Dissent

The case ended up ruling 6-3 in the tribes favor, the 3 remaining judges stated that there was no enumerated relationship of trust laid out between the tribe and the United States government. They went on to say that since there was no relationship nothing was ever breached therefore the tribe had no ground to sue. It puzzles me that even though there were several other cases that set precedent for something similar to this case they never mentioned anything about them, they also never acknowledged the fact that the reasoning behind the creation of the Indian Mineral Lease Act of 1982 was to give the federal government the power to approve a tribe’s request to lease out their land in exchange that the government would look after all procedures and make sure the land was looked after. It’s obvious that there’s a trust relationship established but yet the justices still never mentioned this fact. "The United States breached its fiduciary obligations to the Navajo Nation in connection with these coal leases with Peabody." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

My Argument

In my opinion, I completely and with no doubt agree with the decision of the court. As I stated in my last blog in a prior case the court acknowledge its responsibility to uphold the trust the Native American tribes lie within it. This gives me no reason to question the outcome of the case; all the Secretary had to do was his job. I’m convinced there was an underlying reason for the decision of the Secretary like money. Regardless of whether the relationship of trust was enumerated or not there is no question that one lied between the Secretary and the tribe, for him to simply disregard this relationship and act in the interest of Peabody is questionable to me.

“This Court and several other federal courts have consistently recognized that the existence of a trust relationship between the United States and an Indian or Indian tribe includes as a fundamental incident the right of an injured beneficiary to sue the trustee for damages resulting from a breach of the trust.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

This quote lays out reasoning for suing the government for the Secretary’s actions, it seems like time and time again the representatives of the American government try to slip past this.

Rules of Law

I don't know that there is one specific precedent set in this case, as there have been several cases geared towards Native American tribes and The United States. But, in my research it seems that this was the first case regarding the Indians Mineral Lease Act and the trust that lies within the Secretary of the Interior to make a decision in the best interest of the tribe, this case really set precedence for future cases regarding these issues. In prior cases the court acknowledged that, "this Court has recognized the distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the Government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

Reasoning of the Court

My analysis of the logic of the court is probably very different than others. Being Native American, I know exactly how and why this case is so important to the Navajos. Having a place that we can call our home is just as important to us as it is to anyone else in the world, so when we lease it out to others all we want is to be able to trust that the proper steps are going to be taken. When I read about this case I couldn't help but to think that there was some type of money involved when the Secretary decided to go with what Peabody urged him to do. It seems to me that the justices who voted against the tribe don't really know how much this land means to the tribe and how the trust they lay into the Secretary was pushed to the side. Maybe they thought that the tribe was just trying to get something out of the whole situation, whether it is money, pride, or satisfaction. Whatever it was I'm glad that the ruling was in the majority of the tribe, now maybe the Secretary will think twice before pushing an issue to the side.
"The United States, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), supervises and regulates the development and sale of mineral resources on Indian reservation lands, pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, 25 U.S.C. �396 et seq., the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, 25 U.S.C. ��2101-2108, and implementing regulations." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The Decision of the Court

The court found that the government was liable and a trust relationship did exist, monetary relief was ordered because of the breach of trust. Out of the 9 justices, 6 voted for the tribe and 3 voted against the tribe. The reason why they voted for the tribe is because the reasoning behind the Indian Mineral Lease Act is so the Secretary of the Interior would look after the tribe’s best interest. The IMLA established a relationship of trust between the government and the tribe, by acting in the interest of Peabody the government breached that trust. “Let there be no mistake. Notwithstanding the formal outcome of this decision, we find that the Secretary has indeed breached these basic fiduciary duties.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The remaining 3 justices stated that the tribe can’t prove that there was ever a fiduciary relationship because it was never expressed or enumerated so therefore there is no break of contract. As a result there should be no monetary relief granted to the tribe.

Illicit Crime

Illicit Crime will never go away. Especially on the scale that it’s at today, this is a problem that will haunt not just one single country but the world and more and more each day. Will we as the people of the world ever be able to put trust into our world leaders, or will we always have a thought of doubt and fear in our minds? To say that we will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel would be naïve and foolish, we have to keep in mind that every person has their own agenda. We know this will be a pattern that the world follows for as long as the entertainment industry, fashion industry, technology, drug industry and almost any other one out there that keep producing merchandise in demand. People are now stuck in a position that if they want to survive and keep an income for their families they must break the law. Most likely, even if they do decide one day they want to find another way to make an income they would probably have a very hard time getting away from who they work with.

Everyone has seen counterfeit hand bags and wallets being sold at the local swap-meet, out of the back of vans or just on the street. The fact that a person can walk around with a counterfeit designer bag gets on my nerves, the only reason is because my career is in the fashion industry. Designers shouldn’t have to worry about getting ideas and inspirations stolen from them by some cheap warehouse product. One day I want to be able to design and sell my own apparel but I want it to be mine. Fashion pieces are made for expression of individuality and how can this be when knock offs are being made by the thousands a day.

Issues of the Case

Issues of the Case
There are two points to this case; the first is the source of the problem. The Indian Mineral Lease Act of 1938 allowed Native American tribes the power to lease tribal land for mining purposes with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1964, the Navajo tribe entered into a contract of lease with the Peabody Coal Mining Company, the contract included an agreement for 37.5 cents for every ton of coal mined and was up for renegotiation in 20 years. When the 20 years came around the tribe’s royalty was only worth 2% of what Peabody was making, also Congress had set a new minimum standard of 12.5% in 1977. Therefore, the tribe requested the Secretary to set a new rate for Peabody, the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs acting as a representative for the Secretary made a preliminary decision and set the rate at 20%.

After the temporary rate was set is where we get into our second point of the case, representatives of Peabody urged the Secretary to either reverse the decision or delay it, the Secretary did so and advised both parties to continue negotiation, "I suggest that you inform the involved parties that a decision on this appeal is not imminent and urge them to continue with efforts to resolve this matter in a mutually agreeable fashion." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=Fed&navby=case&no=005086&exact=1

The two parties ended up settling on a rate of 12.5%, but this isn’t the issue at hand. In 1993 the Navajo Nation sued the United States Government for breach of trust in the Court of Federal Claims, the court ended up ruling in the government’s favor because it is no where stated that the government has a regulatory or statutory obligation even though the Secretary did act in Peabody’s favor. The tribe then took the case to the Court of Appeals saying that general reason for the Indian Mineral Lease Act is for the government to look after the well being of the tribe, this time the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tribe. Ultimately, it was decided that while the Secretary should act in benefit of the tribe, the tribe must "identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary or other duties." http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1375/

My Research

My research on the Supreme Court cases is going alright, I just barely found a case that I liked and I found interesting so I’m getting to work on finding out the intricacies of the case. I wanted to do my case on something that mattered to me and I had a background in so I searched for cases involving Native American tribes. I’m planning on researching the case more and more each week and taking down notes so I can give a good layout of exactly what had happened. I’m expecting that I will have a great deal to say about this case once I’m done with my research because even though I’m not Navajo I’m still Native American and I think our governmental issues are overlooked and pushed to the side a lot of the time. My grandfather is on the council of Indian Affairs of the Smithsonian so I want to see if I can get his take on the case and what he might’ve done differently, I think he would be a good resource because then I can get a Native American that works with the government point of view.

Facts of the Case

United States v. Navajo Nation
Facts of the Case
·In 1964, the Navajo Nation entered into a lease with the Peabody Coal Company for the mining rights to some of their land.
·The agreement was 37.5 cents for every ton of coal that was mined.
·The agreement was subject for renegotiation after 20 years.
·After the 20 years was up the tribe’s royalty was only worth 2% of Peabody’s gross.
·The tribe requested for the Secretary of the Interior to set a new rate.
·Peabody’s representatives asked the Secretary to delay the decision, he agreed.
·The Navajo Nation and Peabody ended up settling with a rate of 12.5%
·In 1993, the tribe sued the government alleging a breach of trust and claimed $600 million in damages.
·The Court of Federal Claims ruled for the government saying that although the secretary betrayed the tribes trust and acted in Peabody’s interest it didn’t violate any obligation.
·The tribe came back on appeal saying that under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act the government has an obligation to look after the well being of the tribe.
·The Court of Appeals agreed with the tribe and reversed the decision stating that “the Secretary must act in the best interests of the Indian tribes.” http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1375/

Property Rights

In my opinion, property rights are just plain confusing. Things get too muddy because there are so many different standards. If it was me in Pacific Heights, I would’ve first off called a locksmith to remove the lock that he put on the door. As far as I know the landlord has the right to inspect the apartment, and a move-in date was never agreed upon, there was never any money exchanged which could probably hold up in court as an acceptance of an offer. But wouldn’t have to be some type of acceptance for him to be able to legally move in and call it his own. The fact that a tenant can say that a person is irresponsible and might be able to ultimately acquire the property can be a good and a bad thing, one is that there are people that do things that just simply shouldn’t. An irresponsible person is obviously the wrong pick to rent a property out to the public, but most of the time you can get a good feel for a person by first impressions. So, I don’t know why you would want to even consider renting from a person you think is irresponsible. The second is the chance that a person might in fact sabotage you like what was done in the movie.

I’ve never owned real property in my life and I hope to one day. But will I make investments on houses by buying them and then renting them out to the public; I’m not quite sure about that.

In life we don’t know what will come tomorrow, next week or years from now. All we can do is live life the best we can and hope the outcome is positive.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called: Taylor, Tee, Asshole :D

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Retail, Accountant, and Visual Merchandiser

Three Places I Have Lived: Fort Duchesne, Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Three TV Shows that I watch: Flavor of Love, MXC and Hell Date

Three places I have been: Washington D.C., New York, and Orlando

People that e-mail me regularly: My Mom, My Sister and Internship contact

Three of my favorite foods: pickles, bacon, strawberries.

Three cars I have driven: Mazda MX3, Pontiac Grand AM GT and Ford F-150.

Three things I am looking forward to: Learning as much as I possibly can in school, my future and meeting new people.

Greed Is Good: Week 6

Everyone loves getting a bonus. Who would turn down a bonus regardless of how much it is? As a former accountant for a Real Estate Owned company, I know that getting a bonus here and there after you’ve worked hard for the past two weeks is a great feeling, also a great incentive.
Every Thursday I walk out of The Art Institute feeling like I stand correct, this gives me a great feeling but at the same time a horrible one. To hear about the things that are going on in our country makes me wonder why our government isn’t doing anything about this. America was built on the idea that government should have nothing to do with how people operate their businesses but by letting things like this carry on we aren’t doing anything but hurting our citizens and have ultimately created one of the biggest upsets to the American people since the Great Depression.

Naïve minds are being taken advantage of like we just saw in the movie,” Wall street.” We the American people, the foundation of the country are unbeknownst to us being taken advantage of with systems in place like REIT’s, whether the intention of the creation of them was good or bad is obviously not the point. The fact that he just over a year ago got a bonus is astonishing and unfortunately not unheard of. These people should be taxed at a higher amount then everyone else; the money used for the CEO’s so called “bonus” could be used by the government or even put into jobs that are suffering. This money should be being fed into the American economy not being made as a cushion for already wealthy men and women.

As I stated before I feel like I’m repeating myself when I say that the systems in place in America are corrupted, we should be educating the American people about the things that are affecting us.

Bong Hits for Jesus

Bong Hits for Jesus
Minor is the one word everyone that is in fact a minor HATES hearing. But, I think when were in the process of “growing up” we take for granted everything that is put in place to protect us. In this particular instance I don’t think it was wrong that the principal took the banner down, she has to worry about hundreds of other kids and also the reputation of the school. As kids, we don’t understand how immature our actions are, we want the same rights that every adult is given. But this obviously isn’t possible; I don’t think it’s wrong that rights are taken away as soon as we enter a school setting.

BUT, I also think that if the government is going to take away rights that were given to us as Americans. Then, there should be one general standard age. The government likes to use the law to its advantage because they know they can. If we are able to be shipped off to war at the age of 18 with a chance of losing our lives, then we should be able to go have a drink at a bar or club. We can go to jail at 18 probably even younger, but we can’t have a beer?

There are very good reasons for having the laws for kids in school in place, they protect our kid’s, little brother’s, little sister’s, cousins, nieces and nephews. But like I’ve said in my recent blogs, the law has a way of bending itself to play into the hands of the government. So basically what I think about this whole situation is that the kid is an IDIOT for even wasting his time to put a banner up like that, and the principal did the right thing by taking it down.

Used Cars Crimes & Torts

Crimes
1. Destruction of Property.
2. bribery
3. Lieing under Oath
4. Under age driving
5. Unlicensed driving
6. No insurance
7. Speeding
8. Destruction of Public Property
9. Domestic Violence
10. Endangerment of Minors
11. Armed Assault
12. Possession of Concealed Weapon
13. Forgery
14. J-Walking
15. Drug abuse
16. Drug possession
17. Sexual Harrassment
18. Lack of License Plate
19. Fleeing the scene
20. Drinking on the Job
21. Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road
22. Wreckless Driving
23. Gambling
24. Attempted Murder


Torts
1. False Advertisement
2. Disreputation
3. Indescency
4. Slander

Taking a look at other's blogs

I looked at Alie's blog on the law and attorneys... this is what I wrote her
Alie, when I read through your blogs a lot of things came to mind. The first and foremost is that I noticed we share a lot of the same ideas about the law and attorneys! With all the scandals that government officials and police officers have been caught doing it’s hard to trust and even believe for one bit that they’re out for the public’s best interest. The one thing that gets to us is that we know they are out for the money but its just reality because in the end that’s what everyone’s out there for. But, the other thing is I’ve noticed your blog doesn’t really flow together well, I don’t know if it’s because of how you assembled it or if it’s because you didn’t know what else to say. You have some great ideas and it really sounds like you know what you’re talking about so I would like to hear you elaborate on the first key points you hit.

Another blog I looked at was Jade Interiors, this is what I had to say...
This is hilarious! I never would have thought I would have to hear something so ridiculous like these two case stories, how could these even be allowed into a court room. I agree with you on most things you’ve brought up, of course not every country can have a perfect government but the American government is very flawed and will do whatever it takes to cover up things that might put a doubt in the public’s mind. One thing I would have to disagree with is the integration of law throughout the nation; the constitution gives each state the right to establish law and order into their boundaries. It makes each state unique and gives us an image and feel of sovereignty. But all in all I completely agree with things you’ve stated, good job!

What I Think Of The Justice System in America?

What I Think Of The Justice System in America?

The United States of America is known as the land where dreams come true. So far in my life I have experienced and seen several different accounts where the law has held this to be undoubtedly true but at the same time unexpectedly wrong. The law was built to establish and maintain order, to keep the citizens of this country safe but at times this power is abused and the American people suffer.

The Rodney King incident is a perfect example for this; police are very sly when going about doing these things. Ask yourself the question, who are you going to believe…the trusted police force or the criminal? No one wants to question the credibility of their justice system; no one wants to believe that the police force is out for themselves and not for us. The police know this and take advantage of it, the minute the majority of Americans start doubting the credibility of their government is when they’ll lose power.

I’m not saying that all cops are like this and we all should be anti-government, but maybe we as the power of the American government should think for ourselves and question things that every arm of the government does, including: the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Why do most people instantly get a sense of fear when they see a police car or hear police sirens, not because they are doing anything wrong but just for the simple fact that they are the police. In the end, we know a country cannot survive with no kind of order in place it’s just impossible but I wish the men and women of the police force would take the people of this country into thought before they start their job every day.

What I Think Of Lawyers

What I Think Of Lawyers

Like in every profession, I think there are a variety of people. Some would be considered good and others bad, we would all like to think that everyone wants to do their job to their best ability and keeps good ethics in mind. But, especially with lawyers I think this isn’t always the case, I feel that most of the time lawyers are trying to get a pay check just like everyone else. They’ll do anything to win their case because of course that’s their job and at the end of the day that’s how they’re going to get paid.

I can’t imagine how hard it would be to have to choose between getting a big amount of money from taking a case that has potential to win and standing by your morals and possibly suffering in the public eye. But, there are always the very successful law firms that have enough money to pick and choose from which case they’re going to take and if they decide that taking the case isn’t morally right then it wouldn’t hurt their bank account.

But, ultimately what it comes down to is that everyone has a passion, and those of us who are lucky enough to make that passion our career have a job to do. Sometimes we to get to where we want to be we have to rethink our stance on situations put objectiveness to the side and get the work done by whatever means necessary. Like I said in the beginning, we’d like to think everyone sticks to what is right and what is wrong but I live in the real world, my thoughts of attorneys aren’t going to change anything in the end. After all, they are the ones who have to go to sleep with themselves comfortably at night.