Wampum

Dear Indian Country

This is the third letter in a series of open letters I’m sending to Indian Country to answer questions that you have asked me about settlement of the Cobell class action lawsuit. Prior Ask Elouise letters can be found on the settlement website: CobellSettlement.com and here at Wampum Ask Eloise, Week of February 21 and Ask Eloise, Week of February 14. We also have a “frequently asked questions” section to answer the most common questions we’ve received: Frequently Asked Questions. I can’t answer every question, but I will try to answer as many as I can every week.

Why are resource mismanagement claims included in the proposed settlement and how were they valued as part of the $1.4 billion amount of the settlement? The settlement agreement covers claims that have been part of the Cobell case since it was filed on June 10, 1996, as well as other resource management claims that will be included in an amended complaint. Cobell has always demanded the correction and restatement of accounts and the restitution of profits unlawfully taken from individual Indian trust beneficiaries as a result of the government’s breaches of trust. Importantly, resource mismanagement claims necessarily are included in the accounting claim to ensure a full and complete accounting of the IIM Trust and the effective enforcement of plaintiffs’ vested and constitutionally protected property rights.

Individual class members may opt out of the settlement to pursue individual damages claims arising out of the government’s mismanagement of his or her natural resources. So while resource mismanagement claims are included in the proposed settlement, each class member has the right to decide whether his or her resource mismanagement claims should be resolved through the settlement.

Resource mismanagement claims are included for two principal reasons. First, the government insisted that resource mismanagement claims be included in the settlement. Otherwise, the government would not settle the case. The government stated that it is essential to “turn the page” so that it could build a better relationship with Indian Country, which it felt could only be achieved through what it says is a “global peace.”

Second, I and class counsel concluded that it is fair to include such claims so long as class members may elect to opt out of that portion of the settlement. Thus, if a class member wants to litigate his or her own resource mismanagement claims, that may be done readily and without compromise. But, because it is very expensive and highly unlikely that many beneficiaries have the financial resources to bring their own damages claims, the settlement allows class members who do not opt out of the settlement to be compensated fairly. For an overwhelming number of beneficiaries, settlement of historical damages claims for additional compensation not only is a good option, it is the only way many could be compensated for the harm done to them by the government. The opt-out provision provides each class member fair and meaningful options.

The settlement value of historical resource mismanagement accounting claims was negotiated by the parties. The total amount represents a fair resolution for plaintiffs’ accounting, restitution, and damages claims, considering the risks associated with indefinite litigation, including the absence of any time limit to reach final judgment in the case, the mortality rate of class members, and our understanding of the current litigation environment.

Who represented these claim-holders' interests during the settlement negotiations? I and class counsel represented all class members during the settlement negotiations. In the fairness hearing, the district court, in accordance with due process principles, would determine whether the amount negotiated is fair and whether the class representatives and counsel have adequately represented the class as a whole. After almost fifteen years of intense litigation over the government’s mismanagement of individual Indian trust assets, I and class counsel have the most significant, relevant and practical experience with stated claims of the class. But, you need not rely solely on our judgment in that regard because such matters are determined independently and in accordance with governing law by the presiding U.S. District Judge.

How will the new class be identified? There are two classes resolved by the settlement agreement: the historical accounting class and the trust administration class. Government records, to the extent available, will be used to identify members of the trust administration class. But we know that the government’s records do not identify or locate all members of the trust administration class. Accordingly, after ratifying legislation is passed, the parties, under the U.S. District Judge’s supervision, will conduct an extensive notice process to notify individual Indians of their rights and obligations under the settlement agreement. The notice process will also provide detailed information to Indian Country about the terms of settlement.

The settlement agreement also provides that class members may “self-identify” and apply for inclusion in the trust administration class. A contractor that is working with the parties will analyze all documentation provided by each such potential class member and, under the supervision of the United States District Court, will determine whether that person is a class member.

Is it fair and reasonable to disallow opt-outs from the historical accounting settlement when an historical accounting may be necessary for an individual who opts out of the trust administration class to pursue a resource mismanagement claim? Yes. Any class member who opts out of the settlement will retain the right to what is called an “accounting in aid of judgment,” which is a procedural tool used in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to help beneficiaries value their damage claims. The settlement agreement explicitly preserves the right of any class member who opts out of the trust administration class to “an accounting in aid of judgment.”

An additional important point must be noted. An individual may remain in the trust administration class, get paid in full, and still pursue the following claims against the government and third parties: breaches of trust arising after September 30, 2009; certain environmental damages; claims against contractors or other third parties; claims for correction of boundary or appraisal errors (and, for damages after September 30, 2009); water rights; health and mortality claims; and claims arising from leases active on September 30, 2009.

I heard that the Settlement Agreement expired on February 28, 2010. Does this mean that the settlement agreement has terminated? No, the settlement agreement has not been terminated. The parties have agreed to extend the settlement through April 16, 2010. In my conversations with government officials, I have been assured that legislation will be passed within that period of time. I remain hopeful that legislation will be passed, but share your concerns that we continue to extend the time period with nothing to show for it. At this point, we must provide our allies time to advance the legislation.

If you are not currently receiving an IIM statement from the government, please remember to register for correspondence over the Internet or by calling the number below.

Internet: https://cert.tgcginc.com/iim/register.php
Telephone: 1-800-961-6109

Ask Elouise
Cobell Settlement
PO Box 9577
Dublin, OH 43017-4877

Thank you and keep your questions coming!

Best wishes

Elouise Cobell
Browning, Montana

Posted by EBW at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Indian Country

This is the second in a series of open letters I’m sending to Indian Country to answer your very important questions about the settlement of the Cobell class action lawsuit. Prior Ask Elouise letters can be found on the settlement website: CobellSettlement.com, and here at Wampum. We also have a “frequently asked questions” section to answer many of the most common questions we’ve received. http://cobellsettlement.com/press/faq.php. I can’t answer every question, but I will try to answer as many as I can every week.

Why must the settlement approval process occur so quickly? Time is of the essence.
If settlement is not approved in the short term, there is a very real possibility the settlement will fail and the parties will return to active litigation. First, Congress must ratify the settlement agreement before the Court can act to preliminarily approve it. In this election year, further delay will create a more challenging political environment for enactment of the necessary implementing legislation. Congress is a body made up of diverse and varied views and not all have an interest in a successful resolution of this case. Further delay will increase the likelihood that our allies on Capitol Hill focus their attention on other matters. Secondly, the Supreme Court has granted an extension of the time for the parties to submit briefing in connection with its review of the Court of Appeals decision that limits the accounting duty to “low hanging fruit.” It is unlikely that further extensions will be granted by the Supreme Court and further court activity is likely to kill the settlement.

Shouldn’t you and the attorneys be traveling more to Indian Country to explain the settlement? We have spent some time traveling around Indian Country to discuss the settlement, answer your questions and listen to your concerns, but not enough. The problem with traveling around Indian Country to explain the settlement is that it has not received preliminary approval by the Court. What this means is that there is a chance that the Court or Congress could decide to alter or modify the settlement and any information we might share with Indian Country could change, requiring that we make the same trips twice – we can’t afford to be wasteful with our limited resources. In addition, any changes to the settlement agreement by the Court or Congress may result in the settlement being abandoned by either party. Once the settlement has received preliminary approval from the Court, we will undertake an extensive notice process, including travel to Indian Country, to notify class members of the settlement and educate you about your rights and obligations under the agreement.

How will I know if I’m included in the settlement? You will be included in the settlement if you had an IIM account open at anytime between approximately 1985 and September 30, 2009, or you had an individual interest in land held in trust or restricted status by the U.S. government as of September 30, 2009. Certain heirs to deceased class members may be included, as well. I recognize that many individuals have particular circumstances that might make it unclear whether they are included. A process for individuals to self-identify and apply for inclusion in the class will be developed if the settlement is approved. At this stage, the most important thing you can do is to register to ensure that we have a valid address to send you important information. If you are not receiving a quarterly IIM statement, then there is a chance that the government does not have a current address for you and you should register.

How do I register to receive settlement communications? You can register over the phone or Internet.

Internet: https://cert.tgcginc.com/iim/register.php
Telephone: 1-800-961-6109

As I indicated in my last Ask Elouise letter, in future letters I’ll answer questions about how much you can expect to receive if the settlement is finally approved as well as questions related to the damages class included in the settlement agreement.

If you have a question, send an e-mail to: askelouise@cobellsettlement.com. Otherwise you can send me a letter to the address below. To expedite the processing of your letters our contractor has set up a post office box in Ohio, but I assure you this letter is coming from me and I will see your letters.

Ask Elouise
Cobell Settlement
PO Box 9577
Dublin, OH 43017-4877

Thank you for your commitment and patience during this long and difficult process.

Best wishes

Elouise Cobell
Browning, Montana

Posted by EBW at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As many of you know, on December 7, 2009, we signed a settlement agreement with the government which marked the first step toward resolving the long running Cobell class action lawsuit. Since that time, I’ve been asked hundreds of questions about the case and the settlement agreement. I can’t answer every question in one letter, but I am committed to writing an open Ask Elouise letter every week answering many of your important questions. If you have a question, send an e-mail to: askelouise@cobellsettlement.com, or send a letter to:

Ask Elouise
Cobell Settlement
PO Box 9577
Dublin, OH 43017-4877

When will I receive my funds? It depends on when Congress passes legislation implementing the settlement and it is finally approved by the courts. The settlement agreement provides that the first payments should begin shortly after final approval and will continue for at least six months pursuant to Court order. I know many of you are concerned that it may take years to receive your share. That isn’t true. We have designed a formula to ensure that won’t occur.

When will the settlement be finally approved? After legislation is passed, the district court will schedule a hearing to consider the settlement and decide whether to grant Preliminary Approval of the settlement. At that point, there will be a 2 - 3 month period where notice will be provided to class members after which a “Fairness Hearing” will be held so that the Court can hear any objections to the settlement. If the judge deems the settlement fair, then he will issue an order of “Final Approval.” The court of appeals may then consider any appeal from class members. If there is no appeal, payments should begin sixty days following Final Approval. If the court of appeals accepts an appeal, payments could be substantially delayed.

When will Congress pass legislation approving the settlement? I don’t know when Congress will pass legislation. The parties agreed to extend the settlement agreement to February 28, 2010. I’m hopeful that legislation will be passed by then, but it might not happen. If it does not happen, I’ll consult with our attorneys about our options.

How much will the attorneys be paid? The Court will determine attorneys’ fees, but the attorneys have signed a separate agreement with the government agreeing to not ask for more than $99.9 million. This is less than 3% of the settlement funds – a very low percentage for attorneys in class action lawsuits. Consider that attorneys representing tribes under Indian Claims Commission Act generally received 10% as mandated by statute and attorneys involved in suits related to Enron received 9.5% (almost $700 million). Many medical malpractice attorneys receive over 30%; and, the tobacco attorneys received billions of dollars and very few did more than file a complaint in order to immediately negotiate a settlement. Most cases don’t even involve discovery, let alone go to trial, but our attorneys have prosecuted seven major trials in this case, litigated countless appeals, filed thousands of papers and reviewed tens of millions of pages of discovery without receiving due compensation for their services. I fully support the fee application. It is in fact unusually low for attorneys involved in complex, heavily litigated class action lawsuits. Frankly, I am concerned that if the legal fees for our attorneys are unreasonably low that will discourage competent lawyers from future representation of Native Americans in class action litigation against the government. It is also important to recognize that members of the class will have an opportunity to inform the Judge if they oppose the fee award.

How much will the named plaintiffs receive? The Court will also determine amounts to be paid to the named plaintiffs for their time and costs, also called “incentive payments.” This case was funded in large measure by the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund (“BRDF”), a grass roots community development organization which assists Indian communities understand their trust assets. I have also given a significant amount of money to the case out of my personal funds. Funds were used to pay for experts, class communications and costs related to the prosecution of this case. During settlement negotiations, we estimated that these costs were in the range of $15 million. To date, very few of BRDF’s costs have been reimbursed and I have never been reimbursed for funds that I’ve contributed to the prosecution of this case. No tribe has ever given money for this case.

In future Ask Elouise letters, I’ll answer questions about how much you can expect to receive if the settlement is finally approved as well as questions related to the damages class included in the settlement agreement. Thank you for your commitment and patience during this long and difficult process.

Best wishes,
Elouise

Posted by EBW at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I may have time to pare these down to the CREA / Norton / Finley / Shell / ... posts, but here's MB's work on the subject on DOI-DOJ corruption.

Search Results from Wampum

In honor of President's week...

Let's begin a recall of some of John McCain's actions as chair of the Senate Indian Affairs investigation into Jack Abramoff. From his own state's paper: McCain says inquiry focusing on lobbyist, not on lawmakers Billy House and Jon Kamman... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on February 18, 2008 12:38 PM

Italia cooperating; gets tap on the wrist...

I'll have more to say later, but I just caught this on Google News: Abramoff Figure Spared Prison By MATT APUZZO - 8 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) - A Republican environmental activist who arranged lobbyist Jack Abramoff's entree into the... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on December 15, 2007 12:02 AM

Dear Media: More like this, please.

The Houston Chronicle takes on MMS. [The HoC's editorial links (all of them) have been broken for at least 24 hours, so here's the HoC's original text. ebw] Royal mess, Lawsuits and testimony suggest the U.S. Interior Department has forgotten... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on September 25, 2007 11:29 AM

The WaPo Energy Task Force "list"...

Susie emailed me the link this morning, and being three hours behind here in sunny California, I had not yet seen it. Of course the general question of which "White House official" leaked the list is always relevant too. I've... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on July 18, 2007 10:10 AM

Cheney's Klamath dam begins to leak, and non-fish casualites mount...

A couple of weeks ago, I finally signed up for Google News "alerts", setting up a couple of keywords such as "Gale Norton", "Italia Federici", "Tom Sansonetti" - names I used to Google every morning, but now, if breaking news... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on July 11, 2007 08:44 AM

The DoI/DoJ revolving door.

Most people think of a governmental "revolving door" involving individuals moving between the private and public sectors; however, in the Bush Administration, there's also the movement between particular departments, and even specific offices. Take the apparent career track between the... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on July 10, 2007 12:03 PM

Who's protecting who?

The marriage of two former Interior Department appointees, Deputy Secretary J. Steven Griles and Solicitor and Deputy Chief of Staff Sue Ellen Wooldridge made headlines last spring, as it occurred three days after Griles entered into a plea agreement with... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on June 29, 2007 10:41 AM

Justice is best served cold...

It's only been one year, eight months since the former Deputy Secretary of the Interior lied to Congressional investigators, but hey, I'll take it. From the DoJ press release: Former Interior Deputy Secretary Steven Griles Sentenced to 10 Months in... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on June 26, 2007 08:08 PM

Fourteen years here, fourteen years there...

But who's counting? From the letters in support of J. Steven Griles: First, his dear friend, Tom Sansonetti, We maintained a social friendship for the years up to and including 2001, when as the head of the Bush-Cheney transition team... [Edit]

Posted in Wampum on June 18, 2007 08:17 PM

There's more below the fold. Yeah MB!!!

Continue reading "Gale Norton's back in the news" »

Posted by EBW at 02:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This from Eloise Cobell:

On Monday, May 11, the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia will hold an important hearing on our case. We will be challenging the Aug. 7 ruling of U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson. He has held that the Indian Trust beneficiaries are not entitled to any interest on the $455 million that he believes the government failed to place in our individual trust accounts.

We will argue that we are entitled to interest on that money and say that his method of calculating how much money was not properly credited was inaccurate. The government has indicated it will argue that you, the trust account holders, are not entitled to any money at all. They will say that the government believes it has properly credited the accounts of all trust beneficiaries.

That is why this promises to be an important day our 13-year-old lawsuit. As you could imagine, hearings like this typically attract only the lawyers and government bureaucrats who have been following this case.

I hope you can join me in the courtroom in Washington so that it will be clear that a lot of Native Americans are deeply interested in this case.

"All oral arguments are open to the public, but seating is limited and on a first-come, first-serve basis," the court's website says. "Doors of the courtroom usually open around 9:10 a.m. The first argument begins at 9:30 a.m. Visitors should be aware that certain cases may attract large crowds, with lines forming before the courtroom doors open."

If you can attend, please come early as the courtroom has filled quickly in the past. You will have to pass through the courthouse's strict security, so allow extra time. Cameras and recording devices are not allowed in the courtroom.

The federal courthouse is located at 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

Thank you for your support.

Elouise Cobell
Lead Plaintiff
Cobell vs Salazar

Posted by EBW at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Upon consideration of the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the defendants' response thereto and petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the plaintiffs' reply in support of their petition and opposition to the defendants' petition, and the defendants' reply in support of their petition, it is ...

ORDERED that the petitions for permission to appeal be granted.

The position of the United States is that no monies are owed the Cobell plaintiff class.

In January, Judge James Robertson ruled it was "impossible" to perform a historical accounting of the Individual Indian Money trust. We take that as an invitation to pursue the corporate records of payments to the IIM trust, which thus far the Cobell legal team has not attempted.

Posted by EBW at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the Cobell vs Kempthorne lawsuit, will appear on NPR's "Tell Me More" Show Monday afternoon (June 16). In the segment, Ms, Cobell explains the latest developments in the case, which is currently being tried in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Ms. Cobell was interviewed Friday at NPR studios in Washington by National Correspondent Cheryl Corley. The program airs in the Washington area at 2 p.m. EDT.

Times for the show elsewhere vary. Check NPR for the time it will be carried by NPR where you are.

Posted by EBW at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Acce's indianz.com

Judge holds one last hearing before big Cobell trial

The federal judge handling the Indian trust fund lawsuit said on Monday he plans to hold a two- to three-week trial to determine how much money is owed to hundreds of thousands of Indian beneficiaries.

The trial, which begins next Monday, will focus on amounts in the billions, Judge James Robertson said. In a ruling this past January, he suggested about $3 billion to $3.5 billion in trust funds has been withheld from Indian account holders.

Additional money could be awarded if the plaintiffs can show the federal government benefited from failing to distribute the funds, Robertson noted. "The plaintiffs are going to want to prove that if they number is $1 billion, they are owed $3 billion," the judge said during a two-hour status conference.

Robert Kirschman, a Department of Justice attorney, continued to argue that no money is owed to Indian beneficiaries. Claims that the government failed to collect, or distribute, certain trust funds aren't part of the case, he said.

"The 'should haves' aren't part of this trial," Kirschman told the judge. "We don't think they can prove it," he said of the plaintiffs' claims they are owed billions.

Since being assigned to the case in December 2006, Robertson has steadily moved it forward following years of acrimonious litigation and numerous appeals by the Clinton and Bush administrations. After 12 years, he is promising to come to a final dollar amount by the end of the summer.

In court filings, the plaintiffs argue they are owed $58 billion, a figure that includes "all advantages or benefits" obtained by the government since the inception of the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust in 1887. A key aspect of the trial will focus on the exact amount of the alleged benefit.

In court yesterday, Dennis Gingold, an attorney for the plaintiffs, cited a slew of cases that he said supported their argument. Expert witnesses will testify about IIM trust funds going back to the late 1800s, he said.

"Each one of our witnesses is relying on the government data," Gingold said.

The government previously acknowledged at least $13 billion has passed through the IIM trust since the early 1900s. During a trial he held last October, Robertson saw government data that led him to believe about $3 billion to $3.5 billion wasn't distributed.

"We saw what the numbers were," he said. "I suspect the numbers are going to be different at this trial."

On Friday, the government in fact submitted a new administrative record that contained revisions to the data. But Kirschman said the analysis -- which is apparently based on studies not seen by anyone outside the government -- won't be made public until it is presented at trial.

Robertson was concerned that the Bush administration would withhold the information and initially ordered the government to turn over the documents to the plaintiffs. But he changed his mind after hearing Kirschman object to the request.

"Just bring your witnesses and we'll see how it goes," Robertson said at the conclusion of the hearing

The trial begins June 9 at the federal district courthouse in Washington, D.C. Testimony will be heard Mondays through Thursday, with every Friday off.

Just a reminder: Senators Clinton and McCain support the underlying claim that the United States does owe a duty of trust towards the Individual Indian Account claimants. Senator Obama doesn't have an opinion on the core legal theory involved -- the application of equal protection clause of the US Constitution to Indian citizens of the United States.

Posted by EBW at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, I wrote about former McCain nemesis Grover Norquist's capitulation to the Straight-Talk Express, clearly in exchange for McCain subverting the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigation into Jack Abramoff, but I'd forgotten about the third Musketeer, Ralph Reed. Fortunately, at least one other blogger has McCain's SIAC misdeeds on her radar:

CNN's last debate before Super Tuesday gave overt preference to John McCain and Mitt Romney, while Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee were given precious little time to speak.

This is the same CNN that has recently placed the former director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed behind a CNN news desk as a news analyst.

Such realizations were simultaneously odd and seemingly unrelated, until I looked closer at "Honest" John McCain, Candidate for President of the United States of America.

As chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, John McCain directed the Congressional investigation of the Indian gaming scandal which stole over $80 million from American Indian Tribes. The scandal led to the imprisonment of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH), and a number of other lobbyists and federal officials, yet some people criticized McCain for failing to call people like Ralph Reed (who were near the center of the scam) before the committee to testify.

As a result of this investigation, McCain refers to himself as an "agent of change," yet he limited the scope of the gaming investigation to lobbyists' improper gifts. Now if the lobbyists were guilty of giving improper gifts, trips and money, a natural follow-up question for McCain could have been, "who received those gifts?" Why were members of Congress (usually the recipients of such favors) not investigated? Why wasn't Ralph Reed brought before the McCain investigation? After all, wasn't he paid $4 million to shut down an Indian casino by Reed's friend and convicted felon, Jack Abramoff?

As I tried to answer my own questions, I found that McCains' reluctance to get to the bottom of the scandal is predictable, especially in light of how McCain has financed his political career.

Maybe Ralph Reed will raise such questions to McCain as a news analyst for "the most trusted name in news," CNN.

Why is Reed at CNN instead of in prison with Abramoff?

Posted by MB Williams at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And most likely, criminal.

First, a bit of a recap.

Back in 2004, despite NOT being the chairman of the committee, John McCain took control of the investigation on Senate Indian Affairs into Jack Abramoff's purchase of influence over Interior Department officials for his lobbying clients. In fact, McCain's announcement of opening the investigation sent then Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell into the emergency room with chest pains. See, Campbell knew Abramoff was key in a whole host of Republican scandals, and even scratching the surface was likely to send more than a few corrupt GOP partisans to jail. A few days after his heart-attack scare (turned out to be indigestion,) Campbell announced his retirement from the Senate. McCain, however, undaunted by his colleague's concerns, pressed ahead and subpeonaed nearly 20,000 emails and documents from Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's lobbying firm. Abramoff, it turns out, was one of the Bush operatives behind the 2000 South Carolina smear campaign against McCain, and McCain has always been known to hold a grudge. It would take some mighty exceptional reparations to mitigate the sting of the 2000 campaign, and McCain soon found he held all the chips.

Less than two months after subpoenaing Abramoff's documents, and in the midst of George Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, McCain's chief adviser, John Weaver, met secretly with Karl Rove to "iron out their differences." McCain was apparently pleased enough with the negotiations to hit the campaign trail with Bush in June, a month after the Weaver-Rove meeting. At the same time, McCain began to quash the investigation into Abramoff in the Senate Indian Affairs committee. Within a few months, rumors abound that McCain was now Bush's chosen successor for 2008.

But even the title of heir apparent didn't completely wash away of the pain of 2000, especially when McCain realized that his long-time nemesis, Grover Norquist, was Abramoff's partner-in-crime. After the November election, McCain turned up the heat on Norquist, threatening him with subpoenas for documents and testimony before the Committee. Norquist just thumbed his nose at McCain, and in the end, must have held too many aces in his pocket, as McCain never called him before the committee, despite very damning evidence of criminal activity.

But it now appears the ever-defiant Norquist succumbed to extortion as well. This morning, I came across this tidbit buried in a NY Times piece on McCain:

Since his victory in the Florida primary, the growing possibility that Mr. McCain may carry the Republican banner in November is causing anguish to the right. Some, including James C. Dobson and Rush Limbaugh, say it is far too late for forgiveness.

But others, faced with the prospect of either a Democrat sitting in the White House or a Republican elected without them, are beginning to look at Mr. McCain's record in a new light.

"He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes," said Grover Norquist, an antitax organizer who had been the informal leader of conservatives against a McCain nomination, adding that he had been talking to Mr. McCain's "tax guys" for more than a year.

The conversion is complete. John McCain subverted justice to gain the crown. Long live the king.

(NB: Here is the longer version I wrote back in 2006, when I first discovered the Weaver-Rove meeting, incorporated into the larger issue of the Indian Trust scandal.)

Posted by MB Williams at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Statement by Elouise Cobell, Lead Plaintiff, Cobell vs. Kempthorne

BROWNING, MONT., Jan. 30 -- Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit over the federal government's mismanagement of the individual Indian Trust, expressed delight with today's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robertson in the 11-year-old litigation.

"This is a great day in Indian Country," she said after the judge's ruling was released in Washington. "We've argued for over ten years that the government is unable to fulfill its duty to render an adequate historical accounting, much less redress the historical wrongs heaped upon the individual Indian trust beneficiaries. Instead of truthfully seeking to remedy the government's admitted historical mismanagement, the government elected to fight plaintiffs every step of the way.

Judge Robertson has settled the debate in favor of plaintiffs and found that an adequate historical accounting is, in fact, impossible. "Plaintiffs look forward to Judge Robertson's scheduling of a hearing 'determining an appropriate remedy' in light of their [government's] failure to render the court-ordered accounting."

In his ruling, Judge Robertson declared: "My conclusion that Interior is unable to perform an adequate accounting of the IIM [Individual Indian Money] Trust does not mean that a just resolution of this dispute is hopeless. It does mean that a remedy must be found for the Department's unrepaired, and irreparable, breach of its fiduciary duty over the last century. And it does mean that the time has come to bring this suit to a close."

For additional information:
Bill McAllister
703-385-6996 (media only)

Posted by EBW at 06:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Freudenthal went with the right-wing nutcase:

John Barrasso new U.S. Senator from Wyoming
Friday, June 22, 2007

This morning Governor Dave Freudenthal announced the appointment of state senator John Barrasso to the United States Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Craig Thomas.

Barrasso is an othopaedic surgeon from Casper who has served in the Wyoming Senate, as Wyoming Republican Party Committeeman and Treasurer, among other positions.

Well, well, well, I was wrong. Maybe this means Sansonetti's indictment is closer than we know.

Posted by MB Williams at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)