WASHINGTON, April 24 - Dennis M. Gingold, lead attorney for Indians seeking a full accounting of individual trust funds held by the government, said today that the appeals court decision to remove a court-appointed special master from the case will have little impact on the litigation.
His complete statement:
On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral argument on Secretary Norton's appeal of the September 17, 2002, decision of Judge Lamberth. The judge had held her in civil contempt and found that she engaged in litigation misconduct and perpetrated fraud on the court.
The Court of Appeals expressed concern about the dual role of Joseph Kieffer as Court Monitor and Special Master and suspended him until further notice. The Court of Appeals raised no question about his findings. In fact, Mr. Keiffer has performed an important function as court monitor in this litigation. His investigations revealed serious misconduct by both Secretary Norton and former Secretary Babbitt and their aides.
Indeed, the Court of Appeals raised no concerns about the findings of Mr. Kieffer in his role as Court Monitor, a role that was explicitly consented to by Secretary Norton and the Department of Justice from April 16, 2001, through September 16, 2002. Therefore, it is unlikely that the findings made by Mr. Kieffer and adopted by the Court will be disturbed because they have been confirmed by substantial evidence.
The actions and findings of Special Master Alan Balaran have not been questioned. He was appointed by the Court on February 24, 1999, following the decision of Judge Lamberth to hold former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and former Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Gover in civil contempt for failing to produce documents required to be produced under a court order and for covering-up that failure. Mr. Balaran's findings are supported by overwhelming evidence.
Issues were raised by the Court of Appeals concerning Secretary Norton's responsibility for the misconduct of her predecessor. However, only two of the five counts of civil contempt relate to actions soley taken by Mr. Babbitt. For example, 4 of the 7 quarterly reports that were found by Judge Lamberth to be materially false and misleading were filed by Secretary Norton, not former secretary Babbitt.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals suggested that a criminal -- not a civil --contempt proceeding might have been more appropriate.
None of the matters on appeal -- which are limited to the contempt conviction of Secretary Norton and contempt investigations of other officials -- is expected to change the course of the Cobell litigation which seeks an accounting and rehabilitation of the failed Individual Indian Trust management systems.
To view the latest information concerning this case, go to: http://www.indiantrust.com
His complete statement:
On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard oral argument on Secretary Norton's appeal of the September 17, 2002, decision of Judge Lamberth. The judge had held her in civil contempt and found that she engaged in litigation misconduct and perpetrated fraud on the court.
The Court of Appeals expressed concern about the dual role of Joseph Kieffer as Court Monitor and Special Master and suspended him until further notice. The Court of Appeals raised no question about his findings. In fact, Mr. Keiffer has performed an important function as court monitor in this litigation. His investigations revealed serious misconduct by both Secretary Norton and former Secretary Babbitt and their aides.
Indeed, the Court of Appeals raised no concerns about the findings of Mr. Kieffer in his role as Court Monitor, a role that was explicitly consented to by Secretary Norton and the Department of Justice from April 16, 2001, through September 16, 2002. Therefore, it is unlikely that the findings made by Mr. Kieffer and adopted by the Court will be disturbed because they have been confirmed by substantial evidence.
The actions and findings of Special Master Alan Balaran have not been questioned. He was appointed by the Court on February 24, 1999, following the decision of Judge Lamberth to hold former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and former Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Gover in civil contempt for failing to produce documents required to be produced under a court order and for covering-up that failure. Mr. Balaran's findings are supported by overwhelming evidence.
Issues were raised by the Court of Appeals concerning Secretary Norton's responsibility for the misconduct of her predecessor. However, only two of the five counts of civil contempt relate to actions soley taken by Mr. Babbitt. For example, 4 of the 7 quarterly reports that were found by Judge Lamberth to be materially false and misleading were filed by Secretary Norton, not former secretary Babbitt.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals suggested that a criminal -- not a civil --contempt proceeding might have been more appropriate.
None of the matters on appeal -- which are limited to the contempt conviction of Secretary Norton and contempt investigations of other officials -- is expected to change the course of the Cobell litigation which seeks an accounting and rehabilitation of the failed Individual Indian Trust management systems.
To view the latest information concerning this case, go to: http://www.indiantrust.com