Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 1 of 55
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, and PATTON BOGGS LLP, Intervenor-Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
* * *
*
* * * * *
*
* *
* * * *
*
Case IVo. 89-218(L) Chief Judge Edward H. Darnich
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THECHEROKEE NATION'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO FOR PATTON BOGGS' CROSS-MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT Arthur Lazarus, Jr.
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson
& Perry, LLP 1425 K Street, N. W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) alazarus@,sonosky.com Special Counsel for Plaintiff Cherokee Nation Of Counsel: Lloyd Benton Miller Donald J. Simon Anne D. Noto Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) llo~d@,sonoskv.net; dsimon~sonosky.com; anoto@,sonosk~.com May 12,2006
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 2 of 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Table of Authorities I. I1. 111. Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 .
Issues Presented
Statement of the Case and Counter-Statement of Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. History of the litigation 1. 2.
3.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Origin of the claims
The Oklahoma litigation
The Claims Court litigation The 2002 Settlement Act
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
4. B.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Cherokee Nation consideration of the attorney fees claims 1. 2.
3.
The WilcoxenlNiebell contract The Patton Boggs contract Swidler Berlin law firm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
IV .
Argument A.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 .
Summary Judgment Should Be Denied Because the Patton Boggs Contract Was Terminated And It Has No Claim Under Thatcontract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . 1. 2. The law provides only a quantum merit recovery when a contingent fee contract is terminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The Nation's decisions on fees were reasonable and consistent with applicable legal standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 3 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 4 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 5 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 6 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 7 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 8 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 9 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 10 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 11 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 12 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 13 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 14 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 15 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 16 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 17 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 18 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 19 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 20 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 21 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 22 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 23 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 24 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 25 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 26 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 27 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 28 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 29 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 30 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 31 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 32 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 33 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 34 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 35 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 36 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 37 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 38 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 39 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 40 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 41 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 42 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 43 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 44 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 45 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 46 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 47 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 48 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 49 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 50 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 51 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 52 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 53 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 54 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 55 of 55
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 1 of 72
I THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS N
THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, and PATTON BOGGS LLP, Intervenor-Piaintiff
v.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
Case No. 89-2 18(L) Chief Judge Edward H. Damich
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CHEROKEE NATION'S APPENDIX EXHIBITS RESPONSE PATTON OF IN TO BOGGS CROSS FOR JUDGMENT MOTION SUMMARY
Arthur Lazarus, Jr. Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & PerryLLP 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) alazarus~,sonosky.com Special Counsel for Plaintiff Cherokee Nation Of Counsel: Lloyd Benton Miller Donald J. Simon Anne D. Noto Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) [email protected]; dsimon~sonoskv.com; [email protected]
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 2 of 72
Table of Contents Page Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4 Ex. 5 Ex. 6 Docket entries, Cherokee Nation v. United States, No 83-306-C (ED Okla) ...................................................................................... A-1 Complaint dated May 23, 1983, Cherokee Nation v. United States, No 83-306-C (ED Okla.) ....................................................................................... A-6 Opinion and Order dated January 28, 1994 in Cherokee Nation v. Unitedstates, No. 2i8-89E (Ci. Ct.) .............................................................. 6 Notice of Appeal dated February 17, 1995 in Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 21 8-89L (Cl. Ct.) ............................................................... A-25 Opinion and Order dated April 12, 1996, in Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 95-5055 (Fed. Cir.) ........................................................... A-30 Hearings on H.R. 103, H.R. 3476 and H.R. 3534 Before the H. Comm. on Resources, 107th Cong. cover -1,30-34,78-100 (April 17, 2002) ................................................................................................... 3 Contract dated September 8, 1988 between the Cherokee Nation and J. Wilcoxen and P. Niebell ............................................................................ A-69 Contract dated November 13, 1989 between the Cherokee Nation A-74 and Patton, Boggs & Blow .................................................................................. Letter agreement dated September 18, 1991 between Patton Boggs & Blow and the Cherokee Nation ................................................ A-78 Letter dated October 30, 1995 from Principal Chief Cherokee Nation A-80 Joe Byrd, to Kate Boyce, Patton Boggs ............................................................... Letter dated April 23, 1996 from L. Susan Work, General Counsel, Cherokee Nation to C. Allen Foster and Katharine R. Boyce, Patton Boggs ........................................................................................................ 1 A-8 Memorandum dated November 5,2002 from James Wilcoxen to Julian Fite, General Counsel for the ~ h e r o k e e Nation .................................... A-82
Ex. 7 Ex. 8 Ex. 9 Ex. 10 Ex. 11
Ex. 12
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 3 of 72
Ex. 13
Memorandum dated November 7,2002 from Patton Boggs to Chad Smith, Principal Chief Cherokee Nation, and Julian Fite, General Counsel for the Cherokee Nation ........................................ A-87 Letter dated May 2,2003 from James Wilcoxen to Julian Fite, General Counsel for the Cherokee Nation ..................................... 03 .A-1 Cherokee Nation Spreadsheet of total sums paid by the Cherokee Nation to Patton Boggs & Blow, 1989 - 1997 .................................................. 0 5 Memorandum dated October 6,2003, from Julian Fite, General Counsei, Cherokee Nation to Chad Smith, Principai Chief Cherokee Nation, James Wilcoxen, Wilcoxen & Wilcoxen, and Joe Reeder, Patton Boggs, with letter dated October 24,2003 from Mr. Fite transmitting that memorandum to Jim Wilcoxen, Joe Reeder, Katherine Boyce at Patton Boggs, and Margaret Swimmer Aat Hall Estill .......................................................................................................108 Letter dated November 8,2003 from Eleanor Niebell to Julian Fite, A General Counsel, Cherokee Nation ............................................................. Letter dated November 14,2003 from Joe Reeder to Julian Fite, General Counsel, Cherokee Nation ............................................................. A - 116 - 117
Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16
Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19
. .
Letter dated December 5,2003, from Hall Estill to Julian Fite, General Counsel, Cherokee Nation ................................................................... 123 ALetter dated December 17,2003, from Joe Reeder to Chad Smith, .APrincipal Chief, Cherokee Nation ..................................................................... 126 Cherokee Nation Legislative Act 5-04: Act Relating to Establishing Policy and Procedures for the Management and Use of Cherokee A-129 Nation Trust Funds and Trust Assets, enacted February 17, 2004 .................... Letter dated July 9,2004, from David Riggs, Esq. Riggs, .A-1 Abney, et al. to Julian Fite, General Counsel, Cherokee Nation ...................... 3 1 Cherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes, ASeptember 16, 2004 ...........................................................................................141 Cherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes, October 20, 2004 .............................................................................................. .A-147
Ex. 20 Ex. 21
Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 4 of 72
Ex. 25 Ex. 26 Ex. 27 Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30 Ex. 3 1 Ex. 32 Ex. 33 Ex. 34 Ex. 35 Ex. 36
, ,
Cherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes, November 18, 2004 ........................................................................................ 5 4 Memorandum dated December 15,2004, from Todd Hembree to Cherokee Nation Tribal Council.................................................................... A-I65 Cherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes December 16, 2004 ............................................................................................ 167 ACherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes, A-175 January 17, 2005 ................................................................................................ Minutes of Tribal Council Meeting - Regular Session, February 14, 2005 .............................................................................................. A-182 Cherokee Nation Rules Committee, Meeting Minutes, February 17, 2005 ..............................................................................................192 AMinutes of Tribal Council Meeting - Regular Session, March 14, 2005 ................................................................................................ ..A-202 Resolution No. 18-05: Council of the Cherokee Nation - Approving A-21 5 Payment of Attorney Fees for Hall & Estill, adopted February 14,2005 ......... Resolution 19-05: Council of the Cherokee Nation - Approving Payment of Attorney Fees for Paul Niebell, adopted February 14,2005 ..........A-2 17 Resolution 20-05: Council of the Cherokee Nation Payment of Attorney Fees for Jim Wilcoxen, adopted February 14,2005 .......A-21 9 Resolution 29-05: Council of the Cherokee Nation - Approving A-221 Payment of Attorney Fees for Patton & Boggs, adopted March 14,2005 ........ Letter dated February 18,2005, from Chad Smith, Principal Chief, A-223 Cherokee Nation, to Jeannette Hanna, Bureau of Indian Affairs ...................... Letter dated March 30,2005, from Chad Smith, Principal Chief, A-225 Cherokee Nation, to Jeannette Hanna, Bureau of Indian Affairs ...................... .A-227 Declaration of Diane Hammons .......................................................................
Ex. 37 Ex. 38
? PR-03-2006
0Q :01 AM 1:89-cv-00218-EJD Case FROM-W I LCOXEN W l LCOXEN
8 662 05/12/2006T-758Page 5 of 72F-323 P. 002/006 Document 153-2 t Q l Filed6605
35 23
PLAINTIFFS
83 2
290
1
?5FENl4.4VTS
P
1 CHEROKEE
NATION OF OICUUIOMA
ITJE UNITED STATES,
CAUSE (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE CASE IS FILED AND WRfTE 4 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAU Ef
A c t of Congress, approved 12/23/$(P.L. 97-385, 97th Cong., 96 Stat.1944) mongf~l W n g of C -.-.propertyfor lock & dain construction, f o r compensation h.o&,am sand, gravel & coal. of
P.O.Box 357 Muskogee, OK 74402 918/683-6696
Lynn
,
( Index
$if EFnsHIJaania ggf
Washington, D.C.
Rubins t e l n
ustzce
Ave Rm. N2W , 1
.
.
20530
Of Counsel:
Paul M. ~ i e b e l l 910 Seventeenth Street, N.W,
, -
Axsistant
U. S . A t t n r t e y P. 0. Box 1009
Suite 419 Washington, D . C . 20036 202/659-1516
Muskogee, 0klahom. 74401
PAUTa'INE H. MILIUS Bept. of Justice, P.O. Box 663 Land and Natural Resouqces D t v WashFtigton, D. C. xZlX%X(8: (202) 633-3797 20044-0663
Michael S . ~aroschuk P.O>@ox 9
-F: LING FEES PAID
--.
:JIU&TEO T K ~ UlSTRICT CCLIRT OGGKET S
c'~
--
_---.-__I_-
(Fed. CI.)
A-1
~ i : . l l l( 4 2 ~615 .
APR-83-2006
09 :01 AM
FROM-WI LCOXEN Wl LCOXEN Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
-
P .003/006 Document 153-2 t 8 1 8 682 8605 Filed 05/12/2006T-758Page 6 of 72F-323
'23/83
7/83
1 I 1
.
'
(2) 60-day. (Given.to atty. for service) Return on Summons: served U.S. Act&, Muskogee, Oklahoma on
ISSUING S-ons
by Certified M a i 1 on
...
25/83 /13/83
5/23/83; served A t t y . Gen. of U.S. 5/26/83 .,,. . . (ANSWER of deft...
DOCKET mailed setting p r e t r i a l a t Muskogee, Okaahoma 'on December 15, 1983 a t 11:30 A.M.
i
/29/83/
I1
~ O T I O N f - e f t . Co S t r i k e dace 0.E P r e - T r i a l Conference. ~ d
.En~ering Order denying Motion o f deft. t o s t r i k e . d a t e of P r e - T r i a l Conference. (FIE) (CopLes t o counsel. ),. _ _ . ._ . JOINT PRETRIAL W i . ... . .'...-. . O ..
' '
I
,
.
- .
G=esent by counsel., k d r e w WXlcoxen. ~ t i &-idant p r e s e n t ' by counsel, Terry smith, f (Corp.o£ Rng.) and Lynn Rubinstein. C.ourt directs t h i s matter: s t r i c k e n from t h e P r e r r t a l Docket. - P a r t i e s t o . f i l e B r i e f s on L i a b i l i t y issue w i t h primary emphasis o& t h e n a v i g a t i o n s e r v i r u d e issue, by Feb. 15, 1984, F u r t h e r Parries t o file J o i n t ~ o t i o n s for .Sumnary Judgmen~by 'Feb. '15, 1984. Responses due March 30, 1984., with Reply i f . p a r t i e s desire due Apr. 18, 1984. (FHS)
~ a l d &au&i
'
C O A ~on,fot.~ e & t i i a l ~p:l a i n t i f f ~-
.
..
/10/84
/10/84 '
.
-3.
MOTION of D e f t .
'
for Judgment on the Pleadings
*d& .l
33.-s4-
BRIEF of Deft. I n S u p p o r t o f Motion f o r Judgmeat: on t h e Pleadings.
15/8415/84
11 II
MOTION of ~ l t ff . r P a r t i a l Su-ry o
Judgment as to L i a b i l i t y . , k . p / GcLGe 3 - 30-gf BRIEF o f ~ l t f . Support o f Blocion f o r P a r t i a l Summary ~udgment. in
.
-
RESPONSE of ~ l t f .t o ~ e f t s .Motion for ~ u d g m e n t
MOTION of defendant For Extension of time to-file R~sponse Reply ~ r i e s - f
.
Entering Order granting defendant an extension of time until May 1 4 , 1984, to f i l e its response t o p l a i n t i f f ' s motion for p a r t i a l summary judgment, and further granking an extension of time u n t i l June 1 1 , 1984, for the parties to f i l e reply briefs.(.FHS) (Copies to counsel).
II.
i
i '
MEMORANDUM by defendant Fn Opposition t o ~ i a i n t l f f ' s Motion for 3 4 : -Judgmentand R e p l y P n Support of Defendaot ' s Motion f c Judgment on che
'6184
ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF.! DENYING DEFENDANT'S
A-2.
. .
SUMMARY IYUEMENT AND . SUMARY JUDGMEW. (FHS) .
APR-03-2006
3
09 :01AM 1:89-cv-00218-EJD - Document 153-2 Case FROM-WI LCOXEN W l LCOXEN
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 7 of 72
CIVIL DOCKET CoNrlNuATioN SHE
I
PLAINTIFF
I
CEiEROKBB #ATfON OF
DEFENDANT
83 - 3 0 5 . ~
.
.
OKLA.
TBE
rJNITgD STATES:
OF 2MEFtICA
DOCKET NO.
PAGE O F DATE
NR. PROCEEDINGS
,.
2
PAG
-
.
C;RAWTI;AG ~ltf's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and- i . denying deft's Motion for Partial Summarjr Judgment. (EHS) (Copies to' .. counsal ) . copy) p e t i t i o n for Interlocutory appeal filed w , / l 0 t h C. court of ~ p p e a l s .- - ',.". I .?;.-. ' " .. p,,fi.e /. , ;' '-. '/',-,' f , . Y /*<. . J order 6/6/84, f',. t'. . ,-">.. -1. : 1. .f. 7!.!, ,f, ,.f, ,;&. ,:, -[- : 2,.:
. .
ORDER (ID -Z)
..
.
.
-
," .
-, ,.
,
-a.
Q.
.I.,
3
a /
Order of U. S. Court of Appeals granti.~g pe?A.ticn f o r leaye ts a p p e a l . 89-2 3 E,A*
..
. I
Forwarding Tnterlocntory Appeal consisting of one voltme, ( c o p i e s ) (Copy o index in file) to Tenth Circuit, f
'
MANDATE: JUDGMENT Affirming D i s t r i c t Court Decision. OPINION. (Clerk, 1 0 t h circ. )
NOTICE MAILED . s e t t i n g case f o r P r e t r i a l Conference on 4/25/86 at 10:30 A.m- i n t h e U . S . Cths., Musk- OK.(ccl
~!~OTION
(4/4/8'6
1
eft. to continue.P EN -G ORDER DENYING ~ o t i o n . b f -to Continue PRETRIAL- (FRS)(cc c o u n s e l )
4
Defendant
(EOD 4 / 4 / 8 6 )
1 4/10/8f,
4/28/86
I
i
SECOND JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PLTF AND DEFT. RETRIAL: PlcE. present by J i m Wilcoxen and Paul M. Niebell. D e f t . p r e s e n t by Pauline H . Milfus ( D e p t . J u s t i c e ) heories of the case by the p a r t i e s . e f t . s t a t e s t o court s h e will'probable file an application,to s t a y case b e c a u s e a Petit5on for Writ of Cert w i l l be fi:led. i n Supreme Court about May 23. ourt advises counsel c h a t case will be r e s e t for another pretrial in first part of November. (JHP)
4/29/86
e c e i p t of Interlocutory Appeal c o n s i s t i n g of one volume. (Copies - Broke down) NoTICI3 mailed s e t t i n g c a s e f o r P r e t r i a l on July 2 , 1986 at 5:00 P,! i n t h e U ' l S . C t h s - , Musk. OK. (cc)(Agreed P/T Stmf;. due 6/17/8
MOTION to Adopt Previously Submitted Second Joint Pretrial Memorandum of P l a i n t i f f and Defendant.
6130'86/
NOTICE mailed changing time o n l y of PRETRIAL CONE'ERXNCE from July 1986 at 5 ; 0 0 p . m . to July 2, 1986 at 11:00 a.m.
N TICE m a i l e d Strikfn P r e t r i a l Conference from 7 / 2 / 8 6 Docket, and Resetting or ~bvembcr 1 8 , 1986, 2 p.m. , U . 9 . C t h s a . , Wu~kogec OK.
+
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 8 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 9 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 10 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 11 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 12 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 13 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 14 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 15 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 16 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 17 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 18 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 19 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 20 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 21 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 22 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 23 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 24 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 25 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 26 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 27 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 28 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 29 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 30 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 31 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 32 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 33 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 34 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 35 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 36 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 37 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 38 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 39 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 40 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 41 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 42 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 43 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 44 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 45 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 46 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 47 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 48 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 49 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 50 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 51 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 52 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 53 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 54 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 55 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 56 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 57 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 58 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 59 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 60 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 61 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 62 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 63 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 64 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 65 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 66 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 67 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 68 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 69 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 70 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 71 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-2
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 72 of 72
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 1 of 73
IN THE UNITED STATES COLRT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, and PATTON BOGGS LLP, intervenor-PiaintifI' v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
*
* * * * * * * *
. L
Case No. 89-218(L) Chief Judge Edward H. Damich
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
CHEROKEE NATION'S APPENDIX EXHIBITS RESPONSE PATTON OF IN TO BOGGS CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBITS 7 - 22 OF 38 Arthur Lazarus, Jr. Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & PerryLLP 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) alazarus@,sonosky.com Special Counsel for Plaintiff Cherokee Nation Of Counsel: Lloyd Benton Miller Donald J. Simon Anne D. Noto Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP 1425 K Street, lV.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240, (202) 682-0249 (fax) lloyd@,sonosky.net; dsimon~,sonosky.com; [email protected]
K - 1-2002 TI
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
IO:28
FROIA-WILCOXEH
AND WILCGXEN
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 2 of 73
1988
bv
Jn,j
bct.J.2c;l
UilrnL+ P .
:ldrrki( L c ~ . P r i n c i p a l
Ct1it.f
of
t h c Chr:roki.c
y a c i c , n o f ~ k l a h o m a , a c t i n 2 f c r a n d on b e h a l f
of
of
s a i d C h c r o k e e Hat i o n ( " F . ~ r t y
t ) c Fi r
~ ?t a r c " ) .
a n d J a n c s C . I J i l c o x c n of P l u s k n ~ c c , C k l a h o m a , 3 n d
Paul W.
N i e b e l l . W . l s h i n g c o n . D.C.
( " F ~ r t i c so f
t h e Second Part").
WITNESSETtt:
T h a t t h c P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r t . o n behalf o f t h c s a i d
~ h c r d k c eN a t i o n of Gitiahorna, under a u t h o r i t y of a R e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C o u n c i l
of s a i d Cherokec N a t i o n , a d o p t e d a t T a h l e q u a h , Oklahoma o n t h e
of
13th
day
August
, 1 9 8 8 , a c c p y of v h i c h i s h e r e t o a t t a c h e d a n d made a p a r t
h e r e c f , h e r e b y c o n t r a c t s w i t h , r e t a i n s and employs t h e P a r t i e s o f t h e Second
Part a s a t t o r n e y s i n m a t t e r s h e r e i n a f t e r m e n t i o n e d , s u b j e c t t o t h e a p p r o v a l
o f t h e cbmmissioner oc I n d i a n A f f a i r s a n d t o t h e f u t u r e r e t e n t i o n o f P a t t o n . BOERS a n d B l o w , W a s h i n g t o n ,
D.C.
a s co-counscl
i n m a t t e r s h e r e i n a f t e r mentioned.
I t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f s a i d attorneys t o a d v i s e and t o r e p r e s e n t t h e s a i d C h e r o k e e Nat i o n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h p r o p e r l y p r o s e c u t I n g t o E i n a 1 c o n c l u s i o n any
a n d all,claims w h i c h s a i d C h e r o k e e N a t i o n may h a v e a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
u h i c h i t may b e a u t h o r i z e d t o p r e s e n t by A c t o f Congress i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t c s
c o u r t s , o r a n y o t h e r c o u r t or t r i b u n a l . S a i d a t t o r n e y s s h a l l a d v i s e t h e s a i d Cherokee H a t i o n i n a n y m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g
t o s a i d c l a i m s , a n d t o r e p r e s e n t i t o r t h e m b e f o r e t h c U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t of
A p p e a l s f o r t h e T e n t h C i r c u i t a n d t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t ~ t e s ,and b c f o r c any o t h e r c o u r t s or t r i b u n a l s , o r any o f f i c e r s h a v i n g a n y d u t y t o per! form ! i n c o n n e c t i ~ w i t h t h e invec.t i g a t i o n , cons idcrat i o n o r f i n a l s c t t lerrent n
I
r e l a t , f v e t o a n y o r a I I suits s o ; i u t h o r i z e d c o b e f i ! e d ~ n p r o s e c u t e d f c r and o n d behalif of s a i d C h e r o k c c :lation.
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Patton Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 89-21 8 (Fed. CI.)
Ex. 7
(TCT-11-2002 1O:ZQ
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
FROM-WILCOXENANDWILCOXEN
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 3 of 73
cljis
i o n c r of l n d i a n : l E f ~ r s . a n d t h c s a i d C h c r o k c t f l a t i o n . i
I
I
onrracc.
shal 1 St subject
c o :llc
s l l p c r v i s i o n 3rjd d i r e c t i o n of i l ~ cCcrnrniss-
and s h a 1 1 n o r makc a n v
ccmpr mist, s c c t 1 c m t . n ~ or o t h e r adjustment of
with o f ti]
f 1
the
~~~~~~~s i n c o n t r o \ ~ ~ t -"~ y c s s nl
h e a p p r o v a l of
c h v C o e m i s s i o n c r of
l r ~ d i a nA f f a i r s 3 n d t h c P r i n c i p a l C h i e E
Commi s l o n e r of i n d i a n A f f a i r s , m a y a s s o c i a t e w i t h them i n s a i d w o r k l ~ e r e u n d c r
! 4
s a i d Cherokee N ~ t i o n .
I t i s a ~ r e e dt h a t c h e s a i d a t t o r r ~ ~ y s~. u b j c c tt o t h c a p p r o v a l of t h c
o t h e r attorneys 0 1 t h e i r own c h o i c e and s c l e c t i o n ; p r o v i d e d , t l i a t n c i t h c r t h c
u n i t e q S t a t e s n o r t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n o f O k l a h o m a . P a r t y of t h e F i r s t P a r r . is t o b e I t a n y e x p e n s e b y r e a s o n p f t h e employment o f any s u c h a s s o c i a t e a c t o r -
nays, ~ I eIx p e n s e s c h e r e o f
LO
be p a i d by t h e P a r t i c s o f t h e S e c o n d P a r t , o u t o f
any c o p e n s a t i o n w h i c h t h e y may r e c e i v e for s e r v i c e s t o be r e n d e r e d h e r e u n d e r .
11 i s a g r e e d t h a t t h e c o r n p c n s a t i a n of t h e P a r r i e s o f t h e S e c o n d P a r t , t o r
i.
t h e s e v i c e s rendered under t h e t e r m s of t h i s C o n t r a c t , i s t o be w h o l l y c o n t i n g e n t u on a r e c o v e r y for s a i d Cherokee Nation.
ti
I
The P a r t i e s o f t h e S e c o n d P a r c
s h a l l Iecriva s u c h c o r n p e n s a t l o n a s t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s m a y f i n d
-
l y t o b e d u e a s may be d e t e r m i n e d by a c o u r t o r t r i b u n a l , f o r s e r v i c c s
_ _ 2 _-
t h e r t t c f o r e r e n d e r e d u n d e r t h i s C o n t r a c t , b u t i n no e v e n t s h a l l t h e a g g r e g a t e
-
f e e e x c e e d t e n p e r c c n t (10%) of a n y a n d a l l sums r e c o v e r e d o r p r o c u r e d t h r o u g h t h e ef o r t s o f t h e s a i d a t t o r n e y s , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t f o r t h e s a i d Cherokee
Nation
t
1
i
I
attotneys,
P a r t i e s oE t h e S e c o n d P a r c ,
-
s h a l l a I s o be a l l o u c d and d i s -
-
b u r s e d / f u n t h m o u n t of a n y J u d g m e n t r e c e i v e d s u c h a c t u a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d ~
p -
--
b y ched.
e r c e p t s u c h a m o u n t s a s m a y be a u ~ h o r i z e d by r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C c u n c i l
. .
GU-11-2002
.
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
10:Zg
FROM-WI LCOXEN AND WI LCOXEN
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
t918-682-8635
1-931
Page 4 of 73
P 004/006
F-923
.
I
.?r
5.:
s a i d C h c * r o k c < .? ) a t i o n .
c.upc,rdccl
- 3 p p i 0 v c d b\. t h t . Corm\\
55icr..
:
.
. ..
.
o u t of
tribal
I I J ? J S c c r r . i r n h u r s c s a i il . > r r . . , -
.. .
. .. .
.
~ . x p ~ n . < c u r i r ~ gt h c F r O e r c s s o f d
lt
i
r h l i t icat
L L ~ ~ ) .
is
a z r c c d t l , ? ~ the' ~ i f c c t i v d a t c of t h l Con: e
:--.;.
.
;
...
.
.
order t
a n y a n d a l l c l a i m s h c r c i n m e n t i o r l e d , anrl c h a t t h c terms cT c h i s C n ~ l r s i t s h a l l t
coneinud f o r
* Y ~ I L
I
I
covcr
t h e s c t v i c c s o f tile P j r t i e s of t h e S c c o n d ? a r t i n p r c s r i u c i n ?
2
period a f
cwc
( 2 ) ycar;
from s a i d c f f c c c i 1 , c d d ~ e r L C o
f i v i (11
Ill,
1990, and c h a t c h i s C a n t r a c t may be c x t e n d c d f o r j r r i n d c of
f r o m c h e d a t e of i t s e x p i r a t i o n , a t t h c o p t i o n ~ n w r i c c c n r c q u c s t d of c h e S e c o n d P a r t . w i t h t h c a p p r o v a l o l t h e P r i n c i p a l C h i c f o f
t h e Cher k e c N a t i p n o f O k l a h o m a a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r of
I t i s a g r e e d a l s o t h a t no a s s i g n m e n t of t h e o b l i g a t i o n s of c h i s C o n t r a c t ,
o r i n p a r t , s h a l l b e made w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r of
P
11ldian A f f a i r s .
It
s a i d a t t b z n c y s i n t h e compensation a g r c c d t o be p a i d b?- t h i s C o n t r a c t s h a l l b r
I 1
s f u r t h e r a g r e e d t h a t n o a s s i g n m e n t o r e n c u m b r a n c e of
any i n t c r r s t o[
made v i t l o u c t h e a p p r o v a l o f c h e C o m m i s s i o n e r of I n d i a n - 4 f f a i r s .
.Any a s s i g n m e n t
o f t f ~ o 1 i g a t i o n s o f t h i s Contract, a n d / o r a n y assi~nrnnet o r encumbrance of anv t i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n a g r e e d t o b e p a i d , made i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e provis i o n s of t h i s p a r a g r a p h , s h a l l o p e r a t e t o t e r m i n a t e t h i s C o n c r a c t , a n d i n s u c h e v e n t n o a t t o r n e y having any i n t c r e s t i n t h e C o n t r a c t o r i n t h c f e c ProvjJed f o r t h e r ~ . i n s h a l l b e e n t i t l e d c o a n y c o m p e n s a t i o n w h a t c v e r f o r any ' e r v i c e
d c r e d t o t h e d a t e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n oE t h e C o n t r a c t . Ic
rcn-
.s ay,recd t h a t i n t h e
c
clJellc
o f t h e d e a t h o f c i c h c r n n c o r n o r e ~f
-
tl~c
C
_
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 5 of 73
F R O K W l LCOXEN AND H I LCOXEN
rc:l:t
re:>
*J-\.;c.~
~ 1 1 ~ . rir: ':dC:
.
.\I-
35
:d-.
kc
Z.:;
.
n*:;
.
ment d u l ; ~a p p r o v e d b y t h e Commissioner of Indian h f fairs. in which e v e n t such
associatc counse1 s h a l l b e e n t i c l e d t o p r o c e e d i n a l l c l a i m s pending b e f o r e che
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t of A p p e a l s f o r t h e T e n t h C i r c u i t , U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court,
or i n any o t h e r c o u r t o r t r i b u n a l ,
u n t i l t h e i r f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e terms
prosecute
and c o n d i t i o n s of t h e C o n t r a c t , and t o
such p r o c e e d i n g s i n cornpt i a n c c
with t h e rcrrns and p r o v i s i o n s o f c h i s C o n t r a c t .
T h i s Contract m a p be t e r m i n a c e d by t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s w i t h t h c consent of t h e Council o f t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n o f Oklahoma for c a u s e dccmed
by t h e C o n ~ m i s s i o n c r of I n d i a n A f E a i r s to be r e a s o n a b l e and satisfactory upon
s i x t y (60; days notice
-
to t h e
parties
in i n t e r e s t ,
a n d i f t h e C o n t r a c t s h a l l be
so t e r m i n a t e d , t h e P a r t i e s of t h e S e c o n d P a r t s h a l l be c r e d i t e d w i t h such i n t e r e s t
any/ i b u n a l
sum o r s u n s be r e c o v e r e d by a j u d g m e n t o f a court o r t r i b u n a l a s t h e
may d e t e r m i n e t o bc e q u i t a b l e
suit
i n t h e f e e f o u n d d u e upon t h e f i n a l
on of the s a i d
and t h e concrovcrted m a t t e r s t h e r e i n i n c l u d e d .
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
" '
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
t918-682-8605
Page 6 of 73
o~T-11-2002
-
\0:2g
FROM-WILCOXEN AND WILCOXEN
.
I
I
1,
WITNESS WHEREOF. w e h a v q hereunto s e t o u r h a n d s a n d s e a l s c h i s
P r i n c i p a l C h i e f of t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n o f Oklahoma
P a r t y of the F i r s t P J ~ C
P a u l M. N i e b e l l
..
P a r t i e s o f the Second P a r t
i t y d e l e g a t e d by t h e Commissioner of I n d i a n A f f a i r s
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 7 of 73
ATTORNEYS' CONTRACT
T X I S AGZEEMENT
(the "Contract") is made and entered into
this 1 7 t h day of April
,
1989, by and betireen The Cherokee
Nation of Indians of the State of Oklahoma ("Cherokee Nation") and Patton, Boggs WITNESSETH:
&
Blow, Washington, D.C. (the "Attorneys").
That the Cherokee Nation or Tribe of Indians
in Oklahoma, under a u t h o r i t y sf a R~soliitiono f the Council o f
said Cherokee Nation, adopted at Tahlequah, Oklahoma on the 20th day of
May
, 1989, copies of which are hereto
attached and made a part hereof, hereby contracts with, retains and employs Patton, Boggs
&
Blow as attorneys in matters
(All
hereinafter mentioned, subject to all required approvals.
references hereinafter to "required approvals" shall be construed to include the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian AfEairs, if required by regulation or statute.) It shall be the duty of said Attorneys to advise and to represent the Cherokee Nation in connection with claims which said Cherokee Nation may have under any treaty, Act of Congress, other laws, o regulations for damages or equitable relief r arising from the violation of the duties of the United States to protect the tribal lands and to manage the tribal resources of said Cherokee Nation. The terms and conditions of this Contract
do not authorize said Attorneys to provide any representation in
Cherokee Nation v. United States, Case No. 88-112, now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, nor does the representation authorized by this Contract in any way interfere with said pending litigation.
Ex. 8
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Patton Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nat'alionv. United States, No. 89-2 18
A-74
(Fed. CI.)
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 8 of 73
Said Attorneys shall advise and represent the Cherokee X ~ t i c nin the aforementioned matters before the United States Claims Court, federal district courts, Courts of Appeal, and t h e Supreme Ccurt, and before any other ccurts cr tribunals, or any cfficers having any duty to perform in connection with the investigation, consideration or final settlement of such matters. The said Attorneys
ill pursue as their top priority,
either through the litigation processes or ccmplementary legislative eEEorts, a resolution by way of settlement to recompense the Cherokee Nation for its long-outstanding entitlement since 1970 to the full benefits of its rights in its tribal lands held in trust by the United States, which rights to this date have not been honored in any respect. Said Attorneys, in performing their duties under this Contract, are subject to the supervision and direction of the Cherokee Nation, and shall not make any compromise, settlement or other adjustment of the matters in controversy without advance approval of the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.
It is agreed that said Attorneys shall prosecute actions
for an injunction and/or damages, which are directly interrelated with pending legislative efforts, and shall be compensated an amount not to exceed $5,000 per month for fees for the period January 1989 through June 1990, and for actual out-of-pocket costs expended in direct prosecution of said litigation, including, but not limited to, deposition transcripts, travel and subsistence expenses.
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 9 of 73
It is agreed that said Attorneys may associate with them in the aforementioned matters other attcrneys cf their oT,mchoice and selection; provided, that said Cherckee Nation agrees in advance to pay the expense that said Attorneys incur by reason of the employment of any such associate attorneys. The Cherokee Nation and the Attorneys acknowledge that said Attorneys will provide considerably more legal services and incur
msre in fees than the amount herein provided for monthly
compensation.
Accordingly, it is aqreed that, upon aqreed
monetary or other quantifiable recovery for the Cherokee Nation, through the litigation or legislative process, said Attorneys shall receive from the Cherokee Nation additional compensation of ten percent (10%) of the amount recovered less the amounts previously paid by said Cherokee Nation for attorney fees pursuant to this Contract for litigation; provided, that approvals required by law, if any, are obtained. This Contract shall be effective for eighteen (18) months (January 1, 1989 to July 1, 1990), and may be extended for periods of two (2) years, each from the date of its expiration, at the option and written request of the Attorneys, with all approvals required by law.
It is expressly understood that said Attorneys
shall have no contractual obligation to continue representation o f the Cherokee Nation after expiration or termination 0.f this Contract, and the Cherokee Nation shall cooperate in said Attorneys' actions to terminate such representation, including consent to withdrawal from pending court actions,
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 10 of 73
This Contract may be terminated by the Cherokee Naticn with
the consent of the Tribal Council of the Cherokee Naticn fcr
cJuse deemed b y the Bure~uof Indian Affairs to be reasonable and satisfactory upon sixty (60) days notice to the parties in interest.
If the Contract is so terminated, and any monetary or
other quantifiable sum is recovered by judgnent or settlement of
a suit or related controverted matters for which Patton, Boqgs
Biow has represented the Cherokee Nation, s a i h A t t o i i i ~ y ss h a i i receive an equitable portion of such recovery, pro rated consistent with the terms hereof regarding additional compensation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 13th day of November
&
,
/
1989.
Principal Chief on behalf of Cherokee Nation of Indians of the State of O k l A o m a
~ o a/ 'iFeder, on behalf of e PATTON, BOGGS & BLOW was4ingt,bn, D . C . Approved pursuant to authority delegated by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 10 BIAY 3 .
NOV 1 3 1989
Date
\
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 11 of 73
PATTON, B O G G S & BLOW
2 5 5 0 M S T R E E T . N.W.
W A S H I N G T O N . D.C. 2 0 0 3 7
(202) 457-6000
TRT TELEX: 197780 TCLCCOPICR:457-6315
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(202) 457-6094
September 18, 1991
The Honorable Wilma P. Mankiller Principal Chief Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, OK 74465 Re: Budget for FY 1991-1992
pursuant to our discussions about plans and strategy for legislative and other projects for the Cherokee Nation in the upcoming year, this letter confirms a monthly budget of $8,333.33 to cover already expanded representation of the Nation in nonlitigation matters. As you know, we have taken on a number of new legislative initiatives over time, some of which were unanticipated. In addition to our continuing efforts to secure funding for the Arkansas Riverbed Authority and riverbed surveys, we have prepared testimony and.lobbied for increased Indian Health Service funding for Cherokee health facilities and services and for continued EARN funding. Other examples of new projects include our tireless efforts to secure favorable legislative language to confirm the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma as the sole recipient of federal program grant and contract funds and of lands to be held in trust in Cherokee territory. We also have done some limited lobbying on the tribe's behalf for increased funds for Indian Housing and for the Administration for Native Americans, and are currently pursuing funding for Cherokee waste water treatment facilities construction. Also at your request I have been involved in coalition efforts to improve the bilingual outreach provisions of the Voting Rights Act. As was the case last year, there may well be legislative and administrative opportunities/challenges we will need to address as they arise this year. The foregoing budget contemplates coverage of these contingencies, and has been discussed with Tommy Thompson. Per Tommy's instructions, I also
A - 78
c n
2
5
~
g-9 e 8%
O 2 $ 2E ozs c .s 2 G -Es a.2Ez
r u
2
.= u
W ? ecs c
.O .O .I? , c , .
Y
4 2:s:
z$?
% 0: $
0
5
gc $
5 8
w
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 12 of 73
PATTON, B O G G S t B L O W i
The Honorable Wilma P. Mankiller September 18, 1991 Page 2
will prepare and submit a separate budget for pursuit of the Cherokee Nation's economic development proposal in Garland, Texas, assuming the project is feasible based on our due diligence review you have requested. Assuming the above non-litigation budget is satisfactory, please sign below, and we will be set for fiscal year 1991-1992. Warm regards,
~afharineR. Boyce
AGREED:
/
Principal chief . Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 13 of 73
Joe Byrd
K8
hAX
CHEROKEE NATION
I
Principal C h i e f
P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918-4564671
James "Garland" Eagle hH W & C Deputy Principal Chief
October 30, 1995
Kate Boyce PATTON BOGGS, L.L.P. 2550 M Street N. W. Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Boyce: As you know, Cherokee Nation has recently changed Administrations. 1 made the commitment during the election to closely scrutinize all accounts and contracts. 1 have acted upon that promise.
- i
Currently, we are reviewing our legislative needs and weighing those against our budgetary constraints. After consulting with members of the Administration and staff, 1 have decided that, at this time, Cherokee Nation no longer requires the services of Patton Boggs.
1 would personally like to thank you for your years of service to Cherokee Nation. You recently guidedour staffthrough the Budget Reconciliation and we are gratefiil for your insight. As a former Council Member, I am also aware of the role you played in obtaining hnding for Sequoyah and of your involvement with the Arkansas River Bed. Our tribal members have certainly benefited Erom your expertise.
Plea&
2c zgt hesitzte !cS ~ E ~ C :!? r e l f hl~thr! ~ e c be nf ssisfm-re. Again, t h d ye:: f ~ r C ~ ~ _ ~ if a ~
your hard work.
Principal Chief
Ex. 10
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Panon Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nation v. UnitedStaies, No. 89-2 18 (Fed. C1.)
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 14 of 73
Joe Byrd
CHEROKEE NATION
P.O. Box 948 Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
(9 18) 456-067 1
h'8 h a
Principal
Chiel
James "Garland" Eagle
DCQ-P
Deputy Principal Chief
April 23, 1996 C. Allen Foster Katharine R. Boyce Patton Boggs 25 50 M Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20037- 1350
RE: Cherokee Nation v. United States
Dear Mr. Foster and Ms. Boyce:
Chief Byrd has referred your letter of January 19 and your letter of April 18 to me. The Cherokee Nation is not prepared at this time to issue a direct response to Ms. Boyce's January 19 suggestion that if the Cherokee Nation doesn't agree with your firm's interpretation of the fee provisions in the contract, your £innwill require a statement of termination for cause by the Council before withdrawal &om the case. You may wish to know that the Council was informed of the termination of the Nation's relationship with Patton Boggs during our budget process earlier this year, and no objections were voiced. If you desire a b t i v e public action, we can certainly seek it.
:
,
I am thus reiterating Chief Byrd's earlier position that the services of Patton Boggs aie no longer required, and any representation of the Cherokee Nation by your firm in the Riverbed case since his October 1995 notification of termination of your h ' s representation is not authorized by the Cherokee Nation, absent any lkture express direction by the Council to the contrary. Please send the motion for the Cherokee Nation's consent to your withdrawal fiom the case immediately. We will be back in touch with you regarding our acquisition of the litigation tiles, and will work out any diipu'tes regarding fees at a later time.
J*=
L. usan Work
Ex. 11
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Patton Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 89-218 (Fed. CI.)
cc:
h Wicoxen, General Counsel
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
FROM-W I LCOXEN AND W I LCOXEN
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
+818-682-8605
1-98
Page 15 of 73 P.002/006 F-070
Wicoxen & Wilcoxen
nrroreys o Lnw r 112 Noc111Fifl Sreer P.O. Box 357
, z h g e OklafZ0~ Uu o e 74402-0357 E-.jrliI: W ; I c o . ~ n k ~ : o l c o . n c r
Andre
Janw-s
A&e
Memorandum
1:
Julian Fite, General Counsel of the Cherokee Nation
James G. Wilcoxen
Fro1
Datc
November 5,2002
This submission is made in response to your request of O c t o b ~ 2002. I will 1, end4 vor to submit a more complete response as time allows. I begin with a his to^ as whi< , sets the stage for my involve~11eat well as that of associated c o w l under my con1 ic;t Paul NiebeIl was one of the original riverbed attorneys who was also co-counsel unti is death
&
sue4
Che incc of r
inte
Cou
In 1966 Oklahoma agreed to waive irs sovereign immunity and allow itself to be Fr a judicial determination of who owned the Arkansas riverbed. In that year rhe o kee Nation sued the state in Federal Court in Muskogec for an accounting of all ~eit had rweivd from oil and gas and sand and gravel development along 96 miles : Arkansas riverbed wirhin the Cherokee Nation. The Chocraws and Chickasaws aled with like claims. The state answered waiving its immunity and asking the to quiet the title in the state pursuant to the equal footing doctrine.
Following adverse decisions in both the Dismcr Coun and the Courr of Appeals, a the 'nited States Supreme C w reversed holding that the Cherakee, Choctaw and Chit :asawNations were the joint owners of the riverbed and thar the United Stares had o ccdt mial titles to their respective domains in present Oklahoma t the tribes by the trea :sof the early nincreentb cmtury and later confirmed by patents which included the subj :t riverbed.
During the seventies and earIy eighties, the Cherokee Eation made many anempts ro St 1e all or pan of its danage claims with rbe Unired States. At each turn the m%ewas
Ex. 12
A -82
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Patton Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 89-2 I 8 (Fed. CI.)
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD W ILCOXEN Document NOV-08-2002 12 :42 f ROM-WI LCOXEN AND
153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 16 of 73
at settlement was imminent, but for various reasons the federal government adopt a settlement policy that was acceptable to both the Congress and the Decenlber 23, 1982, after many years of study and hsnation, Reagan signed i t law p~ act which allowed the Cherokee, Choctaw and no nations to bring suit against the United States for all damages related to the on of the navigation way. On May 23, 1983, the Cherokee Nanon filed its rhe United Stares District Court in Muskogee alleging that consb-ucrion of -Kerr Navigadon System created a loss of its tribal assets in the Arkansas tribe maintained thar those assets were held in trust by the United States for the tribe and that the same constituted an unlawfbl taking of the assets by under the Fifrh Amendment. The tribe also maintained in a separate laim rhat the United Stares had breached its dury to deal fairly and h o n v i y with the nibs.
I
The district court framed two (2) issues:
Whethcr the United States navigaaonal servitude i the Arkansas River n prevented it fkom liabiIity for an alleged FiW Amendment taking of tribal land; and
Whether the exercise of the servitude constituted a breach of its duty to deal faitly and honorably with the tribe.
(1)
(2)
Court ruled favorably on the first issue and reserved ruling on the second United States appealed the Court's ruIing on the first issu&to rhe Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court holding that the Cherokee Nation did property interest in the bed of the river even in the face of the
I 1985 following rhe Tenth Ckcuit's ruling the United States fld a petition far n ie
certiorari wich rhe supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and briefing and argument held that whatever property interests the Cherokee in the Arkansas riverbed the same were subject to rhe United States power Tbis holding was consistent with previous servitude decisionsthe first instance ia which the Untied States' power under the servitude with its trust obligations to an Indian tribe under the commerce clause Never before had an Indian nibe whose aswcre held in trust by denied compensation when the trustee used the same for its own
NOV-08-2002 12:42
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD F ROM-WILCOXEN AND
WLCOXEN I
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 17 of 73
II
Following rhe Supreme Court's ruling in 1987, rhe case was sent back to the Dis 'ct Court in .Muskogee for a decision on the second issue. The District Court a h cons dcring the position of rhe Cherokee Nation ruled against the mbe in the face of the Sup e C u t s recent decision. Tlm decision was appealed again to the T n h Circuir. or' et In I I, the Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation could not show that the United States viol ed its duty to deal fairly and honorably with the rribe for the reason that the Sup e Court had removed any doubt that the tribe's properry interests were subject to .*(i.~,c~!d SCZV:$L&. Ew~z??~:, tribe i ~ i iiii& :-Tnii& S a ~ e s ~ ~ ~ u ~ x / x u = ~which was denied. aut
b
I k t appeared in this matter in the spring of 1985. At that time, a claim pursuant n was pending in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for all le to the government's use and occupation of the Arkansas f record for the Cherokee Nation white the action was 5, the district court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation the United States constituted a 5th Amendment taking lndian Claims Commission Act of 1946. The United States appealed to the the judgment in favor of the Cherokee Nation w s a process, there were various trips ta Washington in an attempt g appeal. Notwithstanding, the Justice Department elected to We responded first with a brief in opposition to the In 1985 cert was granted. Paul Mebell and myself led a brief on behalf of the Cherokee Nation in response to the brief r was ultimately heard on oral argument before upreme C o w The Courr rendered its decision i the spring of 1987 reversing the n Cicuit and remanding the matux t the Eas~em o District for h h e r consideration on claims arising under the Indian Claims Commission Act. Again, a h briefing, the on because of the conclusive nature of thc Court's decision on the 5th Amendment taking issue. Notwithstanding, research and appeal thc remaining issucs etition for rehearing en banc. From this tial assistance in pursuit of the balance ation. After the lo& Circuit afhned the district court's denial of our claims, le effort was expended it the preparation of a petition for certiorari, which was
No other Tribc had been denied compensation by the fcderal government for rhe taki of mbal lands for use in river improvement projects. The Arkansas riverbed si -onwas unique because at the time of the development of the river by the Corps of
i
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
MOV-08-2002
12 :43
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
+918-682-8605
Page 18 of 73
1-996 P .005/006 F-070
FROM-W ILCOXEN AND W I LCOXEN
the federal government did nor know &at the riverbed was owned by the hoctaw and Chickasaw Nations. We therefore prepared legislation over a era1 months to c u e this situation. Working closely with associated counsel, and Chickasaw Nation representatives, the Depanment of the Interior and the legation, particularly Congressman Synar, we were able to have introduced 9 on February 7, 1992. The le@slauonwould have required the Secretary of the ay to the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Cherokee Nations such sums as would roceedings brought in the federal courr for damages resulting and occupation by the United States of that portion of the bed and banks of as River owned by each such mbe pursuant to treaties with the United States ed by the Supreme Court in Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma After considerable wa kj c e &j-fie of &piesai~$dfi a-dw a tie- for Senate, but congress adjourned and the bill died. However, that legislative in vain, it laid a strong foundation for subsequent 1egisIative efforts. Since ime, there has been an almost conrinuous attempt u negotiate a seN~nent , U i e Stares. Over the last cen years, there have been extended negotiations ntd ials and elected representatives in Oklahoma and Washington, D.C., to bear h i t . In the last three years the United Sates bes to negotiate for a settlement substantially in excess of n range that the Clinton amniaistration had insisted om (See letter of - The Adminisrration has finally recognized thar if a settlement is derd government, then the United States is going to have to file t thousands of non-Indian citizens of Oklahoma to quiet title to of what is now characterized as "drybed lands." If it fails to United States risks facing breach of trust claims by the Cherokee, Choctaw, and tribes began to embrace the concept of relinquishing their uted lands, the United States began to seriously negotiate the caxegories of damages which were raised in the tribes' original appraisals and Incidentally, it was always ]Ross Swimmer's belief that these ould be resolved for an amount in the neighborhood of $40 million and that no substmtially less would be desirable to the tribes and no amount substantially would be paid by the govemmznt History has borne out that reality as can be seen the pending legisladon H.R 3534.
Since the Cherokee election of 1999, there has been a renewed effort to settle with venunenr. For the lasr three years, I have been counsel of record in the Claims action, which has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of sertlement ons. Prior to my taking over that case, the Court severely cut back the causes of it would entertain; and the remaining three causes of action are the subject of a sal motion by the United States.
Recent settlement negotiatisns were conducted by a local team consisting of als Management Officer, BIA, Charlie Robertson, Interior Department Field Alan Woodcock, Chickasaw and Cl~wtawNations attorney Bob Rabon, Nation attorney David Mullon, Arkansas hverbed Authority Director, Troy
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
'
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
+818-682-8605
NCV-08-2002
12:43
FROM-W I LCOWN AND WI LCOXEN
T-B96
Page 19 of 73 P.006/006 F-070
, and myselt The United States began a~ 6s to $10 million. However, after f meetings, and much consultation with experts, Bill Smith and D e b n Fl inchum, got the government up to about $29 million for all damage caegories except avel. While we were able u get the govcmmcnt to conced~ the COT of , that
s for sand and gravel movement and/or use did not disagree with our ent did not want to pay for sand and gravel p a se because of We could show however rhat based on reasonable market Corps' own data, that $22 million in past and fhture sand and gravel ved and/or used by the government. The ultimate response was to
add $1 1 million to the already negotiated arnounr of $29 million on we knew we had to have to settle.
i
W are compiling attorney fee records F r all contract and associated counsel. I e o will bmit those as soon as we can.
Sincerely,
C
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 20 of 73
To:
Principal Chief Chad Smith Cherokee Gencral Couilsel Julian Fite
From: Patton Boggs Re: Patton Boggs' Contractual i\ttorney Fees Due for ilrkansas hverbed Lagation Representation
This responds to Cherokee Nation General Counsel Julian Fite's October 17, 2002 mcmorandum relating to the Arkansas hverbed and Civil Action 218-89L. Fitst, o n behalf of all of the many lawyers involved over the past nearly fourteen (14) years, Mr. Fite's recount of the Cherokee Nation's recognition of and appreciation for Patton Boggs' efforts over the years was most gratitjring. In the face of substantial uncompensated time involved and low probabhty of success, we also appreciate very much the Tribe's stated commitment to be generous in compensating Patton Boggs. The narrative below generally track Mr. Fite's numbered issues relating to Patton Boggs' claim for $1,596,04 1.OO pursuant to its April 17, 1989 Attorneys' Contract executed by the Cherokee Nation, approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of the Interior, o n November 13, 1989. Exhibit 1. Although not pertinent to any aspect of the discussion below, this contract was renewed o n several occasions subsequent to 1989.
.
;\ and F --Karrative of I,cc_ulServices l'rovidcd bv Patton Hocps ,
I3rief Synopsis of Initial "1,cmslati~eReprescnration" In lul!:, 1988, (;herokec Nation rctaincd I'atton Lloggs to consider a numl~cr different of Icgslativc approaches to resolve thc ,\rkansas Kivcrbcd matter (the " [ . c ~ ~ s l a t ~ s e I
Ex. 13
to Cherokee Nation's Opposition to Patton Boggs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Cherokee Nation v. United States, No. 89-218 (Fed. CI.)
Case 1:89-cv-00218-EJD
Document 153-3
Filed 05/12/2006
Page 21 of 73
nearly $3 d o n , for the Bureau of Land Management ("BLhl") to conduct estensive cadastral sun-eys to ascertain the legal boundaries of the Arkansas kverbed lands determined by the Supreme Court to belong to the Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 396 C.S. 630 (1970). As part of and in addtion to that funding, Patton Boggs subsequently secured appropriations for operation of the ilrkansas hverbed Authority and to help it pay for an economic valuation analysis (discussed below under "Legislative Settlement Efforts 1993prepare title opinions' so that the Department of 1994'7, and for abstracting and leml services to - .. Justice could commence of trespass and quiet title litigation. Without this funding for surveying and the title work overseen by the Riverbed Authority, neither the Cherokee Nation nor the other Tribes would have been in a position to press for the 600-800 trespass suits as leverage in working towards a legislative settlement. As another strategy to spohght the Riverbed problems, Patton B o g s sparked the interest of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's Special Investigations Panel in holding an oversight hearing exclusively focused on the Arkansas Riverbed. O n behalf the Arkansas Riverbed Authority and the three 'Tribes, Chief Manluller prcsentcd the legal background of the Riverbed ttust lands and highlighted RIiI's failure to conduct cadastral sunrcys to idcntiQ thc corpus of the trust to he protcctcd, and the failure of both BI11 and Justice to protect the bverbed trust lands from trcspass and pillagc. O f particular interest to the Senate [nvestigations l'anel was the oil consultant, who
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms