient detail the nature and amount of the trust property and its administration."

Mr. Slonaker, in your official capacity and from what you know of the gaps in information, do you believe that a complete historical accounting of the Individual Indian Money accounts can be achieved?

Mr. Slonaker. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Campbell. No; not completely. It may be possible to reconstruct a good many accounts completely. Even identifying the assets and the flow of income from the assets, which by the way is something that's incumbent upon the trustee to do.

I believe that the Office of Historical Trust Accounting, however, can go quite a way toward identifying what the gaps are in the information. As the trustee, it's crucial that every effort be made by the trustee to make certain that we have exhausted every means to identify the assets and the incomes that belong to the beneficiaries, and bring that accounting right up to date.

The Chairman. You spoke of obstacles. In your view, what are the obstacles, legal or practical, that would be presented if the Congress were to pursue a path of settlement of claims?

Mr. Slonaker. The obstacles to the actual accounting itself I think are fairly well known in terms of their type. There are records that we believe are probably either destroyed or lost. There is, as the GAO panel already has indicated, there are situations where the accounting was not done properly, we believe, in the initial instance. So there are obstacles to getting a full and complete accounting.

What those obstacles are, which you termed as a gap, have to be further determined. They can only be estimated at this point in time.

The Chairman. Everyone seems to speak of missing or destroyed documents. Could you tell us as to when these
documents began to be missing or when the Government learned that they were destroyed?

Mr. Slonaker. I cannot, sir. We only have, at least I only have anecdotal evidence of missing documents at this point. I think that's the point of the historical trust accounting report in part, and that is that these gaps have to be
identified as to what point they started and where those gaps are and what the nature of the gap is.

The Chairman. So there is no proof or data to tell us when the gaps began to come into existence?

Mr. Slonaker. Not that I'm aware of, sir.

The Chairman. So these gaps or obstacles are such that settlement would be extremely difficult?

Mr. Slonaker. I think my response to that, Mr. Chairman, has to be that the Trustee needs to do everything in his power to establish what the liability of the Trustee may be. The size of the gaps, the nature of the gaps has yet to be discovered. Whether that lends itself to identifying a figure which in turn might lend itself to some sort of a settlement is not clear to me.

* * * * * * *

So what was so awful about Slonaker's testimony? 1) He admitted there were "gaps" due to missing or destroyed documents, and thus, 2) the Court might have to provide other means of acquiring the information needed to provide a full, court-ordered accounting of the Individual Accounts. Some analysts for the Cobell plaintiffs had suggested obtaining that information from the leasors, a not-unreasonable idea. However, as we recently learned regarding other federal land leases, opening the lessors books can prove enlightening, namely to how many billions the US government has been defrauded by the likes of BigOil, BigTimber and BigCoal.

Update: Indianz.com editor Acee Agoyo kindly offered corrections to my post via email. As he was at the aforementioned hearing, he assued me that neither Senators Hatch nor Domenici attended. In fact, despite being on the SIAC, Hatch seldom attended hearings - he obviously had better things to do.

Also, neither Griles nor Norton told Slonaker what to say - they let DoJ and Sampson do that. But they certainly fired his tush after he testified as to the grand fiasco tribal trust reform had become.

Posted by MB Williams at 01:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Which US Senator currently taking heat for the US Attorney fiasco participated in the SIAC hearings, after which, Special Trustee Tom Slonaker was fired by Steve Griles (with extra special input from White House special advisor to the President, Kyle Sampson)?

And a second cherry: Name another Senator on SIAC at the time of Slonaker's testimony who had a professional connection to Kyle Sampson, as in, Sampson was a former top aide.

Posted by MB Williams at 01:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From Indianz.com 2002 reporting on the Slonaker firing:

Slonaker appeared before the committee -- with the department's support, he stated -- and gave a less than glowing assessment of the accounting plan. He suggested that his views contradicted the government's position on more than 20 lawsuits citing trust asset mismanagement.

"I think Justice may take a pretty strict view of what can help or harm their case," he said.

Slonaker last week could not recall the names of the attorneys who took part in the the tele-conference call, which he said occurred around 6:30 p.m. on July 24. Harper, in the subpoenas, identified the group as Kelly Johnson and Jeffrey Clark of the Department of Justice and Kyle Sampson of the White House.

"If you're calling about Kelly and Jeff asking Tom Slonaker not to testify," said Dana Perino, a DOJ spokesperson, "they did not."

Due to the ongoing Cobell class action, which affects individual Indian beneficiaries, and several related tribal cases, government sources said it wasn't unusual that both the DOJ and the White House were concerned about Slonaker's testimony. They said DOJ attorneys often consult the White House on litigation.

Johnson and Clark are mid-level Bush appointees to the environmental and natural resources division, which used to represent Norton in the Cobell case before she fired them last fall. The division, however, has been assigned to the tribal cases U.S. District Judge Lamberth has agreed to hear.

Sampson is a former aide to conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Previously employed by the Salt Lake City firm of Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless, he advises Bush on a number of matters, including political appointees and environmental-related litigation.

"All day he sits in the Oval Office and makes the tough decisions," Sampson told The Deseret News on July 17. "You know they're the tough ones or they wouldn't make it to the Oval Office."

A second White House lawyer also participated in the conference call but the person's identity has not be ascertained. Slonaker said a member of the Interior's legislative staff took part as well.

Posted by MB Williams at 12:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I knew I ran across Kyle Sampson's name in my Cobell v. Norton (now Kempthorne) research. A year ago, I posted this, on the promotion of one of Sampson's partners in crime:

While at the DoJ, Johnson apparently was up to her knees in the DoI tribal trust fund fiasco:

Although Norton won't testify in court, she may be forced to answer to Congress. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the House Resources Committee are considering opening their own investigations into Slonaker's ouster.

In addition to Norton, attorneys for Indian account holders want to depose Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles and Indian Trust Transition Director Ross Swimmer. Three government attorneys -- Kyle Sampson of the White House and Kelly Johnson and Jeffrey Clark of the Department of Justice -- have been subpoenaed.

Johnson, along with Clark and Sampson, participated via teleconference in the interrogation and subsequent firing of special trustee for American Indians, Tom Slonaker. Slonaker testified before the Senate that Norton's handling of Trust fund matters was the rosy picture she and her cronies were painting.

I was always intrigued that someone from the White House was directly involved in Slonaker's termination. It made it clear to me that the White House was much, much more concerned about the outcome of the Indian Trust case than the disinterested facade it put forth.

I guess it's time for me to get back on the case.

Posted by MB Williams at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)