UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

National Indian Law Library

NILL No.0I) 4887~q~;z JlO L.f

.//~ L-X j

COVELO INDIAN COMMUNITY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES WATT, Secretary of theInterior, et al.,

Defendants.

)))))))

))))

C. A. No. 82-2725

STIPULATION OF AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants and Plaintiffs stipulate to the authenticity

of the below listed documents filed in this case:

Defendant~l Memorandum Attachments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Letter of October 21, 1982, from Deputy AssistantSecretary of the Interior Roy H. Sampsel to HonorableThomas P. OINeill, Speaker of the House and HonorableGeorge Bush, President of the Senate

Statement of Roy Sampsel before the February 17, 1982Oversight Hearing of the House Subcommittee onAdministrative Law and Governmental Relations

Statement of Roy Sampsel before the April 1, 1982Oversight Hearing of the Senate Select Committee onIndian Affairs

Memorandum of August 24, 1971, from William A.Gershuny, Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs toregional and field solicitors

Memorandum of July 28, 1972, from W. J. Moses, Bureauof Indian Affairs, to area directors and agencysuperintendents

Memorandum of June 29, 1976, from Morris Thompson,Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to all agencysuperintendents and area directors

Memorandum of November 15, 1977, from AssistantSecretary Forrest Gerard to are a directors

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

- 2 -

"Directive 1," Memorandum of March 27, 1978, fromAssistant Secretary Gerard and Solicitor Krulitz toall area directors and regional and field solicitors

Memorandum of March 29, 1978, from Assistant SecretaryGerard to area directors and agency superintendents

Memorandum of February 1, 1979, from David C. Harrison,Acting Director, BIA Office of Trust Responsibility, toBIA statute of limitations coordinators

"Directive #3," memorandum of February 20, 1979, fromSolicitor Krulitz to regional and field solicitors

"Priority Directive," memorandum of March 18, 1979,from Solicitor Krulitz and Assistant SecretaryGerard to regional and field solicitors, and areadirectors and agency superintendents

Memorandum of July 7, 1980, from Solicitor Martz toall regional and selected field solicitors

Letter of January 5, 1982, from Assistant AttorneyGeneral Carol E. Dinkins to Honorable Morris K. Udall,Chairman, House Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs

Memorandum of March 10, 1982, from Deputy AssistantSecretary John W. Fritz to all area directors

Memorandum of September 22, 1982, from DeputyAssistant Secretary Fritz to area directors andagency superintendents

Memorandum of February 28, 1980, from Steven E. Carroll,Attorney, Indian Resources Section, Department ofJustice, to Rembert A. Gaddy, Assistant Chief, IndianResources Section

Memorandum of March 24, 1980, from Steven E. Carroll toRembert A. Gaddy

Statement of Lawrence J. Jensen, Associate SOlicitor,Division of Indian Affairs, before the September 16,1982 Oversight Hearing of the Senate Select Committeeon Indian Affairs

Statement of Associate Solicitor Jensen before theSeptember 23, 1982 Hearing of the House Committee onInterior and Insular Affairs

21

21a

22

22a

22b

23

- 3 -

Letter of June 5, 1982, from Assistant Attorney GeneralCarol E. Dinkins to Solicitor William Coldiron.

Memorandum of September 30, 1982, from SolicitorColdiron to regional and field solicitors

Memorandum of April 2, 1982, from Solicitor Coldironto regional and field solicitors

Declaration of o. Katie Cox, dated October 19, 1982

Affidavit of Ronald G. Applebaum, dated October 19,1982, with exhibi~s:

Exhibit A - Memorandum of April 12, 1982,from Office of the Regional Solicitorto Portland Area Director, BIA

Exhibit B - Memorandum of April 19, 1982, fromArea Claims Coordinator, PortlandArea Office, to All Superintendents,Portland Area

Affidavit of O. Katie Cox, dated October 28, 1982,with exhibits:

Exhibit A BIA Appraisal Report on three parcelsof the Covelo Indian Community andthree parcels of the County ofMendocino, California, dated March 2,1972

Exhibit B - Letter of March 3, 1972, from AreaRealty Officer, BIA Sacramento AreaOffice, to Norman Whipple, President,Covelo Indian Community Council .

Exhibit C - Undated memorandum from the Superin­tendent, California Central Agency,to Area Director, Sacramento AreaOffice

Exhibit D - Undated draft land exchange agreementbetween the Covelo Indian Communityand the County of Mendocino

Exhibit E - BIA "Request for Real Estate Appraisal,"form memorandum of April lOT 1978, fromRealty Officer, Central CaliforniaAgency, to Chief Appraiser, SacramentoArea Office

Exhibit F

- 4 -

Memorandum of November 8, 1979, fromArea Realty Officer, Sacramento AreaOffice, to Realty Officer, CentralCalifornia Agency

24

Exhibit G - Appraisal Report for Land Exchange ofCovelo Indian Community and County ofMendocino, prepared for the RoundValley Tribe, Covelo, California,by Staff Appraiser, BIA, Sacramento

Exhibit H - Letter of April 6, 1981, from ThomasHanover, President, Covelo IndianCommunity Council, to Realty Officer,Central California Agency

Exhibit I - Letter of May 7, 1981, from ThomasHanover to Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency

Exhibit J - Letter of June 30, 1982, fromLester J. Marston, attorney,California Indian Legal Services,to Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency

Exhibit K - Letter of September 8, 1982, fromSuperintendent, Central CaliforniaAgency, to Lester J. Marston

Affidavit of O. Katie Cox, dated October 15, 1982with exhibits:

Exhibit A Letter of September 11, 1982, fromLester J. Marston to Realty Officer,Central California Agency

Exhibit B - Covelo Indian Community CouncilResolution No. RV-80-6

Exhibit C - Letter of June 2, 1980, from Lester J.Marston to Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency

Exhibit D - Memorandum of July 1, 1980, fromSuperintendent, Central CaliforniaAgency, to Chief Appraiser,Sacramento Area Office

Exhibit E - Letter of JUly 23, 1980, from Lester J.Marston to Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency

Exhibit F

5 -

Covelo Indian Community CouncilResolution No. RV-80-9

25

26

27

28

Exhibit G - Letter of' September 10, 1980, fromSuperintendent, Central CaliforniaAgency, to Lester J. Marston

Exhibit H - Letter of February 18, 1981, fromLester J. Marston to Superintendent,Central California Agency

Exhibit I - Covelo Indian Community CouncilResolution No. RV-80-12-A

Exhibit J - Covelo Indian Community CouncilResolution No. RV-82-33

Exhibit K - BIA "Advice of Allocation/OtherAuthorization" form memorandum ofJune 10, 1982, Area BUdget Officerand Area Director, Sacramento AreaOffice, to Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency

Exhibit L - Memorandum of June 30, 1982, fromActing Superintendent, CentralCalifornia Agency, to Realty Officer,Central California Agency

Letter of August 12, 1981, from Deputy AssistantSecretary Sampsel to Honorable George Bush, Presidentof the Senate

Affidavit of Perry Baker, dated October 20, 1982with exhibits:

Exhibit A Letter of February 4, 1982, fromActing Field Solicitor, Twin Cities,Minnesota, to Acting Area Director,Minneapolis Area Office

Exhibit B - Memorandum of July 28, 1982, fromArea Director, Minneapolis AreaOffice, to Superintendent, GreatLakes Agency

BIA "Order Transferring Inherited Interests inIndian Land to an Indian," dated October 21, 1949

BIA "Consent to Sale" documents, dated September 30,1949

- 6 -

1

2

3

United States v. Naw-cum-o~qu~, Equity No. 60(E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 1925) (slip opinion)

An Act for the Relief of Archie Eggleston,Private Law No. 283, 44 Stat. 1747 (69th Cong.,1st Sess., Chap. 854, JUly 3, 1926)

Affidavit of Michael Cox, dated November 1, 1982,with attached "BIA Patent in Fee Report," datedJune 19, 1920

Plaintiffs' Memorandum Appendices

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Affidavit of Dave Matheson, Chairman of the Coeurd'Alene Tribe, Affidavit of Earl Old Person, Chairmanof the Blackfeet Tribe, Affidavit of Arnold J. Sowmick,Chairman of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,Resolution of Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa-ChippewaIndians

Letter o~ Assistant Secretary of Interior to SenateCommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S. Rept. No.92-1253, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), reprinted in [1972]U.S. Code Congo & Ad. News 3595

S. Rept. No. 96-569, 96 Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 1980,H.R. Rept. No. 96-807, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 10,reprinted in [1980] U.S. Code Congo & Ad. News 214

Oversight Hearings on Statute of Limitations Before theSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,1st Sess. 3-13. Statement of Forrest Gerard, AssistantSecretary for Indian Affairs, December 17, 1979

South Dakota Legal Services Newsletter, April 1979

"Notice" Hearing Before Senate Select Committee onIndian Affairs, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 213, December 17,1978

President's Budget Proposal Justifying AppropriationsEstimates for Fiscal Year 1983, U.S. Dept. of Interior,BIA, Submitted to Appropriations Committee Jan. - Feb.,1982

Memo from Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Area Directorsand Agency Superintendents, June 29, 1976. SUbject:Deadline for filing certain actions on behalf of Indians

, '

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

- 7 -

Joint Memo from Solicitor and Asst. Secretary forIndian Affairs to Area Directors and Area and RegionalSolicitors, March 27, 1978. Subject: Directive forpurposes of Statute of Limitations requirements

"2415 Claims Investigation" Hearing Before SenateSelect Committee on Indian Affairs, 96th Cong., 1stSess. 200-212, December 17, 1978

Memo from the Solicitor, Dept. of Interior to Regionaland Field Solicitors, August 20, 1979. Subject:28 U.S.C. § 2415 claims: conveyances of inheritedallotments pursuant to the Act of May 14, 1948(25 U.S.C. § 483).

Memo to the Solicitor from the Associate Solicitor ­Indian Affairs, May 31, 1979. Subject: Numerousallotment transfers void due to administrative error

Letter to William Coldiron, Solicitor, from Carol E.Dinkins, Assistant Attorney Gen~ral, June 9, 1981

Memo from Deputy Solicitor to Steve Freudenthal,Executive Assistant to the Secretary, Mar. 19, 1980.Subject: options regarding certain categories of2415 damage claims.

Memo from Solicitor to All Regional Solicitors, FieldSolicitors for Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Anadarko, Billings,Muskogee, Pawhuska, Phoenix, Riverside, Twin Cities,and ~vindow Rock, July 7, 1980. Subject: Statute ofLimitations Claims Program - Evaluation

Letter to Ronald Charles, Chairman, Port Gamble BusinessCommittee from Superintendent, Puget Sound Agency,Everett, WA, March 12, 1981

Letter to Joseph B. DeLaCruz, Chairman, Quinault BusinessCommittee from Superintendent, Olympic Penisula Agency,Hoquiam, WA, March 12, 1981

Letter to Peter Three Stars, Superintendent, PugetSound Agency from Suquamish Tribal Chairman, March 25,1981

Letter to Honorable George Bush, President of the Senate,from Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, August 12,1981

Letter to Honorable William S. Cohen, Chairman, SelectCommittee on Indian Affairs from Deputy AssistantSecretary - Indian Affairs, June 25, 1982

, '

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

- 8 -

Memo from Staff Assistant, Executive Secretariat toAssistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, February 12, 1982.SUbject: Statute of Limitations

Memo from Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairsto all Area Directors, March 10, 1982. Subject:Secretarial Decision Concerning Resolution of CertainTypes of Statute of Limitations Claims

Oversight Hearing of the Subcommittee on AdministrativeLaw and Governmental Relations, U.S. House of Representa­tives, On Indian Claims. Statement of Roy H. Sampsel,Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (Policy),Accompanied by Moody Tidwell, Deputy Solicitor, U.S.Department of the Interior

Meeting of Ad Hoc Rights Protection Committee to DevelopProcedures for Handling of Statute of Limitations CasesNot Filed by the Justice Department, May 18-20, 1982Washington, D.C.

Letter to Steven C. Moore, Idaho Legal Services, Inc.from Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs,August 3, 1982

Secretarial Issue Document - Statute of LimitationsLegislation

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,1st Sessa 20-22, April 1, 1982 (testimony of GUy Fringer)

Memo from Brad Leonard to Ted Garrish, September 1,1982. Subject: Information Request on Interior DraftBill on Certain Statute of Limitations Claims

Affidavit of Alexandra Harmon, September 21, 1982

Memo from Solicitor to all Regional and Field Solicitors,April 12, 1982. Subject: Rights-of-Way Damage ClaimsSubject to the December 31, 1982 Statute of Limitationsin 28 U.S.C. § 2415

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,1st Sessa pp. 25-28, April 1, 1982 (testimony of GUyFringer).

Affidavits of plaintiffs Covelo Indian Community,Bertha Visser, Dennis Allen, Sampson Brings Them, EmmaLittle Chief Randall, Lillian Prue Janis. Affidavit ofAlexandra Harmon with Exhibits A & B

30

30a

31

- 9 -

Letter to John Echohawk from Roy Sampsel, January 18,1982

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 14-15, September 16, 1982 (Statement ofLawrence Jensen, Associate Solicitor for IndianAffairs).

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 41-45, September 16, 1982 (Statement of HarrySachse).

32 Affidavit of Barry Levine, October 1, 1982.A-D attached).

(Exhibits

32a

33

34

35

36

37

38

Progress Report on Research of Possible 2415 Claims onbehalf of Ottawa Peoples within the State of Michigan,Submitted by: Michigan Indian Legal Services.

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 24, September 16, 1982 (Statement ofLawrence Jensen).

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 29, September 16, 1982, (Statement by CarolDinkins).

President's Budget Proposal Justifying AppropriationsEstimate for fiscal year 1983, U.S. Department of theInterior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, submitted toAppropriations Committees, January-February 1982.

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations for IndianClaims, February 12, 1982, Before House Committee onJudiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law andGovernmental Relations, 97th Cong., 1st Sess 15-16(Statement of Roy Sampsel).

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 20-21 (testimony of Lawrence Jensen, AssociateSolicitor for Indian Affairs, September 16, 1982).

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations BeforeHouse Committee on the JUdiciary Subcommittee onAdministrative Law and Governmental Relations, 97thCong., 1st Sess. 72 (testimony of Carol Dinkins,Assistant Attorney General).

38a

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

- 10 -

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations Beforethe Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97thCong., 2d Sess. 26-31 (testimony of Lawrence Jensenand Carol Dinkins), September 16,1982.

Declaration of David Rapport, September 21, 1982.

Declaration of Lester J. Marston, September 22, 1982.(Exhibits 1-21 attached).

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Brooks v. NezPerce County, No. 80-3434-3441, March 1, 1982.-

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations Before theSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 9-12 (testimony of Lawrence Jensen), Sept­ember 16, 1982.

Oversight Hearing on Statute of Limitations Before theSenate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 97th Cong.,2d Sess. 59-63 (statements of Senator William Cohenand Harry Sachse), September 16, 1982.

Memorandum from American Law Division to HonorableDon Young, Attn: Mike Jackson, November 29, 1979.Subject: Effect of Expiration of Statute of Limita­tions (28 U.S.C. 2415) on Suits by Indiarr Tribes andIndividual Indians.

Decision in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Mountain StatesTelephone and Telegraph Co.,-Elv No~:S0-84i-M~C.N.M. June 2, i982). .

Plaintiffs~_~esponse ~pp~ndice~

A

B

C

D

E

Memorandum from Solicitor to Associate Solicitor,All Regional and Field Solicitors, All Statute ofLimitation Claims Coordinators, dated 8/1/79,Subject: Minimum Dollar Amount on Statute of Limi­tation Claims barred after April 1, 1980.

Memorandum from Field Solicitor to Area Director,Bureau of Indian Affairs, dated 9/10/79, Subject:"2415 ~laims - Unconsented Transfer."

Affidavit of Thomas L. Wilson, dated 10/21/82

Excerpt from Congressional Record, dated 9/29/82,p. S12669.

Memorandum of the United States in Response toDefendants· Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, andin Support of its Cross Motion for Partial Summary

F

G

- 11 -

Judgment, filed in United States v. Southern PacificTr~nsportation ~o., Civ. No. 2707 BRT (D:C: Nevada).

Memorandum from Field solicitor to Solicitor, dated3/7/78, Subject: Sale of Indian Allotment withoutConsent.

Memorandum from George Bouregeois, SOlicitor's 2415Claims Coordinator CIMS Contact Officer, to Solicitor,Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs, dated 9/5/80.

Exhibits to Depositions of Simon Stevens,Clark Madison and Guy Fringer,Octobe~}1-22, !982

Plaintiffs' Exhibits

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Memorandum from Solicitor to All Regional and FieldSolicitors, August 20, 1979, SUbject: 28 U.S.C. 2415Claims: Conveyances of Inherited Allotments Pursuantto the Act of May 14, 1948 (25 U.S.C 423).

Memorandum from Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairsto Acting Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities,August 6, 1981.

Memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs (Operations) to All Area Directors, March 10,1982.

Memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary for IndianAffairs (Operations) to All Area Directors and Super­intendents, September 22, 1982.

Notice - Time Limit for United States to File Suits toRecover Money Damages Upon Indian Claims

§ 2415 Claims Investigation

Not Offered

Not Offered

Not Offered

Meeting of Ad Hoc Realty Committee to Address Proce­fures for Handling Statute of Limitations Cases NotFiled by the Justice Department

Not Offered

Not Offered

13

14

15

15a

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

- 12 -

Memorandum from CIMS Contact Officer for Statute ofLimitations Claims Program to Solicitor, UnderSecretary and Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,August 29, 1980.

Narrative Report - § 2415 Claims.

Contract Requirements

Memorandum from Office of the Area Director to Super­intendents and Area Branches, January 23, 1980 (Memo­randum from Office of the Regional Solicitor, PacificNorthwest Region to Portland Area Director (attached))

Not Offered

Not Offered

Not Offered

Not Offered

Not Offered

Letter from Alan Toledo, Director, Rights ProtectionOffice of Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Office, toYvette War Bonnet, Dakota Plains Legal Services, datedSeptember 14, 19S2, with Standing Rock Secretarialtransfer claims identification forms attached.

Not Offered

Not Offered

Not Offered

Memorandum from Solicitor to All Regional and FieldSolicitors, September 30, 1982, Subject: Forced FeePatent Claims.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Resolution No. 80-15, datedJanuary 15, 1980

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Resolution No. 50-80, datedFebruary 12, 1980.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Resolution No. 22-S0-CR,dated February 6, 1980.

Devils Lake sioux Tribe Resolution No. A05-S0-033,dated December 18, 1979.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

- 13 -

Letter from Richmond Clow to Simon Stevens, datedFebruary 22, 1982, with legal memorandum of JamesMcCurdy.

Report of James McCurdy on Thurston County, Nebraskataxation of Indian lands.

Letter from James McCurdy to Simon Stevens, datedJune 1, 1981, Subject: Forced Fee patent Investiga­tion: 2415 Claims Process Except Title.

Chart - Statute Claims Active at Area/Agency LevelExcept Title and Certain Trespass Claims.

Statute of Limitations Statistics.

Letter from Roy Sampsel to Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,dated October 21, 1982.

Secretarial Decision Paper - Statute of LimitationsLegislation.

Department of the Interior Budget Justifications,FY 1982, FY 1983.

Montana Reservation Acreage Figures and IndianPopulations.

Memorandum from Highway Engineer Technician to RightsProtection Officer, Billings Area.

Defendants' Exhibits

1 Letter of December 28, 1979 to James W. Moorman,Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural ResourcesDivision, Department of Justice, from Hans Walker, Jr.,Acting Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs.

Respectfully submitted,

Fund

80302

.z.... 1~!:=,~~:= _LOIS~ SCH~FFERSpeclal Litigation CounselLand & Natural Resources Divisionu.S. Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530(202) 633-2793

Dated: November 4, 1982.

@ DEr ARTMENT OF THE INTEP\1 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

. WASHINGTON. D .C. 20240

SEP 8 : .-.~~i:. ,.'-(-

?ran:

Solicitor

Associate Solicitor, In-'3.i2!1 Affairs

-:& PLAINTIFF'SEXHIBIT

!•

EUbject: Forced Pee ?atent Claims

'illis ~ranatl1l sets forth the factual ' and legal backqround regar::llng as i.qrrif'Lcant; mrroer of Land cl.aims i,?:1idl resulted ';:ro:.,1 the fe:3eral };Olicyof Lssuinq fee patents to in'3ividual I~ians prior to the expi.rat.ion of.the trust period and without the consent' or a;J5?licatio:l of tile Wianallottees. Several of these claiJrs, corrronly referre:J to as forced feepatent, clci7TSj \-12re £or':rcrrd~:J. to the Depat bl.....nt; 0: Justice over t..';e pastfe,·] years 3.J part of t..l-J2 DEpar'=lrent IS effor't.s to process pr=-1965 Ll::ic:nQCEL:pe c'la irre '.hid, are subject to the statute, of Lirni t.at ions at 28- ,

u.s.c. § 2415. ' On AL'gUSt 12 the Justice Dep=...l.bent su....'"':r.itted for oura?~roval a draft cof.plaint seeking to qui.et; title 11 to four allot:ments0:1 tbe Leech Lake Rese.....""Vation in l.1J.n.'1escta "'''hich had been tax-fo!..£eiteaafter t..'1e allottees were issued fee patents wi t..hout their a?,?lication orCO!1S~'1t. A decision is now' needed on \'r~id1 farced fee pat.ent, cl2..LLIS, i£CIT:!, should be re0:::>rrrnen::3e<3 for litigation. fur the reasons set forthnore fully bela.-7, ,~ '!"eo:mrne.riJ. tl}at, wi.th a few poss ib'le exceptions, allfozced 'fee patent; cla.ims' be rejecteCl for litigation.

The Ge"1eral ~~lotment Act of Febzuary 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, 25 U.S.C.§ 331 et~, provided for the allotment. of land to Wividual Ina.iaTlS(c~J.1y by trust patents) \."'hich t..~ . Dnited States would hold fer theuse and benefi.t; of the allottee for a period of 25 .years. D.rrID3 thet.rust, period, .the lariis were ,exenpt; fran state ad valorem taxes 2:n:3 ''I'2re

1/ 'Ibe Depazrtrnent; of Justice re:::::s::aneP.'5s against seeking trespass carrages,believii1g the chance of recovering anything rrore than rcmi.nal, Qc:2ge5 isvery poor; 'Ihe quiet title suit w:mld not be barrred b"j L.~E st.atirte ofliJ-;ritatio!1s. See 28 U.S.C. § 2415(c). Bence, t..f)at port.i.on or rheseclair;s which 'h'Quld be barred by the runTling of t..1Je statute of lr-::itationson D2cen"Jer 31, 1982, appear's to be .inconsequerrt.i.a'L, N2vert.'lel~s,

because these claiiis have been processed as pert of t..l-Je Depar'treent, 1 sstatute of Lirnitaticns.. procram, they continue to be the subject, of interest,are .,,7ill no 60ubt be a to?ic of the two L'?CXQins Congressional O"J'2rSig'hthearings. .

. : ' .....;.: . .

.... . -: ' .:

-2-

7.~~~~ct to rG3trictic~s 2Gai~st c~ien~tion. ~i5 ?erio~ ~as o£t~; eh~~ed'- • .:•• ":>......-I-.: ..~ 0'-.-"'::>"- "U~;.. ,.... s: J"""',=,"l 1 ar"l.~ ?~ ::'-'-~t .,,,c C"".-.+-.;~ .... ? of.. - c.·,,·_""""""'_J.. ..,.~ s-: A_c.. ..._- """_ ,""",~,1- '_I r _ .... '-., ...,-a. .-'~ ...... }_..... .._'\,;.,_ ..... ..L"-"l.,..... J_

~;:.,., T,..,..:;l·"" .... r..oo· "',..,i.,.""..... Io .;........ 0';:: 10":lA ')- T' c r: . '" ~c" xt; ~~ '" . "; _. 't 1_. _ 1".. ~ ... ,., • ..~'- J,..';iv..t t. ....__ l.. '-In i»_l. .t.. :J"",,-::, ,..~~ ., ••.••._. .: ~''''' __I e.,. e.:f.. :2"a l"1'"...'2rln~ e '\7virtU?~J.y all trust, 0'=rio~s t 1, en in existence, inclLlji~ t:iose "/.1ici1 ha:i .~~~ 2~t'~~~ by e~e~~tive ~=~~s.

::;'e l:.et of !:.':ay e I 1906, 31 St2.t. 182, 25 U.S .C. ~ 3~9, ~-"}:s-::3 'b.~2 (;o-n-:ral.; ..?~11otre.:"'1t 1'.ct by author i z ino trie Secretr.n:y to iS5U~ a ;;atent L11 fee

si:-;pl~ befoxe the expiration of t.'r1e trust peri05 if 'b.'1e Se·...:!.'2tary '\'35

satisfied triat an LTJ.oian allottee was CO:-rP2t<:8t 0..11:1 ca=:a.l:Jie of rna..iJ2oimhis or her a;..:n a£:fairs. 'Ihis ]...ct al.so exPressly ;!rovid2d that titer t:.;e>:-a:t.e:'!t in fee s irml.e h~ been issue:') to such z.llotLo.e "all restric""...io?lS'as b:> s;;le, inC'_~!2,raEce, O~ t2}~atio~ of ~i6 lcl..-=J Eh2~1 be r5DV~:1.n Asa result of this .Act, c:::>:."TQetency, ccnrni.ss ions l,>2re estehliSl.'!erJ t.o det.ermine

• .....h ,~" ~ al 'T ~, • Id be' - ~ '. ~ t 'Th • 1.1::',o?l:"l~W.er ~n:Cl.Vl.QU _n:-ne_n..s snou _, a.ssueo r ee p::',\-en s , me l>.ct J.tse J.

.. ' -.l. '-.r:::.r::: 1.,........,1 " .l. ' 1-.:, ~.. T....,;:l , ~ ~. •C1.:: TDl.. :;?r0V1.Q2 ror :.LO~ ~e- 2;;-:..-'-_~QOi1S ~.:t cnose _ ......Br"S re;'..le5 l....l..;'; SUc:.12. ~~1t ;'.:.):::' did it establish .a11Y proce6s:::es ct: criteria by ·,·me:.'1 the2ecretary yic..s to .deterr.~ CD:'fietenc:,{_ It 1ezt fre;e !:'atters solely toti'~e ~isc:-etion of the Secre:tar'I_

'[,:aJTJ £P.? -:::Btents vl2ie h:.sueG to In:3ia':1 al.Iot.tees even tl'xrJOh thev hadJ:'Jt- a??li;;'':; ixs: the fee pat.ent , arr:3 .in scree CO"-Se5 the Lssuance of rnef'?e patent t-Tcl.S contrary to their expressed wi.shes , 'Ibe Lssuance of fee

C,' patents by the ~tet'"lCY cormi.saions proved to be 510:'( oJ15 cirroersccne,2:'3 b2ci nni.no in 1917 t.'1e DraC+....ice becarre to issue fee caterrts to allallot.t~s of -one-hal.f or ~~s Trdian blood. Drrin:; t.'r1e-pericd friJ':'l 1917tc 1920 approxirnat.ely 10,OOa fee pat.ent;s -were issU"'....:J to Indian allottees~cit.lro'Jt their aP,?lication or consent,..

In l?12 the S\1?r6lE Cbu..rt held t..hat a trust .allOtz\2;"!t, .....i.th its g-J.CU..-antee:3.tax e..xe~t stat...lS, is a \teste:! property right "bid1 cannot,' be divested1::T.!C0:1qressional act.ion unaer the due pr0c2SS requirerrents of t..1Je Fifth·F-.::en5'7ie..l1t. C10ate v. TrarD, 224 U.S. 665 (1912). In 1923 the United

,...~ s: ---, .c '-h ":T' t:h C· 't l' ,. ~---States ,-,,-,urt 0 .... P-i:-'.!:-~s J.or L.:. e .!.dn lrClll, re YliY:j 111 part Oi:l ~r..>c1te,

hcld tQElt t:.'1e Clv\7euliltent c:mlc1 not d€:P.:ive an L"1di2n of i~..!!'..itv fro::nJ . _ _

t2y...c:t.icn by issuinq pate.."1ts L"1 fee ....-ithout ~lic3tion or O:::>:'"1S2I1t, by t118-, lo7--I-e'" T1-..1·torl cta+-es ';T ocn='=~ r''''''''n-!-<L·;- 1..:<2.1---- 20 n F r.?P (O>-h Cl'rc..1.__ .... ~. v.I. ... __ .. ~ '- • _~_ _lC;.'i'-J,.,;,L ,_-..J~ L.\, v:.r.....J, J" . . • \J_,"-, J'--. __

1 " " "' ) -,.., . r...... J.. .l. • • • -' ~ t +-~._~L-.> _ .in .r:'.enet:JC..t'1 UJtJ::>.LV a c;:x;peLency ~~SS~cr.1 r;ac, lSStJe.:J '\':0 ?a_eTIL-S

in fee u..ryler t.iJe aut:.lority of ti'~e 1906 l\ct to IrdiE!'1S of the O::>eur a' ;'~ene:Res,=rvatioLl. 'Ihe In~ian allottees l>..ad rot y..a5e a,!-'licc:.tioLl for the fee~-::...~ts &n~1, in fact, re:C-used tc aCC2pt the.:li... 'Ir1e CO'..1rt stated t:;J.at"bile Cbnsress cbulB re...mve restrictio:1s against alienation Kit..f)O'.Jt: t..'1eL"}':3i:::.~lS consent,' citing "::illiCS15 ~T. JOO!lS07l, 233 1].5. 414 (1915), t~e, , +---".l. .l..' t - rty' -l-..... •• • 1 - ~-, \-..-..2-:-P;:-Ut::'r' .LL,-),:Il L.2..Y,a ...~on lS a T,i25 eC1 prope rl'::.h. '\';:u,m COll.!..O vuV ~

d.iv~ste:j u!i:3.er the 190(j ~)ct by tne In6ia..TJ.' s arulication for or (x)~--l1t

to t:~e issu2..!1ce of tile '£ee potent."

1'".

-'.z,

..~ ..: ." :

:. ':

....-.-r-

.~.s a result of t:.1e dec'is ion in :3e;)€!'t-:-s.:1 C01.l.."1ty, ce:1~rr:-c=ss e..'13ctE:!."1 the so­c~11e:3 "Cance.Hation !-.cts." by the l~t of ?e':>run.ry 26, 1927, 44 St2tt.1?~7, '25 U.S.C. ~E; 352a, S1.JJ::sesuently a.72rr5e:i ~{ the .kt of Fe~ru?l:"Y 21,lq::n, 2t; U.S.c.. G 35?j-.lt Conr:rre~s. Dm'Jir.ec. em a::-ruT'istrc;tive r.~iv :tor

- ". .4 -

farc2d ie-:= uatei1t.s w"hi6 authorizes the EY2creTcw...'2", under li..-:-it.ed ci.rcire-stiances , to csncel, t..~se pate..'1ts \'mid1 '0]2re issued ~-lith:X.1t ~~e consent

• or ?;)-.)lication of the allottee l ..-efore the ex::>iration of the trust period,, ~e' 1927 Act, 25 U. s.c. § 3526:,1 '!?E:D:'its cance'l.Lat.ion vi'!ere t.:.t:e Ioo'ian

has not, !!Drtga~ or :::-010 any p~rt of the al.Iotr-ent., 'L'1e 1~31 .Act,25 U.S.C. § 352b, p2u-;d.ts ca..."'1cellat.ion of t..:.'1e fee patent, a"'J.'3 reissuculGec~ a t-r:i:lst patant; \.7it.'"l re;:;:-J'2ct to those parts of the allotEnt ~:~,1ich theallottee has not sold a.'l:: \-:11ich are nee encimbexed ~Jit.~ en unsatisfie:3r::!::}!:t~:ase. me 1931 ~ct also contains a provi.so ili~t t..1le fee pacent; CCLl1

r-ct be C?..:."1C211E3 '\'~1ere t..~e allot.ted Lands h3\T2 been saId for urrxrid taxes.. • - - .t=t ....' all' s: h 1 1 ~ rt ~, .-"'~11.c::1 '-2!:"e assessee C4. er ,-,-1S O1: ....ee 22-:: so Q or ITO l..g~g'2<J me p:r:D?erty,or sold it. to s2.tisfy a jUdc.:.n2-'"1t incurred &iter the date of cny such~~t.S'~e or sale.

'b.'1e l0Jislative history of the "Cance.Ll.ation F-Z-l-Sn reveal.s that Conqress.; ntEn."le:5 to pc.rtially CJrrect fhe vzrcnqs causef ~l tbe illl":??al forcingof fee l;-)""ltents tJ?:)l1 allottees wi.thout, thei.r a'.";>lication or consant.,CbIT..o;L.ess restrictea t...~e &~cret~ls authori.ty to C3J1C0l pat.ent.s to s i.tuat.ions'...,-;;ere the patentee had not yet voluntarily 0016 or :T.Ortgag2::3 t..1-le allol::m2nt,asst.-s;inq that U!l:3er princi-s>les of real prG;?'2rty 12.'.<] vo.lunt.ary encurorencesof laT1G r ty sale or "!Tortgage, w::::>Uld const.i.tut.e accept.ance of t.."1e oat.ent.,~.R. Rep. No. 1396, 69t~ Gong. 2~d SC-SS. 1 (1927). ~s a result, i~7

1939 only 470 of the origL't1a.l 10,000 forced fee patents had been cancelled::x---rsu~t to 25 V.S.C. §§ 352a and 3520. H.R. '!€'O. 'No. 659, 75L~ Cong. 1st.sess. 5-6 (1939).

'7.7.1e forced fee "9-~terlts ,,:hich "7ere never csncal.Ied are t...he smject of t...i")is!il2:.7C::::c::!1du::n. '1he-i have resurfaced as part. of the D2pe"l..~nt's efforts to

. iCientifv a..110 process pre-1966 In::iian darr.a.q2 cl.airas , ?2o:ior.al and Fielc.<:olicit.C!:"S, using "n.eely 'varying c-.citeria· over t...he last -several. years,have ioeiltified a~.T;J!.o::dJ~tely 2,000 forced fee patent, c12i..~ for p:JSsiblelitigation.

-';:"(.'1ile Co::.qress iTeY re::nve restrictio:.1.s aca.inst; a.Li.enat.Ion of In:li~"1. Lands~'t·i:t..1-x:YJt the allottee's consent, Fillia:::1S·v. Joo!"::SCY.!, 239 u.s. -il? (1915),i t :m~ n:>t re;rove the if.'m.mity fro::n t.axation curing the t.rust, p:=ri;:x!. 'IheG..~ e~'2;:pt st.atus of In:lian tzust; alIotrents is a, vest.ed pr0/2rty righto::b5 d1 att.a.d1es to the Land and continues durin? t.:.'1e trust ??riod or l.L"1tilt.~(. allottee no longer .retains t.."1e title and o~~sers..i-)ip of 't.'1e land. D-lringt.'J,=,' tr.lSt j?-')ricx3" the In.::1ian allottee cannot, be divestej of th i.s propertyri¢t \'-7itho~ b2in; affo-rdeO. due prDC2.SS of la;·~. C:~oate v. Tra'iJ':), 22<1

'J .. ~ ;:;...--...;)-

-t.-

II.S. 665, 677-7':. (1911). Force-:3 fE'Y.:! !-'::lte.o:.ts h?ve s-?e!"l held to ~ ';r.~i:5

on..ly if isSi.101 irccn t1"'le allottee t 3 CQ.:Jlication or ccnsent , f.kli ted S"'"t..ates\7. Derr-::-;,'<5h Co.mtv , sucra,

1- .t=;"pr c» ...actraent, of tl'o n.....ancal.Iat.Ion "',n"'-" a .,...--..... -- of ~-e...- -~ ~~~ L._ -.J,\..oo.,-~l!...... .:... .. _ \....c. ... l _ aL ':L !~'-.:::>, J.U.Ao:.H':_"'::J.. 1. \...(A...~,:> O..J...v.::;>c u:z

virtue of the Secretr.>.:ry having caneal.Led fee pat.ent;s u.'16er t."r-J.e aut.:"-Jority- • of 25 U.S.C. § 352a or § 352::>, wi.th the Unitea Stat~5 later suing to quiet,

- title to the property 2..tXl to r'eccver ~es paid t..'":l the count.Les , 'Ihecentra.l issue in all these cases \0.0.5 \';bethGr t.~e InjiaT1 allottee vol.untani.IyCJZ"L~ted to or accepted the fee patent., ':!he elIot-tee t s consent, wasdetemine:3 fI:an all of the f~C+-....s a.-n cirClp\st.a.!1~s surroundt...D-] both theLssuance ard a~'1C2 of the patent, vbicil rec.ruired t.'le court to considerthe allotteets state of rr:L-il, kr;:Y.de-:iS-=, and ir..,telligence. 5oa.rd ofO:':f:F>.issio.ners of Cacl50 Coonty v. tlnite:3 States, 87 F .2::3 55, 57 (10their. 1935); f.nited States v. Frist:',ee, 165 F. Suf-J? 883, 889 (D. ~bnt., (\r:::S)· n..... ;te..::; st.at.es V ~:;",'7 D,::. ....ce "~,,""'k: Tr.::>~,"", 0;:; P -,"~ 2-:)? 2-',':. (,",J-h-I.-.."':~......I , ~L.L ~"":-I'_ ~ • J,"- __ ••~ _-'- "-'.,;":....:...1.1.\"'" _'.-L.....u,="J, _ • ..." .:. / ......_~ ..J_ I ..Jv -=-' '-'..

Cir. E~38); t.nitei States v • .le\-:ls County, Ids:-lO, 95 F.2d 236, 240 (9their. 1938). ·-L'1 virtually e.veLy case, the allottse was a\l~ila!)J.e totestify as to his or her Lack of consent.,

It is clear that, an a.llottee' s refusal to .accept. trie fee patent d~n­sC::'ates a lack of consent., flni ted States v. "3ene",'2:'l Cbuntv, suorarDrlited States v. f30.::'..rd of Cccrnissioners of ecr:-ale::-= County, 6 F. Supp.4.01 (~.D. G-"..Ia. 1934). Li.1te-ilise, trie !\'Y2!:"e signing of a receipt forthe fee patent does not; o::mstitute consent, to Lssuance of the fee-n.~f-en';- -, ~... ;f-"';:: <::.tates v ~"",....~ of CO":"\...... r f'"'-.~;ss.;"'.... "',...c -0::>,....-.= (l-".,.,..,tv~'- \.-e lii.J..l..~""-l.... • .l~ ... , _ \-C._'--' \...LJ ..lt.l,;.J.. ~·.Lr~~_, _ ....... \ ..... __ u- ~.=. _ I

13 F. 9~. 641 (N.D. ada. 1936); Eoard of Ccrr::Ussio':1ers, Caeeo Countyv. '_hited States, supra, Furtherrrnre, t.f':le allotte'2'S voluntary pay;:nentof tzxes to 2.TV'Oi d the possibility of a tax foreclosure is not suffi c.ierrt ,an an:l of itself, to c.eterrrJ.ne \>;71ether the allottee had voluntarilyconsented to or accepted the fee patent at the t~"72 the taxes \-vcre p::lid.L'Dite:i States v. !'~z Perce Cbuntv,· Idaho, suora , 95 F.2.d at 236.

!>-..t least b-iO courns have held t.~t no action taken subsequent, to t'l)eissuance of a fee patent mayo::mstitute ronsent; r'ather , the C:)DSe..'1t

rrust; nrecede t.'I1e issuance of t.l)e p::;tent. Dni te:1 States v. l::ez Perce County,16 F .-- SuP::>. 267 (D. Idaho 1935); Glacier Countv v. ?ris:xe, 16~ J?2d171 U'b::1t-~ 1945). p.a:12ver, t,.;Q court.s have also ::::16 that ,·bile asale or rortga-ge of: any p.-::rrt of an al.Iotment; by t~,= 2.1lottee Goes rotconc.lusive'ly establis~"l consent., it 'E'~y ~:-stitute e'.Ti~e!1ce that; a-qa.te!1t had been' accented. thite5 Stc<t~s v. Frisbee, 165 F. SUco. 2-33-("" ~...'.......,...,l- 19· t::l'). T-,..,~t--~~ <:: ...- ....os v r-l-Cl"<=or ,...."',,"' ...... r tlt 1:;' Q;~ 7- j=;.:.,...• _J..J;J.,-_ ....f.) I \...";;'J,..L ~...l L· \-aL._ • _. a _ ~-":.l\...) I - -. ~""'~~75."';. .._

( !l "D.,..,t 10 "7) In t"r--.~ ....~ C't-;:o ....oc:. V t:'.-'; C""~-..=.<:> ....'"'c. allo+-t= -r-v-v tr-~i..". ;.- ':'1. ~'!:. .. lJJ':',.L.L.t:._" t.f_,-",.L.__ • 1::-,.J.,.~~, u"''- ...... ";:;"~ •......, ::<...:.~~=. __a Fortio;) of her- 324 acres follry.·:in:j .is.su~nce of t!1e pe.t'2TIt. 111em:::=t9age i-"!aS eventually foreclosed and t.l-)e rt'"Bi.'12er. of th8 prD?2r:ty\"~ t.3...~-forfeite¢! to tl1e. county. ']11e T:bited S'""l.-Cltes so~?ht to cancelan:1 quiet title to t..'1.at portion of tt~e alla~"1t ~~ch had 1"Y:=2n

-5-

'(..:::.;~-:EOL.';:€ite5. ~·:;·lile ~;,e court focused to S07~ EXt8i1t on t1-)2 allottee'sstate of :.in~, 1G171le:1ge , a~j L~telligencc re;~eing her acc=~~~~

0::: O!:" Car1S~'"1t to t:.~e fe? ~atent, the court con2llX3e-.-'l tnat t.~e orovi.so;.." ~~~.:'"'~ ~~"')~ """'~":'lo""'t"l"::~~ +-'h.o ~J"":l"""""'I"":!"'-:::~J .f=~ ~",,",,~1';""""'" +-hr.:> ~'":)~t':')'Y""\.&- ~~_~ .. .. --- t:"'---..... """". __.... -...- ..,_\0.,,__ '-""'...... _"""' ....... ~ .... -......--.. ... ~~ ...;:; """'- ..- y...4_-...."f.". _

to t~le rer.ainiT10 li.l1€nC1R;'-ere:1 Lands since sum Lerris \-?e!:"e sold forunpaid taxes after t.1-)e date of the TiDrtgage •

. .,~iscu~sion of Litiqation r~os~=cts

tTCO the foregoing ana'lys i s , it is clear that an enforceable quiet titleaction exists \,,'here a fe-2 C3.t~"1t was issued to an allottee ~vithout applicationor: consent , a!'}'1 ~'1e !:Lv~ ect:)7 L;,t-as later forfe:i..tei for no,:,,!?3~~nt of t.axes ,If t'1e l;r0perty was never rrDrtgaSjea or sold subsequent to the Lssuanceof tl12 patent, the Secretrry would have trie authorLty to a~nist..'C.tively

Cancel the patient , In addit.ion to the four Leech I0J~~ allotn=>.J1ts ~,nid1

2!:'2 the su:'ject. of t;';e Just.ice ~"2~Dt's draft c..J,::')J.aint., t,.~er~

are r~rh"3.:?s no rrore t.~an lOO c'Laircs D?tio'JT.·:ide v;h.id1 f-:ill ·.-i'it"1in thi.scatesc..J.t.~T•

In Lite vast; r:ajority ·of the outstanding forced f.ee pate.;1t ol.aims , afterreceiving the fee patent , the allottee e i thez rold or rrortqaq2d all orpart; of the al.Iotment , L'"1 fhose situations Y:nere only a portion of t:.tre

7. patient; was rrortgaged. or sold, the re;naiIl.i.'19 Lands vere often tax-forfeited.~~ethc=r a 521 e or rrortgage constitutes 1?J-""(X)f that t.~e allottee conserrcedto t':le Lssuance of t:.~e fee patent de;:x=n::s 0:.. t.he facts c..,-y.! ci.rcurestancessurrourrrinq the iSSTIaT"Jce of the patent. 'lhis inference of consent; v.DU1dbe difficult if not i1IFOssible to refute. I!Dre than 50 years have paseed .s ince the issuance of the for'ced fee pat.entzs , It is reasonable to aastreetr.at in nearly all t.'1e ]?2rK1LTlg claims t.~e I.'1dia."1 allottee is now deceasedaJl:1 ·t:.~·ms unavailable to testify as to his or -her lack of consent; or non­acceptance of t.'I1e fee patent. t-breover, any other perscm; h2Uing directkn::r.de5se of the allottee 1 S lack of consent, or the allottee's lack ofe5ucation, degree of intelligence, and un..'3ers1:a..""riin} are probab.ly al.sodeceased,

Sectio,."1 22 of the Traoe aID. Intercourse l'_ct of 1834, 25 U.S.C. § 194,s~ifts the burden of proof to i10~Indians in Li.t.Lqation ';lith Insiansi;l'JOlvi..lq title to real -:Jro".J2rVl once L"1e India.:'1 T;'l~;-0S o it; a uri~ faciecas-... of nrl'or t.La, le 0·... ~SS;"C-l·o-n ~"""" F'l·lc....n T1 rI-..:>'-.;:. T,..,r;';"01 '7"l-1'!-->.-:>-.....~ .!- _J l- J... :"~"-'__ '-_ ...... :::> • l.---:;;~ .·t c>,.•.o ". \~..:t--'.1._ ~t.- .. .,LC-.·... ,.!.. .... !.·-r

<142 u.s. 653 (1979). F:O~:1'2ver, af't.er the oorr-L"1:tian has C_~:'P- fon;crrj,,,"·it.'1 evirience of bis chain of title, including t..'1e iSS'..l3J1ce of t..1-.te feepat.ent; to tJ'1e ;::11ottee, the enited States t¥Ou1:3 ceruai.nly have t!12 burdenof intro:1ucing some eviaenoe estzblis..1JinS the fact t..~at the c.llottee aidnot; c:J:"1Se.'1t to or 'accept the fee natent. '!his burden is not Insurrrountebl,e,-.:ben t:..i)e allottee has ~.oicej hi~ objection to receivi.'"lg the '03t'2.:.'"lt andtal:es ro action \\-"hich could be eonstzued as acceptance- ho; ..:ever, ~~-I1

t,1;e allottee has sold or TIOrtgaged the allot::m2..'1t, such sale or rrortgagew:mla rrost; certainly raise at least an inference of consent; or: acceptance

..

,- ....--'

·..::i.c-: ,·:ill b2 '2~tr'~-:lSly difficult. to r::=Dut ~:LV2n t:-.e l;:~: of e~.ri:::~.,ce

re-?c-.::-:5in;I e-le ~7J1I.:Uit.arine5s of tJ1e sale or rrortaar;-2. In,:1(~i, 02Ve:1 "1itl-tontE:\ l~'c:er sale or ?:Drt.qaq2 by the allot.tee, the :-Erp. <l:>SE"=i1C2 of a consent;:o~, or. c.??licr:t.ion in the ;,llot:Ji'¥?nt fiJ.eis t~in nr:rx>z of em involu..'lt?lt"(or ";-::JrC'".:=Q fee") pat<=""1t over GO years c.fter t..~e event. t·breo""er, cie ..feet tI~a.t no cenceLl.ation action was ta~e:1 by the DepCI brent after t..'1e

.. G.:'16.ct::':Y=:it of trie Cancellation Acts crives rise to t~ Inference that; there'.':3::;' • ..:J basi,s for such action at tha.t ti"!:. P.5 ~it..~sses die, ti1e casesCi'!!1 only becYi"li2 "·?eaker.

7:1~re are: other fo.c....1..OrS ;':eiJ~ing ag2..inst litig-atiCr.j, of b'1ese c.Lairas , 'lhe::r...st i'1'PJrta.'1t is that fe'fl L'l1:1icms IT~ cain oIT} rneasirraal.e benefit in theevent, quiat; title act.ions are successful. Sin~ fhe properrty has IDt been~;T1istere:3 by the Bure=.u of L"1dia,1J. .l)f"fairs fcr.r: a half century or rrore,it r.L."""Y D2 o.i££iC'.1lt, if not. L-r::?Ossible, to iCie."1tify me le:lit~:ate beirsaf.· ele ol:i.ginnl allottees. Cer-l.-2L..,ly V2rj fe:,:- haV2 c::xor.:: for;·srd to2.i'.70S2.t'2 trie ?.J.rsuit of these cl.aims, ':G.ie qr-eat !:Cj·:)rit.y of trie cl~rr.s

r-.?~.r2 been identifie:=1 t.'1rou¢l an exzrainat.Ion of ED\. files t:{ offici.2.ls oft.:.1E 2:?e.l1CY or by parsons \..T3er contract. ~~""1.2 if t..~e heirs C3.D be identified,D~~Y "82y 1:>9 so n~-:.:2rcIUS C).j').:1 sc.atterej across t.."Je count.ry t.:."--lat p-r:o:1uct.iveuse of th-:= old alIotrue..!"J.t. lIB,! be very uifficult to echieve , Ea"i':-2 trii.-xs.hava e7.?re:ss.=:: inte~Gst in the acquisi.t.icn of such allo~nts as c::n:t oft..~eir lc~r?_1Jge Land consoli.dation progra:;ns. But the tri!:>2s t...'1e..I~elves

have DO legal cf.airn to these Lands;

Fihally r the c.1aiJ1S of title to t,.1-).ese parceLs rc»: ext.end over 60 years ,EY.pect.atio!1S have Cev210?=6 L"1 t.:.'1ecurre..1J.t larrl.'101aers that; tl1eir titieis secure. Ho~-?ever, unlilce some other; Imian Land cl.aims '\'tliC:.'-I "carneout; of t.."1e blue," e.~., the eastern tri.l::81 cl.aims , the forced fee patent.clci~ nave been a matter of record since Cbn:;ress a:5::l.ressed t1:1e probl.ern50 years agG- only a feT..·l· years after titles becan C12nging hands,PLLrt..'1err:ore, a title trace:3 back to a t.ax for:feiture is an in..h.ere..'1tlyu,,""St-G~le ona, and c.rrrerrt r2cod title holders can be fairly saic tobe O!1 constructive notice of the possibility of a defect. ,~~ are not;c:;::are of the ext.ent; to ,,:hich any of these titles are Insured, Since thepro'al.ern exists in a aal.f Cozen or zore states, title Insurance practicesD'J OCY ,t..,t Vt3:r::y.

-7-. .

l) 'Ihere is credible evidence, either docu:nentary or testirronial,of the cllottee I s lack of consent to the i ssuance of the fee patent. 'Ihismust be nore than the rrere absence of an appl i.cat.don form in the allot::mentfile. A later sale or ITDrtgage of the property by the allottee should betreated as evidence of prior consent, though it may be rebutted by clearand convincing evidence that the sale or ITDrtgage was forced upon theallottee as the result of a tax lien or execution of a jUdgment.

2) The pot.enti.a'I Indian beneficiaries of the claim nust beidentified, and ~hey must be available and interested in putting theprop2rty to productive use, which may include a voluntary sale to the

.. t r ibe authorized by either 25 U.S.C. § 379 or 25 U.S.C. § 483. If thenirnber of heirs is numerous, and no one heir holds TIDre than a one-eighth interest, there must; be clear and convincing evidence that theheirs fully intend and are prepared to make beneficial use of the propertyif the lawsuit is successful.

3) The current title holder did not" acquire the property as aresult of a representation by an official of the D=parbnent to the effectthat the title was sound. ?Zl exarrple of such action. \-'"ould be a letterfrQ~ an agency official to a title insurer or a prospective buyer, advisingr.ha t no claim will be brough t by the U. S.

we recorrrrend that all Lhree of these criteria be met before a qJiet titleaction be pursued. "'1he same criteria would, of course, a!?i?ly to anyadministrative cancellation of a fee patent ~'l5er the authority of theCancellation Acts. Sorting out periling claims to determine whether thesecriteria will be met may take considerable time, but quiet title actionsare not subject to the Decerrber 31 statute of limitations, and the Depart­ID2nt of Justice has indicated that it does not intend to pursue thetrespass damage aspect of such claims because of the small Li.ke.lihood ofcollecting any worth......nile sum.

I concur

"'

" . .....;,- ". ' -.~

~-•.• : ...~~{_ ..~.. .-...j,.

United StatesDepartment of the Interior

REPLY REFER TO:

OFFICE OF TEE SOLICITOR

FEB 22 1980

:i PLAINTIFF'S,I EJ(~ITif

To: Steve Fre:3enthal, E::teO.ltive Assistant to the SecretaI:y

Fro:n: . A~Jng Associate Solicitnr

,. ~.ty S li . '-- -C-"';:-":'"IE.aIC1\. l~._ :F:w\.GUSQNThraJg.:l: 1~ 0 QU-Jr .~ .----

Subject: Da;:;-ages figures on certain catega::::-ies of 2415 claks

At eat" February 20, 1980 r:e€ting with 10.1 am others, ve agre-ed to fumis..l-:lcbllar L'1fom.a.tion on ~ c:a t.e::;o::::ies of 2415 C:c1r.age ciaL""'S J ustice \.1"is..~

to avoid filing suit on and upon -..±lid1 they suggest 'We seek legislative'solutions. My fWings are as follo,.,'S:

r: categar:v 1. Old Aqe BP-.nefits Refun:3 R.eo:1Yery Clain'S

Catecpry 2. Utilitv Service and Road Ri9ts of Way ClaiJis

Catecxp:y 3. Yi'hite Earth title Clair.s

$2,138,180.00

380,464.26

1,514,445.00~ ,033 7090.09

!~/.., /-.-/ -

~a."'S Walker, Jr.

A rrore detailed breakOO.m of the foreg:Jirg categ::rries are shean inthe at~e~:r <Eta sufPOrt sheet.

In a:3dition to the fore'goin;r Justice ~vises us that their litigationcost; wo..l1d be abcut $620 rOOO.

Atta<±rent

_ f

~..

DATA SUPFORr SHEET

Categ0J:Y 1. Old Age Benefits Refund Recovery Claim.:;

a) Sooth Dakota, 1842 identified claimsMiscellaneoos and unidentified claims

b) Nebraska, 28 identified claimsMiscellaneous and unidentified claims

. .

c) Montana, 690 identified claimsMiscellaneoos and unidentified claims

d) Wisconsin, 24 claimS against 11 CQ..mtiesH.iscellaneoos and unidentified claims

e) . MinneSota, 46 claims 'ag2dnst 10 countiesMiscellaneous and unidentified claims

f) New YOD<:, 2 c Ia ims against scat.eTotal

$1,194,520.5590,000.00

14,934.601,500.00

462,657.97310,000.00

$27,028.80-0-

28,877.353,661.56

5,000.00$2, D8, 180. 83

Category 2. Utility Service and Road Right of Way Claims

a) Roads - 981 c.la irns against D counties in the Dakotas,est.irrat.ed damages value-of

b) Roads - Undetermine::3. rmroex-of claims in Minnesotaand Wisconsin with estirrated damages value of

. . ..c) Utilities - 510 c.Ia irns against 3 Ccops in South

Dakota, estimated damages value of

d) Utilities - Undetermined nurrber of claims in Minnesotaand Wisconsin with estirrated damages value of

. Total

$110~357.26

$146,800.00

$ 68,807.00

$ 54,500.00$380,464.26

Category 3. Damages aspects of White Earth titie claims

Total

a) 53 claims suhnitte::3. to Justice w'ith appraised damages

b) 66 claims sul::mitted to Justice withoot appraised damaqesbit wi th damages

$714,445.00

800,000.00$1,514,445.00

/

"~"]i,1 , - - u

STATOLL~ - Type Codes

...= PI.AINTlFFI.Sl EXHIBIT- _ 1I == -

I. TRESPASS TP

1- TP-AGR

2. TP-BDS

3. TP-DFG

4. TP-FBI

5. TP-GRZ

6. TP-IFS

7. TP-JliB

8. TP-KHD

9. TP-LCB

10. TP-HCD

11. TP-NUB

12. TF-PUD

13. TP-RRD

Agricultural trespass

Building or other structure in trespass

Placement of dredge spoil. fill. garbage. etc. intrespass - dumping wrongfully

Fence or other boundary encroachment

Grazing trespass

Inundation. flooding. seepage, etc. in trespass

Road or high~ay in trespass, which road or highwaybenefits the tract

Road or highway in trespass. the placement of whichcauses daoage to the tract

Ditch or canal in trespass, Yhich ditch or canalbenefits the tract

Ditch or canal in trespass, the placement of whichcauses damage to the tract

Utility line or pipeline in trespass which linebenefits the tract

Utility line or pipeline in trespass, the placementof which causes damage to the tract

Railroad in trespass

II. CONIRACI CI

1.

2.

3.

CI-BRE

CI-ULP

CI-WPT

Contract breach

Claim for unpaid lease rentals, permit fees oreasement consideration

Claim for old age assistance or other ~elfare

payments made from trust estates

ill. TITLE II

1. II-ARI

2. II-CFP

3. II-FFP

4. II-ICF

5. II-LDI

6. II-NRA

7. II-RSU

8. II-SIS

9. II-IFI

10. II-WPB

Cla~ to tidelands, accreted or relic ted lands

Cla~ for recovery of land in trust or restrictedstatus ~here prior fee patent cancelled underquestionable circumstances

Claim for recovery of title ~here a fee patent orcertificate of competency issued vithout applicationor consent (forced fee patents)

Claim to trust or restricted lands condemned in statecourt or lost through improper mortgage foreclosure

Claim for recovery of trust or restricted landsimproperly designated school lands or patented ass~amp lands

Claim for recovery of lands not relinquished onabandonment or reverter

Claim for recovery of trust or restricted landssold vithout approval

Claim for recovery of IRA allotments sold by BIAwithout consent of all heirs (Secretarial transfers)

Claim for recovery of lands tax forfeited .~ile intrust or restricted status

Claim for recovery of trust or restricted landssold or distributed to the wrong heirs by a localcourt without jurisdiction

IV. K~Tu~ RESOURCES NR

Wrongful taxation of natural resources

Gravel, fill, minerals or oil and gas removed

Timber removed ~~ongfully

Other harvestable natural gro"Wth, including fish,removed "Wrongfully

Daoage to water quality

Wrongful diminution of available game supplies

Wrongful water appropriation

Dama ge to av a LLabLe "Wild rice or other harvestablenatural gro"Wth

Destruction of fishing sites

Damage.~o fishery resources

Wrongful taxation of land in trust or restrictedstatus

l. NR-APi-i

2. h'R-DFS

3. NR-FRD

4. };X-GHD

5. KR-HNG

6. KR-J\o;Q

7. NR-M1\T

8. h""R-NGT

9. h'R-TBW

10. NR-\·:TX

ll. NR-XTL

STATOLIM - Status Codes

Location codes are:

AGARRSFSSC

AgencyAreaRegional SolicitorField SolicitorCentral Office of the Solicitor

DJVACTCG

Department of JusticeUnited States AttorneyCourtCongress

Activity codes are:

AC - Act.iveRS - ResolvedRJ'- Reject.ed

The Resolved cat.egory should include OhLY those claims no longer.active but not rejected. The Rejected cat.egory consists of thoseclaims not deemed meritorious.

UNITED STATESDEPARTlVIENT OF THE INTERIORBUDGET JUSTIFIC.t\.TIONS, F. Y.1980

;'

.;.~

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BIA-74

Decrease

-202.3(0)

1980 Est.

1,242.2(12)

1,444.5(12)

1980 Base

$(FTP)

Decrease for 1980

Rights Protection

Authorization: 25 U.S.C. 13

Ob,iectives: To preserve the resources and to protect the rights which theUnited States has guaranteed Indian tribes through treaty or statute.

Base Program: This activity attempts to demonstrate the possibilities ofresol vi ng many outstandi ng issues through methods other than 1iti ga ti on. Amajor goal of this activity is to establish the appropriate role of theNation's Indian Tribes in our federalist system and to enable them todischarge the responsibilities which accompany the rights secured to them bytreaty or statute. This will make possible the orderly development andcooperative management of the vast resources of the Nation which are notpossible now because of the outstanding disputes regarding the rights,immunities, and prerogatives of the Indian tribes. Following are ma.io rprograms included in this activity ($000):

The decrease of $202,300 in Environmental Quality Services is attributable tothe estimated reduction in the number of environmental assessments andreviews required.

Statute of Limitations ($3,500.0): To discharge the fiduciary obligations ofthe United States, this program will identify, research, prepare, and filethose claims against third parties for money damages which the United States

______ mus t bri ng before April 1, 1980, or be barred by the s ta tute of 1imita t ionscontained in 28 U.S.C. 2415. Failure to prosecute these claims may subjectthe government to liability. Approximately 600 potential cases have beenidentified. These will be reviewed and meritorious cases referred forprosecution pri or to Apri 1 1, 1980. ~

7'··"foo.() 7': 3d',Columbia River Fishing Rights ($600~: The fishing rights of the Yakima,Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce Tribes were adjudicated in the federalcourts in the case of United States v. Oregon and Washinoton. This activitywill enable these four tribes with treaty fishing rights on the ColumbiaRiver to fulfill their responsibilities and obligations in the management andenforcement of tribal fisheries, and in the management, protection anddevelop~ent of the Columbia River fisheries generally, with three states andthe Department of the Interior. Some aspects of the tribal and statemanagement responsibilities are the subject of the Five Year Management Planagreed to by the state and tribal parties and decreed by the court. Otheraspects of fishing rights are embodied in other multiparty agreements, suchas the Columbia River Agreement for r·1anagement and Preservation of theFisheries of the Columbia River System (signed by the four tribes,

.... z PLAINTJFF'S01 EXHIBIT....~o~ ...L-~

UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS, F. Y.1981

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

.'....

Where negotiated agreements are not possible, this activity provides thehistorical, technical, scientific, and other professional expertise necessaryfor the government to litigate challenges to Indian rights which the UnitedStates has guaranteed through treaty or statute.

It is incumbent upon the Federal government, by virtue of its fiduciaryresponsibility to see to it that Indian rights are not abrogated, lost, orinfringed upon. The majority of the tribes are not financially able toundertake the programs necessary to protect their rights and resources. Aspressures mount on scarce resources, especially water, program efforts mustbe expanded to assure that Indian rights are effectively protected.

Following are major programs included in this activity ($000):

Statute of Limitations ($1,000.0): To discharge the fiduciary obligationsof the United States, this program was initiated to identify, res~arch, pre­pare, and file those claims against third parties for money damages which theUnited States had to file before April I, 1980, or be barred by the Statute ofLimitations contained in 28 U.S.C. 2415. Failure to prosecute these claimscould subject the government to liability. Approximately 9700 potential caseswere identified.

Because of the volume of cases, we are presenting the United States JusticeDepartment with "prima facie" cases. These are essentially protective Buitswhereby we make sufficient showing justifying a suit, but we will needadditional evidentiary studies to support technological facts as well as mereoperative facts; i.e., identifying heirs, title searches, etc.

ANCSA Site Survexs ($1,820.0): Cemetery sites and historical places will beinvestigated for eligibility for transfer as provided by the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act, and eligible sites will be conveyed to the NativeRegional Corporations. These sites must be accurately located, and additionalinformation gathered and verified. For historical places, especially, it mustbe determined if the activity claimed for the area was probable, to the extentthat requirements of regulations are met. Sites are photographed, cornersposted, identification tags provided, and metes and bounds descriptions deter­mined. Field reports are prepared with maps, field sketches, photos. andsigned statements. The reports are referred to the Area Director withrecommendations for certification.

Litigation Support ($2658.0): This activity provides the information andevidence gathering capability required by the United States to successfullydefend the Government's position in litigation involving Indian issues, in­cluding water resource inventories necessary in water rights litigations.Much of the activity conducted in support of litigation is actually directedtoward negotiated settlement of lawsuits to which the United States is a party.In some instances the United States is suing in actions brought on its own'behalf or on behalf of Indian tribes; in others is a named defendant in actionsbrought by third parties; and in others a named defendant in actions broughtagainst the United States by Indian tribes.

( -".. I:l" (

U niteo States Department of the InteriorOFFICE OF TIlE SDLICITOR

Memo-randum:

ROO\t 211- F£D£R.-\L BnLDP.-;GP.o. BOX 5-t9

ARERDEE~. SOl:11-I DAKOTA 57-toI

OCTOBER 5, -1982

PLAINTIFFSEXHIBIT

b

To:

:From~

lie:

Area Director, Bureau of Indian AffairsAttn: Rights Protection

'Field Solicitor

"Forced Fee Patent Claims" Under Statuteof Limitations, 28 USC 2415.

Please find enclosed the SolicitorYs September 30, 1982,memorandun on the above topic. You may note that it statestherein that as a general rule trespass damages viII not besought. The me~orandum also states that quiet title actionsrelating' to such forced fee patent claims are not subject tothe December 31, 1982, statutory deadline. My discussionyith Hike Cox of said office indicat~ that like~ise ta~es

vould be considered monetary claims and vould not be consideredfor suit ~y the Solicitor's offiee.

Fnrthe-r, note that there are a certain group of forced feesthat may be accepted as an exception to the above generalrule ~hen certain facts·have been established. 1 note that

.... z:.any_ :oJ':1 c ur ..s~b!td..t:.~ ed ·75 Cuses. ·cbn.t-2.1.n--.··info r ma ti-o'u-' ~:n:~-'" the .. "- '.first of the three paragraphs contained in the attachedmemorandum. However, I don't believe any of the c~~es

contains information relating to' the second and tb.i.rd_ofthe three numbered p~ragraphs in such attached me~orandu~.

The Solicitor states that all three of those criteria must• t

be ~et before a quiet title action can be pursued. Furtherconsider investigating the amount of consideration paid to theIndian seller, if any, of the subject property, and whether sucheonsideration is close to fair ~arket value~ and vhether suchheirs would return such consideration vith interest, etc.Therefore, I att returning to your office the heretoforesubmitted forced fee cases for further ~o-rk in accordancewith such ~emorandum. Please separate and submit only thosecases that meet the ter~s of such September 30 memorandum.

. /J1£ you have questions or co~~ents. Plcasez.. ~on t hesitate tocontact me , > _~.

-----.....--.-< ..;;-..<..u:h~':>lC:---J~-z1::r' ::::.Th0 In a s

t6e Field SolicLtorEnclosures 75 c La Lms

cc: Regional SolicitorAg~nr;~~p ~~i;r;~~~ n T •