WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 – Lawyers for a group of Indians today asked the nine active judges who sit on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reinstate the civil contempt citations against Interior Secretary Gale Norton and her top Indian affairs aide, former assistant Interior secretary Neal McCaleb.
Norton and McCaleb were found to be unfit trustee-delegates as the result of the fraud and other misconduct that U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found they had perpetrated on his court in a lawsuit filed by the Indians. The Indians are seeking a full accounting of individual Indian trust accounts.
The lawyers cited errors by the three-judge panel in seeking a review of the July 18 ruling by the full court of appeals. The panel decided that a district court ruling holding both Norton and Neal McCaleb in civil contempt had to be reversed because the sanction was a criminal proceeding, not a civil sanction.
“The panel’s decision misconstrues the true nature and purpose of this civil contempt proceeding in declaring it to be something it was not – a criminal contempt proceeding,” noted the petition. It was filed by lawyers representing a group of Indians who have being waging a seven-year court battle to secure a full accounting of trust funds that the government has supposedly held for them in individual trust accounts.
The petition to the appeal court noted that the proceeding against Norton and McCaleb was “a civil contempt proceeding in every respect.”
It also said that the three-ruling ruling violated a well-established rule of law in the D.C. circuit that bars an appellate panel from considering issues that had not been raised by the parties in the lower court or in their written briefs on appeal. That rule had just been reaffirmed by the appeals court in a case involving Vice President Richard Cheney 10 days before the three-judge panel disregarded it to vacate the contempt ruling against Norton and McCaleb, the petition noted.
The petition also challenged the three-judge ruling on the grounds that Norton and McCaleb were being sanctioned, in part, for actions that had occurred by their predecessors. U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth made clear in his orders that the ruling applied not to the Bush administration officials as individuals but to their offices—the same admonition he used when sanctioning Clinton administration officials for contempt in the same lawsuit.
Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking a full accounting of funds the government has placed in trust accounts for individual Indians, explained the rehearing request:
“Without accountability, Secretary Norton will continue to breach her trust duties and will continue to engage in malfeasance. Her refusal to accept responsibility for her many failures is why a receiver must be appointed without further delay.”
“Integrity and competence are absolutely essential for the prudent management of the individual Indian trust. And today none exists. We hope that the full Court of Appeals will recognize the importance of Judge Lamberth’s decision, join him and demand accountability from the trustee-delegates.”
A copy of the pleading is available at
WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 – Lawyers for a group of Indians today asked the nine active judges who sit on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reinstate the civil contempt citations against Interior Secretary Gale Norton and her top Indian affairs aide, former assistant Interior secretary Neal McCaleb.
Norton and McCaleb were found to be unfit trustee-delegates as the result of the fraud and other misconduct that U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found they had perpetrated on his court in a lawsuit filed by the Indians. The Indians are seeking a full accounting of individual Indian trust accounts.
The lawyers cited errors by the three-judge panel in seeking a review of the July 18 ruling by the full court of appeals. The panel decided that a district court ruling holding both Norton and Neal McCaleb in civil contempt had to be reversed because the sanction was a criminal proceeding, not a civil sanction.
“The panel’s decision misconstrues the true nature and purpose of this civil contempt proceeding in declaring it to be something it was not – a criminal contempt proceeding,” noted the petition. It was filed by lawyers representing a group of Indians who have being waging a seven-year court battle to secure a full accounting of trust funds that the government has supposedly held for them in individual trust accounts.
The petition to the appeal court noted that the proceeding against Norton and McCaleb was “a civil contempt proceeding in every respect.”
It also said that the three-ruling ruling violated a well-established rule of law in the D.C. circuit that bars an appellate panel from considering issues that had not been raised by the parties in the lower court or in their written briefs on appeal. That rule had just been reaffirmed by the appeals court in a case involving Vice President Richard Cheney 10 days before the three-judge panel disregarded it to vacate the contempt ruling against Norton and McCaleb, the petition noted.
The petition also challenged the three-judge ruling on the grounds that Norton and McCaleb were being sanctioned, in part, for actions that had occurred by their predecessors. U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth made clear in his orders that the ruling applied not to the Bush administration officials as individuals but to their offices—the same admonition he used when sanctioning Clinton administration officials for contempt in the same lawsuit.
Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking a full accounting of funds the government has placed in trust accounts for individual Indians, explained the rehearing request:
“Without accountability, Secretary Norton will continue to breach her trust duties and will continue to engage in malfeasance. Her refusal to accept responsibility for her many failures is why a receiver must be appointed without further delay.”
“Integrity and competence are absolutely essential for the prudent management of the individual Indian trust. And today none exists. We hope that the full Court of Appeals will recognize the importance of Judge Lamberth’s decision, join him and demand accountability from the trustee-delegates.”
A copy of the pleading is available at http://narf.org/cases/en_banc_.pdf
contact: Bill McAllister 703 385-6996
# # #
|
