Pandora's Box Opened - NJ Sand Hill Band of Indians files Lawsuit in Newark

Genocide is the charge (2.50 / 2)

being leveled here against the Governor.  This lawsuit is about wiping out a whole people by denying their very existence.  This is a very serious charge.  Any discussion at all on this?  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 00:19:04 AM UTC

unconscionable, despicable and way beyond the pale. (0.00 / 0)

unconscionable, despicable and way beyond the pale.

That is my take on carol h's latest inflammatory, distorting of reality, character assassinating and bold faced lying on line diatribe otherwise known as,

"Genocide is the charge being leveled here against the Governor."

It takes unmitigated gall to post:
Genocide is the charge (1.00 / 1)
being leveled here against the Governor.

I sincerely hope the governor's lawyers and supporters hold carol h fully responsible and publicly accountable for characterizing and depicting Jon Corzine as the chief perpetrator of an extremely egregious and heinous crime against humanity in NJ circa 2009.

Do you, yourself or members of RBD leadership and "Lento compatriots" of carol h stand by and with the charge that she lodged against the governor:  
That Jon Corzine perpetrated genocide against New Jerseyans of Native American descent during his tenure 2004-2009.

Do you endorse the trillion dollar law suit that was filed against the state of NJ. A suit that an elected official on the county committee from Tenafly fervently and proudly supports?

Do you think she has gone too far or not far enough, this time?

---

by: bluewavenj7 @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 05:40:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said - Genocide is the Charge (4.00 / 2)

Read line 314, item 40 of the actual lawsuit filed.

Count 2 - under the Ku Klux Klan Act

"Respondent did conspire and did commit the acts of Fraud, Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity,against the Petitioner, in an attempt to deprive of Civil Rights, immunities and privileges."

I know you want to make this all about me for some reason, but this ain't about me.  I was hoping you would discuss the lawsuit, instead of an attack on the messenger....

There is a reason we teach kids to READ before they WRITE.


One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 15:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said - Genocide is the Charge (4.00 / 1)

One of the important aspects of Responsible journalism is getting the news out to the public and reporting it so that the public can make an informed decision. Below is the Charge as written in the suit and it is being leveled by the NJ Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians and not Carol who is merely reporting it.

This has been filed in U. S. Federal Court and the Courts will be the proper venue for this argument and that is why the NJ Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians has asked for a 3 panel Judge which can only be found in the US Court of Appeals to hear this case.

One does not have to do the actual act of Genocide, all one has to do is conspire and/or cover up the act to commit. Go look up the definition of Genocide in regards to Civil Rights before ranting on blue jersey.

And what if he is guilty?  Have you thought of the ramifications of that?"

COUNT 2

KU KLUX KLAN ACT. OF 1871 CHAPTER 22, 17 STATUTE 13 CODIFIED IN PART AT TITLE 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988, 1985(3), 1983 AND TITLE 18 U.S.C. §§  241

RESPONDENT IN OFFICIAL, AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES

1. Respondent did conspire and did commit the acts of Fraud, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity against the Petitioner in an attempt deprive of civil rights, immunities, privileges.

---

by: liz @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 16:10:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legal Definition of Genocide (4.00 / 1)

http://www.preventgenocide.org...

Specifically note that:

"Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group."

The actual definition of genocide is a concerted policy or set of actions

"to destroy a group's existence"

(Italics, mine.)

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 16:29:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Calm Down And Read The Material.... (4.00 / 2)

...better yet.  Go over the law suite with an attorney familiar with such matters.  The failure of Jon Corzine to seriously and justly address these issues over the past years is the reason it has come down to a law suite.   He had the power to work this out; instead he chose to effectively ignore numerous attempts to get his attention.

Now it's in the court system; and we shall see what happens.  Suffice it to say that the grounds and arguments are strong and that there are solid precedents for this suite being successful.   We are a nation of law.   The indigenous people initiating this legal action are acting well within the law to redress their grievances in a just manner.    Does anyone really have a problem with that?

I suggest you refocus some of your ire on the Governor and the Secretary of State for having horribly mishandled these matters and for seriously underestimating the will to survive of the "New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians" (simply put: the indigenous Indian people of New Jersey).   Did anyone really expect them to just give up, go away and die???

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 17:01:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aside From A Few Ad Hominem Potshots.... (0.00 / 0)

...that don't touch anything of substance; the silence here, so far, can be regarded as encouraging.  Especially so when one considers the high probability that BlueJersey.Com is read by any number of lawyers, government employees and well paid agents of the powers that be in the private sector.  

The lawsuit is real and it is substantial.   It is here for all to read.   There are solid legal precedents for this action.   Carol has put up hundreds of supporting documents over the last few months.

I can understand that this is a stunning and even shocking reality, and one that some folks would rather ignore.

So far, not one document has been discredited, and none of the legal arguments articulated in the suit have been seriously questioned, let alone substantially challenged.

Ultimately, this will all be resolved in a trial or a settlement.   That process can't be stopped, nor can it be ignored away.

We remain, thankfully, a nation of laws.   The days of simply killing people and taking/keeping their land are over in the USA.    

Does anyone here really have a problem with the due process of law taking its course?

If the government is permitted to act illegally against any individual or group and get away with it; that weakens the  foundation/framework of our democratic Republic and is a threat to all lovers of liberty, justice and freedom.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 19:09:29 PM UTC

this is going to be dismissed VERY quickly (0.00 / 0)

and people are going to be lucky not to wind up paying the State's legal costs.

There already has been a Federal court decision about Brotherton which held that it was legally sold.  So, unless there is some new information after almost 200 years or some silver bullet legal theory that isn't going anywhere.

It is highly unlikely that a court is going to equate putting some tribes on a bill creating a Commission with genocide.

It is innovative to say that the State's first constitution isn't valid for some reason.  But, does that mean that New Jersey didn't actually enter the United States or ratify the US Constitution?  If so, then the Federal courts would have no jurisdiction.  That makes no sense either, of course.

The other treaties which are repeatedly referenced are ones that have been superseded.  In fact, some of them predate the founding of the nation so by the logic in this lawsuit wouldn't be valid.

This is a publicity stunt that is going to get even uglier and have a very bad outcome for the "plaintiffs."

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:30:35 PM UTC

Brotherton (0.00 / 0)

was not legally sold, BTW.  It could not be sold except by an act of Congress - which never occurred.  Also, the stipulation that it could not be sold except without a certain number of tribal members consent was never met either.  According to the case of NJ v Wright, April 12, 1886, those lands are STILL exempt from taxation due to being lands set aside for the Lanape-Cherokee.  The land was taken in 1802 because the State of NJ (which we now know - may or may not have been a state at the time) made a law that said it could be done, even though, it would violate the Treaty of Easton and was done without the consent of Congress.

Brotherton was originally created through the Treaty of Easton, which was signed by the Governor of the NJ Colonial Legislature in 1758.
Unlike Treaties with the Western States Native Americans, after the formation of the US, the Treaties signed by the Lenape-Cherokee Eastern tribes, remain in effect and were not "superceded" when the US was formed.

Please correct me if I am wrong Liz,

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 15:03:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NJ (0.00 / 0)

had a temporary constitution, but it was supposed to have been ratified within a few years of the Federal Constitution.  They never got around to it for literally DECADES - the 1840's, in fact.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 15:10:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

two cases in State and Federal courts (0.00 / 0)

Here are links to two cases that show the "claim" to Brotherton is going to be impossible to sustain:

Federal Case DISMISSED:
Civil Action:  05-5710

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulle...

State Case DISMISSED:
375 N.J.Super. 330,  867 A.2d 1222

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulle...

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 17:41:56 PM UTC

cases stated (0.00 / 0)

have read the two cases you mad refrence to. We are not non profit nor are there questions about where we belong in this state. This is our state and are complaints are diffrent from those stated. read the complete history of the Sand Hill and where you choose to look it up, we are who we say we are.

---

by: shadowwalker @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 17:56:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you read them (0.00 / 0)

then you caught the finding that there aren't any true successors to the "Brotherton Indians" so there aren't any groups with a claim to the former reservation.

The other "treaty violations" are going to fall into either the same category or the treaties themselves are moot.

There aren't billions in Federal money that comes to New Jersey to help Indians.

This claim is going to be dismissed very quickly.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 18:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

in the hands of the courts (0.00 / 0)

Well we'll just have to let it play out in the courts. If we win oh well we told you so, and won't New Jersey feel supid because they could have at least talked with us about this, in stead of just dismissing us.

---

by: shadowwalker @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 19:24:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem with the cases you mention (0.00 / 0)

is that neither case is relevant to the just filed lawsuit. You are mixing apples and oranges.  The BIA have ruled that the Nanticoke and the Powhatan have no legal claims whatsoever in NJ because they are not indigenous to NJ.

The Sand Hill had been, always were, and still are, an indigenous tribe, who NEVER LEFT NJ.  The BIA have recognized the Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee as an indigenous NJ tribe.

I want to know why the Governor and the Sec of State are attempting to eradicate the Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians from the history of NJ, while elevating  the status of usurpers on the NJ Commission on American Indian Affairs, who are not even recognized by the BIA?  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 21:53:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

very relevant indeed (0.00 / 0)

When a Federal judge says that there are NO true successors to the Brotherton Indians and a large chunk of the lawsuit is trying to get Brotherton "back," then that is a VERY relevant case.

The fracas about the Commission is not something that is going to be adjudicated and there certainly aren't damages because there is NO money to distribute.

Exactly when did the BIA "recognize" the Sand Hills?  That hasn't happened.  They haven't even made a full application yet.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 23:39:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very relevant indeed (0.00 / 0)

You are talking about treaty law and unless you are familiar with treaty law you do not understand the intricacies involved.  As long as there are descendents, there are successors-- and the only people who can take that claim from the successors, via treaty, is the CONGRESS of the US and the Dept of the Interior which was never done in regards to the Brotherton Reservation.  A federal judge cannot rule whether or not there are successors- it is out of his jurisdiction.

Regarding the BIA.  The Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians was recognized years ago by the BIA as a Federally recognized but unsupervised Tribe.  Recently, they have applied for Supervised status which Chief Holloway made public.  One does not need to be supervised to be recognized.  Example: The Iroguois are a federally recognized nation but with unsupervised status.  There are many federally recognized unsupervised tribes in the US.

Creed:  What is the source of your information because it is completely incorrect? Or is this just your opinion and/or assumption, (which then makes it ok)? Anyone can express an opinion and/or an assumption.

Either way, it will be played out in court.

---

by: liz @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 00:59:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is the citation for your statement? (0.00 / 0)

If the Bureau of Indian Affairs has recognized the Sand Hills then that would be documented somewhere.  They are not on the list of recognized tribes put out by the BIA.  Instead, they are listed as someone who has stated that they will apply.  If YOU have some different documentation, then please post it.

Page 32 of this
http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/of...
shows that the Sand Hills have sent a notice of an intent to file for RECOGNITION, not supervision.

There is not a Federally recognized Iroquois nation, however, there are various clans and some do have Federal recognition.

If you are saying that a Federal judge cannot rule on whether there are successors (and if so, who are they) to the Brotherton Indians, then how do you expect this case to be decided????  And, btw, that IS what happened in the earlier Federal case that I already mentioned.  There aren't any successors today.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 17:29:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

two cases state/federal courts (0.00 / 0)

This suit was filed by the Nanticoke and then followed up by the Stockbridge - Munsee who both tried to claim rights to Brotherton.  The Nanticokes is a 501.c3 and has no jurisdiction in NJ and failed to get recognition by the BIA because they are not indigenous to the State and you can't have what doesn't belong to you.  The Stockbridgt-Munsee failed to produce the correct documents according to Federal Laws regarding Native Americans to prove their claims. They were unable to show prove that they are the descendents of the original Sand Hills. Therefore the judge ruled that based upon the claims of these two tribes there are no living successors stemming from the histories these tribes presented claiming their ownership.  Not that there are no successors!~  GEEZ!

http://www.narf.org/nill/bulle... "As a result, this Court cannot conclude that the Stockbridge-Munsee is a successor to the Brotherton Indians.....For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes the Stockbridge-Munsee does not sufficiently demonstrate that it is a successor in interest to the Indian group for which the
Brotherton Reservation was created. It therefore lacks an interest in this litigation and is
neither a necessary nor an indispensable party. Its motion to dismiss under Rule 19
accordingly is denied. Nonetheless, the Court dismisses this action sua sponte because
Plaintiff similarly fails to show that it is a successor to the Brotherton group. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.  "

This suit has nothing to do with the lawsuit filed in Newark on Feb. 17.  You really don't get it, Creed!

---

by: liz @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 17:17:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you better look at footnote 20 (0.00 / 0)

which refers to the brief submitted at the Court's request by the New Jersey Land Title Association which says that the Brotherton Delaware ceased to exist as a tribe before the sale of Brotherton.  Because of precedent (Maspee v. New Seabury), the Court says that the Brotherton Delaware's

questionable tribe status casts doubt on whether any modern tribe can be held to have succeeded that group.

It isn't a question of who is a 501c3 or not.  Neither of you are Federally recognized despite your repeated, unsubstantiated denials.

This case is a repeat of the earlier case which was dismissed.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 19:23:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

footnote 20 (0.00 / 0)

Nowhere does it say that there are no successors.

You are again misinterpreting.  Re-read it and it deals with the Nanticoke who are not indigenous to this state and therefore can't have any claims.

---

by: liz @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 23:47:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

reading is fundamental (0.00 / 0)

casts doubt on whether ANY modern tribe can be held to have succeeded that group

(caps added)

is judge-ese for "NOBODY will have a case.  This is a dead issue."

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 04:23:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of All The Attorneys Who Read This Site.... (0.00 / 0)

...the only (non anonymous) person who is coming forth in serious opposition is an individual who is not an attorney and who has demonstrated an ongoing active hostility to the cause of the indigenous peoples bringing this suite.

The suit has been written and filed under the supervision of attorneys who are well versed in the precedents and the case law.  Let no one here be overly misled or distracted by carping from the local peanut gallery.

This individual is articulate and superficially clever with words; but it is just one man speaking all alone in a vacuum.   No one, so far, with any legal credentials has come forth (under their own name) to make a substantial critique of the case based on actual law.

The assertion that this will be somehow quickly "dismissed" as "frivolous" is patently absurd.

I'll be happy to put up a hundred bucks in a friendly bet that this suit will be either settled or going strong six months from now.   If I win, the loser's money will be contributed to a charity of my choice...and if the suite is indeed "dismissed" as "frivilous" or groundless on it's face.....the winner will be able to take my money and contribute it to the charity of their choice.  Let's find a neutral party to hold the money (maybe Rosie?! :-) I'm willing to put up my cash tomorrow.   Any takers?

Again, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.   Are you?

The reality is that this suit will continue....and it will be adjudicated on the legal merits.   Justice is (supposed to be) blind to the kinds of petty political racial cultural concerns that drive the "opinions" of too many people.   The legal determinations will have to be in writing and founded in law...and they will be subject to review.    This case isn't going anywhere except to a settlement or to ongoing extensive litigation....and "that's the facts Jack".

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 04:31:13 AM UTC

agreed, but two caveats (0.00 / 0)

1)  What happens if the case isn't dismissed in six months because the Federal court docket doesn't move very fast?

2)  I don't want to put Rosi in the middle.  She has better things to do than hold our money.  :-)

Instead, I will pay one hundred dollars in United States of America currency to the charity of Mr. Lento's choice if this case is not dismissed.  I believe there will be a motion from the State (as there was in the earlier case) and it will be granted.  If I am wrong, I will pay the one hundred dollars.

Mr. Lento will pay one hundred dollars (again in US currency) to West Side United Methodist Church in Millville, New Jersey when this case is dismissed.

If the loser welshes on the bet, then we are agreeing today that the loser will leave Blue Jersey and never come back.

Back to you, Nick!

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 17:11:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm glad the lawsuit was finally submitted (4.00 / 1)

it may bring out alot of history that has been hidden for decades but the odds of your winning is like a snowball's chance in hell. As for the "Trillion Dollars" , why does it bring to mind the vision of Dr. Evil in the background with his pinky on his lip? Also, don't think the lack of communication here as a sign of support..it aint. Since i'm at it, one more bubble i'll pop for you. Your documents are in dispute for validity, with the Sand Hill Band in Neptune.  They claim those documents are theirs and you stole them. So please don't lie to make your case sound better. It only cheapens your words more.

---

by: indigenous @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:20:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

on the flip side (0.00 / 0)

after meeting Chief Medicine Crow Holloway and listening to his words, i do hope something can be worked out as there may be some who are genuinely entitled. Whether the lawsuit is frivilous or not, he did bring up some excellent points of interest.

---

by: indigenous @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 14:09:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those pushing the Neptune group (0.00 / 0)

lack the understanding of how serious this is.  The Neptune group are being set up.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 22:11:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm glad the lawsuit was finally submitted (0.00 / 0)

The people from Neptune, which is one family, is a non profit entity which does not constitute a tribe.  They are recognized as a historical society in Name only.  No one has said that they are not Sand Hills- they have never proven it through proper documentation to the NJ Sand Hill Band Of Lenape & Cherokee Indians, who have 50 members of the Crummel, Reevey, and Richardson families who are now card carrying members of the tribe.  so let's get over it already,-- it's getting old.    

The Federal government, including Home Land Security, recognized the NJ Sand Hill Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians as the only indigenous tribe of NJ., and invited them to give discourses with them at both their NY and NJ facilities. In case you don't understand- Home Land Security is the Federal Department that is charged with protecting the US homeland borders, waterways, airways, etc.  They investigated, found the documents to be legit, that the Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee indians were who they claimed to be, and were Federally recognized,  Chairman Yonaguska Holloway received letters and certification of appreciation for these discourses which were carried out in Nov and Dec.

This suit has been filed in Federal Court and is now out of State hands and it will be played out according to federal law. To which, there are many infractions committed by the State of NJ  which also includes treaty law.

The facts are the facts!  As you said, the truth will come out in Federal Court. Because this is a very serious suit that all major players are taking very seriously and not treating as some joke, everyone who has played any part and/or had any knowledge of the actions listed in the suit will be placed on a subpoena list-- including the Neptune people, as well as the Indian Commission.  So they will probably have their day in court which will make them and their attorneys very happy, as it will give them the opportunity to dispute what is being said.  

It seems that only you, the rest of the Indian Commissioners, and the people from Neptune are taking this as some sort of Joke.  Everyone involved, who are the major players in the State & Federal areas are not.  Perhaps it's beyond your capability of understanding the gravity of this situation.

With the ponderence of evidence presented, everything you have just said and ever said is moot!

---

by: liz @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 17:34:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Federal Recognition List (0.00 / 0)

The Sand Hill Band of Indians is included on the BIA list of Federally Recognized Tribes:

http://500nations.com/tribes/T...

Guess who is NOT LISTED and therefore NOT Federally Recognized:

The Ramapough
The Powhatan
The Nanticoke-Lenni-Lenape

I hope this is this starting to make more sense to folks here and in Trenton.  The Feds know who is who, even if the NJ Commission on Indian Affairs and Officials of the State of NJ pretend not to.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 18:18:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

having your name on a private website .. (4.00 / 1)

doesn't make it true..
THE BIA WEBSITE says otherwise..
http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/of...
Sandhill is nowhere on that list.. Now want to try again with the federally recognized lie again?!

---

by: indigenous @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 21:10:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your list (4.00 / 1)

only includes Federally SUPERVISED tribes.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:27:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Federal Recognition is Broader Category Than... (0.00 / 0)

...Federal Supervision.   No one claimed federal supervision.

Once again Carol. you have utterly eviscerated the perpetrators of red herrings.

Of course, they will come back for more.   It takes no intelligence to create a nit and to pick at it.   The opposition on this is quantitatively small, and qualitatively small minded.

If this kind of non-sense s the "best they got"; the prospects for a good and just outcome are "lookin good"!  

Meanwhile, let's look sadly forward to more ridiculous petty pot shots from one or two anonymous bitter folk and a proud and persistent troll.    They are sure to come back with more ill informed unrational absurdity.....like a child throwing a tantrum.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the case inexorably marches on through the legal system!  

:-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 17:16:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

facts are still facts (0.00 / 0)

Where is there some other list of those who are "Federally recognized" other than the BIA list that we keep pointing out the link for?  Is there some other official government list?  A list from a tourism website isn't an official list.

I have shown that the Iroquois tribes that liz was talking about are in fact on that same BIA list of Federally recognized tribes whether they are "supervised" or not.  You are creating a distinction that doesn't truly exist.

While you two keep up your mutual admiration society it is increasingly evident that you are getting further and further away from the reality the rest of us inhabit.

What "inexorable" march are we talking about?  What has happened besides Ron filed a case for himself where he is representing himself?  There is a saying about an attorney who represents himself and what kind of client you then have.  :-)

So far, there aren't any material facts to the case that are in the "new" Sand Hills' favor.  This case IS moving "inexorably" toward being dismissed.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 23:26:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Predictable Nonsense From The Lone Stranger.... (0.00 / 0)

There have been many hundreds of documents posted to this and other sites that, when broken down to their elements comprise thousands of facts.   The actual suit itself has been posted.   There have been dozens of posts with voluminous facts.

You want to write a legal counterbrief; fine....but be sure to address the whole of the fact pattern, the history and the legal arguments.   Picking at one or two nits in a matter as large and complex as this is an indication of how impoverished are your "arguments".   You are like a lone nut standing outside the national geographic society screaming that the world is flat.

The history is what it is.  

You can say there are no "facts" till you turn blue in the face but that's just your opinion.  One man.  You.  

The case will either be settled in substantial and fair manner....or it will go to trial.  Obviously, there are two sides and folks will come forward with opposing stories...that's why we have a legal system and the judicial process....and that's a good thing....and that's how this will all be settled.      Sorry Creed, you don't really get to have the "last word" in any objective substantive sense.  (Thank God!!!)

If the case was as meritless as you foolishly claim there would have been motions to dismiss on that basis already.  There have been none.  Zero.  Therefor your assertion that this is frivolous has already been proven 100% false.   (That's why you chickened out on my generous offer of a six month period of time within which to place that bet on whether or not your idiotic and ill informed assertion that this was "frivolous" had any merit.......the offer still stands by the way ;-)    Cases that are truly frivolous on their face are dismissed in short order........that isn't the case here.    

Come what may, these are serious and substantial matters.  In fact your assertion of frivolity was, itself, frivolous.  

Speaking only for myself, I hope it goes to trial.   I can't wait to see certain folks being compelled to testify under oath and penalty of perjury...and then being subject to cross examination!  The details re what constitutes federal recognition and its various categories will all be litigated and will emerge in due course.

Time will tell.  Be patient.   Of course, you can't do that....lol.   You will continue your solipsistic trollish mantra ad infinitum.....all by yourself.

The fact is that you've been routinely and consistently rhetorically bested on the facts and the logic of this case;  but like Monty Python's  "black knight" you're just to stupid and stubborn to face reality...so you persist......and you have that right.  

Again, time will tell.    I'm quite content to "give it a rest" and wait for this to go to trial .....are you?    Or will you continue your childish huffing and puffing yet one more time.

Go ahead, have the last word.....tell us there are "no facts" and that the case will be "dismissed as frivolous" and that all the astute observations re you are just "projections" one more time.  

Make me laugh, one more time.   :-)

PS  If anyone isn't familiar with the Monty Python reference....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 16:54:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

blather is not a substitute for FACTS (0.00 / 0)

 YOU have the burden of proof here.  Not me, not indigenous or the Sand Hills of Neptune or anyone else who isn't part of the "brain trust" that filed this lawsuit.

Another person pointed out that the ONLY list of Federally recognized tribes does not have the Sand Hills listed on it.  I have repeatedly shown (without rebuttal) that Iroquois tribes ARE on that list whatever may be their "supervision" status.  Despite being repeatedly asked for the mythical Federal list that shows the Sand Hills as being recognized whether THEY are "supervised" or not, you and Carol go back to the tourism website.

The same allegations without the Dr. Evil(esque) demand for "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!" have already been made about Brotherton and not just shot down for those plaintiffs but the research showed that NO active tribe is going to be able to prove themselves as the successors to the Brotherton Indians because the Brothertons disbanded.  An earlier Federal case also held that the sale of Brotherton was legal.  This doesn't mean whether you liked it or not (because YOU aren't the arbiter of pretty much anything--thank Goodness!).  :-)

I wouldn't have bothered replying if you hadn't joined Carol's mutual admiration society for "eviscerating the perpetrators of red herrings" when the man brought up the same salient fact that your little coterie continues to ignore--the Sand Hills AREN'T a Federally recognized tribe.  You then continue this phony distinction between the "Federally recognized and supervised" and the "Federally recognized and unsupervised."  Where is this list?  Post a link.

The documents that have been posted do NOT say what you claim.  That has been repeatedly pointed out.  The "rebuttal" to that is to post them again and say that they do when they clearly do not.  Repetition does not create truth.

What "inexorable march" is this case on?  It has been filed on behalf of an attorney who is representing himself.  We know what kind of client that is.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 17:42:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep Squirming.... (0.00 / 0)

 
You persist in asserting that there are "no facts", then that others are "projecting", then that the case is "frivolous" and now you claim that disagreement with you is all "blather".   Is that all ya got?  Next you'll shoot out the word "bravado" again.

Meanwhile, no motions to "dismiss" for "frivolity" have been introduced by Corzine et al.    Keep waiting for that wet dream of yours to materialize.   :-)

Give it a rest Creed.  We just happen to radically disagree on this....and we aren't going to convince each other! LOL

As was said, time will tell.  Nothing is 100% absolutely certain.   The suit is a very real fact.    There are many hundreds of pages and pictures and hours of video on the web for all to see.    (and, no doubt, that is but a fraction of the available evidence) It will be settled/adjudicated/litigated in time and there will be an outcome.  

There are people out there who know they are lying and who know that they're full of crap...and it is my belief that those people are currently scared shitless.   There is so much dirt here...and I will enjoy seeing all of it coming into the full bright light of day!   :-)

Again, (speaking for myself alone) I am so very much looking forward to this one going all the way to a full blown and lengthy trial where all all the matters in dispute can be publicly aired and resolved.

Fortunately, we are still a nation of law.  This will be decided by the courts on the basis of sworn testimony, expert witnesses and documented evidence; not by you (or me for that matter)...and certainly not on a blog.    

It's funny that on one hand you claim this is totally without merit and will be thrown out as being utterly frivolous....yet on the other hand you are abscessed (pun intentional) with the matter.    

Again, please (for your own sake) give it a rest (before you pop a blood vessel).

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 18:46:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ROTFLMAO! (0.00 / 0)

just more projection.  I am not squirming.  I really hate to tell you that no one is "scared shitless" or losing sleep over this "lawsuit."

But, if you're spending time on stuff like this then at least you can't cause real damage.  :-)

This case is going to be dismissed and I look forward to saying "I told you so."  :-D

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 20:35:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're The Guy.... (0.00 / 0)

...who keeps responding to all my "blather".   If you really believed this was irrelevant....you would be ignoring it.    Or do you routinely waste your time on what you think is irrelevant nonsense?

Further, you're the guy who refused to the perfectly reasonable wager that was offered...and still stands as written.

If this case was as "frivolous" as you stupidly and ignorantly claim it to be motions would have been submitted in rapid order and  it would have been summarily dismissed by now.   I generously gave your stupid, foolish and ignorant scenario six months to play out in hopes of drawing you into a bet you would be sure to lose.......but you smartly refused.

The fact is that this is a substantial case based on solid precedents and facts....and that win or lose it will take a long time and lot's of back and forth arguments and hearings to get it resolved.

As I've said, I look forward to actually seeing this go to trial.

Again, time will tell which of us is correct.  

As for "burden of proof" the voluminous materials have  been posted.   You seize, like a bulldog, on one or two threads and make ignorant and stupid claims.  Liz has already explained a couple of areas in which the feds have provided de facto recognition of the existence of the Sand Hills.....more explicit evidence will come out in the legal process.   You'll just have to wait for that process to play out.....this isn't going to be settled here by ether of us.

Suffice it to say that we each believe the other to be very mistaken.    

You believe there is nothing here and that it will be dismissed as frivolous on its face....and I believe that this is a serious lawsuit that will be strenuously litigated over a long time...certainly beyond six months....the difference between is that I was/am willing to put my money where my mouth is and that you refused the bet on this single point that you most stupidly and ignorantly (in my opinion) press.   And that is that the case will be summariliy dismissed as "frivolous".   It's been over a month and so far not even one motion to that effect has been introduced by any of the dozens of named defendants.      Maybe they know more about the case than you do?

So, keep on "laughing your ass off" and "rolling on the floor".  If you would have been man enough to take the bet, then that sense of humor would have been based on sincere beliefs....as it is, it smells like chickenshit "bravado" to me.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 00:17:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you are right: refusing a sucker bet is "smart" (0.00 / 0)

Six months is an artifical deadline.  It makes no sense for me to accept a scenario where the case is dismissed 190 days after filing but I "lost" even though I was right about the outcome.  You refused THREE offers for alternative results-based wagers.  That was obviously "smart" on your part.

I just wonder what kind of opus awaits us when this case never makes it to trial.  :-)

Your repeated blather also seems to attempt to distract attention from the FACT that there has been no restraining order issued as Carol predicted.  A month has gone by without a judge doing that either.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:14:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Make It Easy For You.... (0.00 / 0)

Your consistent claim is that this case is totally without merit.

Your repeated claim is that it will be dismissed, on it's face, as "frivolous".  

My claim is that the case is substantial and will require some serious litigation and back and forth motions, and arguments and possibly even an actual trial.  (Which, as I've said....I would love to see so that I could experience the the pleasure of seeing certain people being forced to testify under penalty of perjury.)

As I see it, your contention that the case is "frivolous" is absolutely 99% dead wrong.    Obviously anything is possible in the courts, so I'm allowing you that tiny 1% shot at being correct.   That's how confident I am in my position

Common sense would dictate that it doesn't take much time to put together a motion/brief to eviscerate a case which is "frivolous" on it's face.  

Creed, so far no one has done that.    Every day that goes by with no motion to dismiss on the basis of "frivolity" is a day that strengthens my position and weakens yours.

You claim to be right on this point but you also claim that six months isn't a long enough time for your side to build a case for dismissal on the grounds that the lawsuit is frivolous.

I think it's a sucker bet for you because it's obvious to anyone who's read the materials and who has spent hours seeing and listening to the video that the people engaged in this legal action are quite serious, competent and un-frivolous....and (more importantly) that the arguments and facts they bring to the table are substantial.  I've also had some opportunities to talk to Yonaguska and his father and have 100% confidence in their integrity.   There is nothing "frivolous" about these wise, decent and honorable people.

You think it's a sucker bet on the pretext that the six months deadline is not sufficiently charitable.   You seem to be framing that deadline as the reason you are chickening out.

OK  Let's make a deal.  Let's take away your rationale to label this as a sucker bet.

I'll extend that deadline to 2 years from the filing date.....on the condition that for you to win, the case must be dismissed with the motion for dismissal making the specific claim that the case is "frivolous" and the judge's ruling agreeing with that assertion.  Frivolous is a legal term of art.  It has a meaning.   If your contentions about this case were truly correct, there would be a motion to dismiss on the basis of frivility....the problem for you is that you're mistaken.

Further, that if the case actually goes to trial (something that may wind up happening a lot SOONER than the two year deadline) or is settled by an award to the plaintiffs that that then ends the bet and that you have to pay off.  

Obviously cases that are "frivolous" don't make it to trial and don't get settled, eh?

Are you feeling lucky?    Make my day!   :-)

The underlying issues in this case go way beyond the small relative silliness of which of us is correct or incorrect on this point; but it is telling that in a situation in which that state and a fairly popular governor is being sued that (on a liberal Democratic site like BJ) the only person willing to come forth under their own name to take serious issue with the basis of the lawsuit is you.

I look forward to signing your check over to Steven Goldstein if only to see the smile on his face as he takes your money on behalf of GSE.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 18:09:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's the restraining order??? (0.00 / 0)

If the case had such overwhelming merit, wouldn't that have been granted by now???  ;-)

What do you care about a deadline?  Either the case gets dismissed or it doesn't.  Either the case gets settled or it doesn't.  Either the Holloways win their "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS" or they don't.

YOU seem to be hedging now because you earlier said that you would be amazed if a motion to dismiss was filed.

I already offered this:

I'll make a standing wager of $1,000 (for charity, of course) with you that this case will not be won by the Sand Hills in a court of law.  I'll take the risk with your age difference that you'll still be around for me to collect.  :-)

I will also offer you a wager of $500 that a motion to dismiss will be filed.

Finally, I'll make a standing offer of $100 that the motion to dismiss will be granted, but I am not going to agree to an artificial six month deadline.

I am still willing to go for ALL three of those wagers and either you'll write a nice check to West Side UMC or I write a nice check to GSE.

Whadda say?  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 20:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's the deal... (0.00 / 0)

If they are whom they say, all that is needed is a geneology chart with all relavant documents.. i.e birth, marriage, and death certificates,  AND they need to direct link back to the original Sand Hill. No tapes or videos or other crap u posted proves anything. Anyone can obtain copies of this if they go to Trenton.
Without that geneology, this lawsuit is a waste of time. You, I, Creed, The Delaware in Oaklahoma, and anyone with half a brain, knows it. All they are doing is (once again) sticking their nose in native business and messing it up for elders and children.  

---

by: indigenous @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 11:26:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you say a "big fat lie"? (4.00 / 1)

"The Sand Hill Band of Indians in New Jersey have never sought federal or state recognition because they know themselves to
be a sovereign tribal entity." This is posted on the SandHill website dated 2005. So how did they submit and get recognized within 3 years, huh? The lie is unraveling as we speak.. you better hope to find another career because this one is over. Their (and your) credibility is through!  I tried to warn ya!!

---

by: indigenous @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 15:18:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Core Terms Are What They Are...... (0.00 / 0)

I'm flexible to the extent that the no welching assurance "clause" is agreed to; but the six months from the date of filing as the time frame stands.  

The allegation of this suit's critics is that it is groundless, without merit (on it's face) and/or frivolous.    I don't believe that's correct.

In cases where a federal lawsuit is so blatantly without merit, filings to dismiss and dismissal can occur very quickly.   Six months from the filing date is more than generous.    

Frankly, I'll be surprised if a motion to summarily dismiss is even introduced and I'll be quite shocked and dismayed if it were to succeed within six months of filing, .....that's how much confidence I have in the credibility of the plaintiffs and the legal bases of this action.

Here's an example of how quickly a meritless federal law suit can be disposed of when it is truly frivolous and without any merit on it's face...

 http://www.qctimes.com/article...

A federal lawsuit asking for $650 billion in damages from a wide range of defendants was dismissed as soon as it was filed last week with a local judge deeming it frivolous and incomprehensible.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 19:18:04 PM UTC

so much for good faith! :-) (0.00 / 0)

The earlier Unalachtigo case was originally filed in Federal court in December of 2005 and was dismissed in May of 2008.  So, it may not be dismissed in six months and you know that.  

Compared to the Rev. Dr. Koy's "case," this case may be illogical, but it is legible.  :-)

I'll make a standing wager of $1,000 (for charity, of course) with you that this case will not be won by the Sand Hills in a court of law.  I'll take the risk with your age difference that you'll still be around for me to collect.  :-)

I will also offer you a wager of $500 that a motion to dismiss will be filed.

Finally, I'll make a standing offer of $100 that the motion to dismiss will be granted, but I am not going to agree to an artificial six month deadline.

Decide how much you want to give to my church.  ;-D

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 21:34:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bottom Line.... (0.00 / 0)

No one here seriously believes that this case is absolutely frivolous or so devoid of merit or substance that it will be dismissed as such in the next six months.

Here's an example of the DNC filing a federal case in April of 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...   that was dismissed the following month http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit... .

No doubt the DNC case was filed by some highly skilled/competent and well paid lawyers......yet it was thrown out in just about 30 days.

The clear fact is that when a case has no merit on it's face, it's not hard to get it dismissed fairly quickly.  

Ergo, the baseless claim that this is a groundless, frivolous and/or facially flawed suit has been put to rest.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 22:38:59 PM UTC

Getting Down To Cases... (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for informing me of the Unalachtigo Band v. New Jersey case.

It took three years for that case to be processed and after extensive legal activities the plantiffs lost on the basis that they didn't have the right tribal standing to assert their claims.   The case was not dismissed out of hand for being frivolous or groundless and/or facially flawed.....it took the judge and the litigants and other participants quite a long time to come to a conclusion.

Based on my quick read of the 40 page decision and what I know of the current case, I am very encouraged and even more convinced that the outcome will be favorable to the palintiffs.

I have no interest in making large wagers that might not be settled for a decade.....simply in pointing out the fact that the claims of one or two indivduals on this site (i.e. that the current case is utterly without merit and will be dismissed out of hand) are themselves frivolous.

Again, this will all be worked out in the judicial system, not here.  

I do however highly recommend a reading of the opinion in the Unalachtigo Band v. New Jersey case.   It goes well with a reading of the current filing!  You can download the pdf file here  http://turtletalk.files.wordpr...

The more time one takes to actually read through the details and substance of this matter; the stronger is the conclusion that the current case has great merit and will likely win in court.

We shall see!  
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 23:43:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

up is down and down is up??? (0.00 / 0)

How anyone can be "encouraged" about the prospects of the Sand Hills "lawsuit" after knowing the results of the Unalachtigo case is an example of delusional thinking or insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

It is likely that the Sand Hills "lawsuit" will be dismissed much quicker because of the Unalachtigo precedent.  But, I certainly wasn't going to play games with a wager for an artifical six month horizon.  

This lawsuit is a waste of resources and is going to be dismissed.  I was willing to take the risk with your advanced age you might not be around to pay.  :-)

But, seriously, this case isn't going to take a decade.  I would be surprised if it isn't dismissed by this time next year if not much sooner because of the precedent.  But, I wasn't going to be told I lost the wager because it was dismissed in seven months instead of six.  That is simply silly.

I have already wasted enough time on this.  We can talk more when there is a "new" development like a motion to dismiss from the State.  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:44:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

more "mootness" (0.00 / 0)

This Supreme Court decision makes the requested relief even MORE remote than it was already.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 16:36:15 PM UTC

Yet again (0.00 / 0)

the tribes you speak of are not indigenous.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 21:38:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet again (0.00 / 0)

the tribes you speak for aren't even recognized.

And by the findings of fact of the Unalachtigo case, there AREN'T any successors to the Brotherton Indians, "indigenous" or otherwise.  So, that part of the case is going to be dismissed for a lack of standing.  The rest of the case is even weaker on the merits.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 22:50:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading isn't your strong suit is it? (0.00 / 0)

Read your "cases" again.  They don't say what you think they do.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 23:29:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

none so blind as those who will not see (0.00 / 0)

where in the Federal District Court case does it say that there ARE successors to the Brotherton Indians???

The finding of fact was that there aren't any.  So, unless there are some new FACTS brought into the equation (which you don't have), then this case is going NOWHERE.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 12:15:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A real issue compunded by bad legal jargon (4.00 / 1)

Whatever Corzine is or isn't guilty of, and regardless of how the statues define that crime, he is not guilty of genocide as that term is generally—and properly—understood.

Taking an especially heinous crime, be it rape, genocide, or anything else, and then statutorily expanding the definition to something lawmakers want to not only ban but pompously condemn is not new. But it always problematic and creates the sort of backlash we've seen here. That is not the fault of either party in this suit, it is the fault of the showboaters who used the law to distort the language.

Which is not to defend (or attack) Corzine's actions any further than to say that the word "genocide" is inappropriate here, except as an unfortunate legal defnition.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 15:12:47 PM UTC

it's actually worse than that (0.00 / 0)

This lawsuit is just trying to create a new definition (which only serves to weaken the word) in order to get "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!"

This isn't taking a statute and then trying to stretch it.  This is just making it up out of whole cloth.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 16:42:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by the way, it's been six weeks (0.00 / 0)

where's the restraining order???  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 16:45:01 PM UTC