IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE … complaint 2003.pdffor the district of columbia...

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER )P.O. Box 251 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)CALVIN HACKFORD )

HC 76 Box 250 )Whiterocks, Utah 84083 )

)ALVIN RICHARDSON DENVER )

Rt. 1 Box 2835 ) CIVIL ACTION NO.Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

) 1:02CV02156 RCLJENS DALE CHRISTENSEN )

P.O. Box 65 )LaPoint , Utah 84039 )

)KIMBERLEE MOOSMAN PETERSON )

P.O. Box 1901 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)MITZI MOOSMAN RUST )

345 North Union )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)LA VAE HACKFORD )


)SHAWN HACKFORD )

HCR 67 Box 250 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)CALVIN S. HACKFORD )

HCR 67 P.O. Box 250 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)KORBY J. CHRISTENSEN )

2480 North 1250 East )North Logan, Utah )

)ROXANNA CHRISTENSEN MOSS )

10138 Founsdale Drive )Sandy, Utah 84092 )

Case 1:02-cv-02156-RWR Document 5 Filed 01/27/2003 Page 1 of 64

-2-

RICHARD ALLEN BAILEY, SR. )C/O RICHARD A. BAILEY, JR. )6592 Kell Lu )Las Vegas, Nevada 89156 )

)RICHARD A. BAILEY, JR. )

6592 Kell Lu )Las Vegas, Nevada 89156 )

)SHARON BAILEY )

530 Homestead )Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 )

)SANDRA BAILEY EAST )

2320 Calkins Avenue )Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 )

)PAMELA L. BAILEY OSEN )

6282 Darrell Lane )Las Vegas, Nevada 89131 )

)LOLA C. DANIELS BAILEY )

C/O JANICE N. BAILEY HALL )5711 Cabrillo Circle )Las Vegas, Nevada 82108 )

)CRAIG WALKER BUMGARNER )

2962 Richmond Street )Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 )

)ALLAN CRAIG BUMGARNER )

156 South 100 East 43-11 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)KELLEY BUMGARNER )

1801 Dalton Street )Tulare, California 93274 )

)ROBYN ALISE BUMGARNER )

1801 Dalton Street )Tulare, California 93274 )

)ELIZABETH C. BUMGARNER )

C/O ORANNA B. FELTER )P.O. Box 465 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )


-3-

SAMUEL REGINALD BUMGARNER )C/O ORANNA B. FELTER )P.O. Box 465 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)ELIZABETH MARLEEN BUMGARNER )


)RONALD T. BUTCHER )

1000 North 1000 East )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)FERN HARRIS BURDICK )

1st East 2nd South #201 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)FLOYD CAUDELL )

P.O. Box 161 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)LA FERN CAUDELL VILAPANDO )

3224 Regency Park Drive )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)JESSICA VILAPANDO )

C/O LA FERN CAUDELL VILAPANDO )3224 Regency Park Drive )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)GILBERT VILAPANDO )


)JAMES VILAPANDO )


)TONY VILAPANDO )



-4-

MARY L. CHIVERS )HCR 67 Box 80 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)W.T. CHIVERS )

P.O. Box 215 )Neola, Utah 84053 )

)LEANNA CHRISTENSEN THANEHORST )

439 East 400 South )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)JULIE ATKINS )

P.O. Box 156 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)DARLENE CHRISTENSEN HULLINGER )

15724 Yucca Drive )Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 )

)SELMA HACKFORD CHRISTENSEN )

115 East 1500 North )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)GERALD CHRISTENSEN )

1478 North 500 East )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)TERRY CHRISTENSEN )

7075 South 1400 West )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)DIXIE CHRISTENSEN MALONE )

HCR 67 Box 160 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)ELNORA CHRISTENSEN CHANDLER )

P.O. Box 442 )Evanston, Wyoming 82931 )

)DENNIS K. CHRISTENSEN )

HCR 1 Box 13 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)VANCE CHRISTENSEN )



-5-

WILBERT RICHARD CHRISTENSEN )C/O JOE CHRISTENSEN )P.O. Box 1133 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)ROBERTA BURNS CHRISTENSEN FOUTS )

C/O JOE CHRISTENSEN )P.O. Box 1133 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JOE CHRISTENSEN )


)CHIPITA CHRISTENSEN ROWLEY )

RR 11633 - J )ROOSEVELT, UTAH 84066 )

)GENE CHRISTENSEN MORRIS )

P.O. Box 208 )Altamont, Utah 84001 )

)CARL R. CHRISTENSEN )

8740 North 1700 West )Box 38 )Altamont, Utah 84001 )

)ADDAN CHRISTENSEN )

1905 West 4700 South Space #245 )Taylorsville, Utah 84118-1105 )

)LE ROY CHRISTENSEN )

P.O. Box 65 )LaPoint, Utah 84039 )

)SUSAN MERIA CHRISTENSEN )

4101 Westview Place )Vernon, B.C., Canada VIT 8 W2 )

)LUANNE CHRISTENSEN JONES )

P.O. Box 1365 )Craig, Colorado 81626 )

)BENJIE LE ROY CHRISTENSEN )

705 North 600 East 94-3 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )


-6-

JAN CHRISTENSEN BROOKS )5636 Alleney Crest )Vernon, B.C., Canada VIT 8T8 )

)JOAN CAUDELL REED BARLOW )

C/O ROBERT L. REED )325 Clark Avenue )Evanston, Wyoming 82930 )

)ROBERT L. REED )

325 Clark Avenue )Evanston, Wyoming 82930 )

)JOANN LYN ARCHULETA )

4760 South 3040 West )Taylorsville, Utah 84118 )

)DWIGHT COPPERFIELD )

C/O PERCELINIA C. HOWELL )P.O. Box 247 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)ALICE ORUM COPPERFIELD )

C/O PERCELINIA C. HOWELL )P.O. Box 247 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)ORAN F. CURRY )

C/O RICHARD H. CURRY )519 East 700 North )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)DELLA HARRIS CURRY )

C/O RICHARD H. CURRY, Sr. )519 East 700 North )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)RICHARD H. CURRY, SR. )

519 East 700 North )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)RICHARD H. CURRY, JR. )

P.O. Box 404 )Lapwai, Idaho 83540 )

)JESSE HILL CURRY )

P.O. Box 404 )Lapwai, Idaho 83540 )


-7-

REGINA CURRY LIVINGSTON ) 24 South 1853 West # 3 )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)JOSEPH WILLIAM LIVINGSTON )

24 South 1853 West # 3 )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)ROBERTA SPIGHT )

2397 South 1360 West )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)ANNIE ROSALEZ )

3067 West Baty Drive )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)RAYMOND D. HERRERA )

1853 Parkway Blvd # 3 )West Valley City, Utah 84119 )

)OREANE CURRY GARCIA )

P.O. Box 3057 )Gallup, New Mexico 87301 )

)BONNIE DANIELS FAUSETT )

30 South, Skyline Drive 56-6 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)CHARLES DANIELS )


)EVERETT DANIELS )

C/O EVETTE DANIELS HADLOCK )2533 West 1400 South )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)EVETTE DANIELS HADLOCK )

2533 West 1400 South )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)NATHAN DAYNE HADLOCK )


)ERIKA DAHN HADLOCK )



-8-

ALVIN RICHARDSON DENVER )Route 1 Box 2835 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)ROBERTA LEE DENVER )

Route 1 Box 2835 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)RALPH STEVE ROGAS )

RR 1 Box 2835 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JULIANNE ROGAS )

2324 CST )Bakersfield, California 93301 )

)MELISSA WYATT )

P.O. Box 302 )Buttonwillow, California 93306 )

)FLORA J. DENVER HEATER )


)STANLEY WINN )

503 Granada Street )Tularosa, New Mexico 88352 )

)CHRIS WINN )

P.O. Box 942 )Kittitas, Washington 98934 )

)DAWN WINN )

503 Granada Street )Tularosa, New Mexico 88352 )

)SHEILA DENVER RODDEN )


)RONALD ALAN WOODIN )


)RICHARD DALTON FRENCH )



-9-

JOSEPH THOMAS FRENCH )636 South 200 East 24-8 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)EARL S. DENVER )

27913 Taft Hwy )Taft, California 93268 )

)KERRIE L. DENVER HOLTSCHULTE )

500 Eastern Avenue )Taft, California 93268 )

)MICHAEL SHAWN DENVER )

4610 Bluestone Drive )Bakersfield, California 93311 )

)ALVIN RICHARD DENVER, JR. )


)RAELENE DENVER )


)VALERIE J. ATKINSON )


)ELLIS DENVER )


)GWENDOLYN ROSE DENVER MARQUEZ )

335 Aspen Street )Green River, Wyoming 82935 )

)GABRIEL C. MARQUEZ )

335 Aspen Street )Green River, Wyoming 83935 )

)ELMER DENVER, JR. )

43 North 700 East )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)GERALDINE DENVER BUCKALEW )



-10-

KYM BUCKALEW ROBB )1021 South 900 West )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)BURKE ELDEN BUCKALEW )

1169 W. Hwy 40 #13 )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)KENT ELMER DENVER )

1386 West Memory Lane 417-5 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)KRISTINE LYNN DENVER GIBSON )

2928 West 100 North )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)MICHELE LIN DENVER )

1892 River Bottom Road )Springville, Utah 84663 )

)SHAUN WAYNE DENVER )

298 South 1000 West )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)J. BRAD DENVER )

1943 East 700 South )Springsville, Utah 64663 )

)LANCE C. DENVER )

858 North Canyon View Drive 46-14 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)PAULINE DENVER FREEMAN )

P.O. Box 23 )Pala, California 92059 )

)MELTON DENVER )

C/O TERESA DENVER )P.O. Box 42 )Pala, California 92059 )

)GINA DENVER HOWARD )

518 Roja Drive )Oceanside, California 82530 )

)NATURITCH KOLB NEILSEN )

822 Lagoon Unit 56-15 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )


-11-

SONJA NIELSEN. ANDERTON )HC 66 Box 9 )Neola, Utah 84053 )

)JUBAL ANDERTON )

HCR Box 20-A1 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)KIT ANDERTON )

1028 South Jeremy Street )Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 )

)TAGGART ANDERTON )


)GWEN NIELSEN REYNOLDS )


)MYCO LYN GAULT )

309 East Monrow )Riverton, Wyoming 82501 )

)KRISTEN VAN REYNOLDS )


)GABRIEL RYAN REYNOLDS )


)KYLE KENT STRINGHAM )


)LONNY C. NEILSEN )

645 Lyyski Street )Sparks, Nevada 89431 )

)MANFRED NEILSEN )


)MATTHEW NEILSEN )

258 North 700 Street 115-2 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )


-12-

TORI NEILSEN COLLETT )25 North 1100 West )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)CALEB NEILSEN )


)LLOYD I. NEILSEN )

C/O GWEN REYNOLDS )P.O. Box 1763 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)BECKY DEVENER )

1942 Begonia )Casper, Wyoming 82604 )

)KIRK W. NEILSEN )

C/O BECKY DEVENER )1942 Begonia )Casper, Wyoming 82604 )

)RAE ANN BERNAT )

63 Pioneer )Casper, Wyoming 82604 )

)ILLA FERN HENDRICKS DISNEY )


)DEBRA FOSTER THACKER )

16328 South Peoria )Bixby, Oklahoma 74008 )

)DELBERT DUANE FOSTER )

8202 East 164th Street )Bixby, Oklahoma 74008 )

)DAWN COKER )

7417 S. 161 St. West Avenue )Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74006 )

)VICKIE FORREST )

632 East 9th Street )Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112 )


-13-

DAN EARL FELTER )P.O. Box 103 )Myton, Utah 84052 )

)JAMES KEITH FELTER )

P.O. Box 103 )Myton, Utah 84052 )

)PEARL TAYLOR GARCIA )

C/O GENEVIEVE TAYLOR LUCERO )P.O. Box 319 )Neola, Utah 84053 )

)COLLEEN REED GARDNER )


)EVELDA GARDNER RASMUSSEN )


)YVETTE GARDNER CHRISTENSEN )


)GARY J. GARDNER )


)APRIL GARDNER DIXON )


)TONYA H. GARDNER )


)NATASHA A. GARDNER R. ALLRED )


)ROGER R. GARDNER )


)DAVID R. GARDNER )



-14-

TREENA P. GARDNER )P.O. Box 53 )Whiterocks, Utah 84085 )

)DAWN S. GARDNER )


)JAMES F. GARDNER )


)EDSON G. GARDNER )


)ILONA GARDNER SLIM )


)SHERYL D. GARDNER FOSTER )


)DELMAR GARDNER )

C/O ARLISS GARDNER SMITH )799 Chambers Avenue )Ogden, Utah 84403-4505 )

)ARLISS GARDNER SMITH )

799 Chambers Avenue )Ogden, Utah 84403-4505 )

)RONALD DELMAR GARDNER )

4719 East Newton Drive )Las Vegas, Nevada 89121-7011 )

)P. EARL GARDNER )

C/O JOHN W. GARDNER )P.O. Box 132 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JOHN WAYNE GARDNER )



-15-

ADAM TROY GARDNER )27916 Via Mirada )Laguna Nigel, California 92677 )

)JONATHAN TODD GARDNER )

2552 Oakcrest Land )Cottonwood, Utah 84121 )

)ALLEN WAYNE GARDNER )

155 N. 500 West 62-12 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)KALEND MYLES GARDNER )

4986 Pawnee Drive )West Jordan, Utah 84084 )

)ELIZABETH H. EDWARDS THOMPSON )

23289 County Road X )Lewis, Colorado 81327 )

)JAROD S. EDWARDS )


)VERNON J. EDWARDS )


)JULIE EDWARDS FARNSWORTH )

Route 1 Box 1034 F )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JANIS EDWARDS BAILEY )

767 North Vernal Avenue )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)CLIFTON (CLIFF) HACKFORD )

269 North 100 East 79-11 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JAMIE HACKFORD ZACCARDI )

RR 1 Box 1207 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)KERMIT HACKFORD )



-16-

KERMIT DE CORY HACKFORD )C/O P.O. Box 273 )LaPoint, Utah 84039 )

)TANYA LEE HACKFORD POWELL )

C/O P.O. Box 273 )LaPoint, Utah 84039 )

)SANDRA HACKFORD ASAY )


)LAWTON CADE ASAY )


)ELMER HACKFORD )

Starr Route Box 20 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)WANDA M. RUSSELL HACKFORD )

C/O REBECCA J. HACKFORD MURRAY )725 South 100 East 13-5 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)REBECCA HACKFORD MURRAY )


)CORY L. EDRINGTON )


)KYLE RAYMOND EDRINGTON )


)EILEEN HACKFORD MILLER )

692 East 100 North )American Fork, Utah 84003 )

)RICHARD B. HACKFORD )

C/O RICHITA M. HACKFORD )820 East 300 North 113-10 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )


-17-

RICHITA MARIE HACKFORD )820 East 300 North 113-10 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)NATHAN SAMUEL HACKFORD COLLETT )


)RICHARD DEWRAY HACKFORD )

C/O RICH ITA M. HACKFORD )820 East 300 North 113-10 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)JOHNATHAN DEWEY HACKFORD )


)OPAL SHYREEN HACKFORD )


)MARK T. HACKFORD )

HC 67 Box 105 )LaPoint, Utah 84039 )

)HENRY E. HARRIS )


)CLORA H. IORG WHITEHEAD )


)CARLOS IORG )


)ARLO R. IORG )

Route 1 Box 1058 )689 East 3000 North )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )


-18-

LEONA M. JENSEN )604 Prairie Road )Riverton, Wyoming 82501 )

)BILL JENSEN )

720 Cherry Street )Riverton, Wyoming 82501 )

)BARBRA J. MERRICK )

107 Mohawk Street )Evanston, Wyoming 82930 )

)TERRY JENSEN )

353 H Street )Rocksprings, Wyoming 82935 )

)QUINTIN FRANCE KOLB )

1355 Butler Avenue )Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 )

)CANDACE KOLB )

1703 Bushrod Road )Alexandria, Virginia 22308 )

)TAWANNEE KOLB )

9869 South Eden Crest Road )South Jordan, Utah 84095 )

)KAREN KOLB KNIGHTON )

Box 460804 )Leeds, Utah 84776 )

)TYRON A. KOLB )

4994 Royal Ann Drive )West Valley City, Utah 84120 )

)DONAL E. KOLB )

5059 South 2500 West )Roy, Utah 84067 )

)TAMARA DAWN KOLB FUNK )

370 South State )Richmond, Utah 84333 )

)BECKY JO KOLB )

4038 West Liberty Creek )South Jordan, Utah 84095 )


-19-

KELLY BARNETT KOLB )2602 West 3900 South )Roy, Utah 84067 )

)RUTH ANN KOLB LA BACIDO )

4730 South 3950 West )Roy, Utah 84067 )

)ADA DENVER LE BEAU PADILLA )

714 Twin Drive )Orlando, Florida 32807 )

)JOLA F. LE BEAU )

Box 799 )Ft. Washakie, Wyoming 82514 )

)BENNIE EARL LE BEAU SR. )

2332 Oaklane # 74 )Riverton, Wyoming 82501 )

)RONDA LEE LE BEAU )

P.O. Box 635 )Ft. Washakie, Wyoming 82514 )

)WADE GARRETT LE BEAU )

P.O. Box 1832 )Lander, Wyoming 82520 )

)BERNARD LUCERO )


)BARBARITA LUCERO LEE )

2375 West 1000 North )P.O. Box 1384 )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)EILEEN M. LUCERO WISSIUP )


)JUANITA LUCERO LA ROSE )



-20-

GLEN (MAC) McMURDOCK )C/O MAC EUGENE MURDOCK )HC 67 Box 105 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)MAC (EUGENE) MURDOCK JR. )

HC 67 Box 105 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84027 )

)DAVID EDGER MONTES )


)BETH TAYLOR MARCUM )

P.O. Box 748 )Herlong, California 96113 )

)DEVIN D. WARD )


)JULIUS MURRAY )

C/O JAMES MURRAY )2564 A Route 2 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)TECUMSEH MURRAY )

C/O JAMES MURRAY )2564 A Route 2 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)LORAINE REED NIELSON )


)CLORINDA NIELSON HAYES )


)ELIZABETH N. BERRY )


)NORMA NIELSON BIRD )



-21-

ROCKY ALFONZO BIRD )C/O NORMA N. BIRD )P.O. Box 1 )Myton, Utah 84052 )

)CLAYTON LYLE BIRD )


)NORMA MICHAELLE BIRD )


)NORMAN MICHAEL (MIKE) BIRD )


)JANICE N. BAILEY HALL )


)JORDAN GILMORE BAILEY )

5712 Cabrillo Circle )Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 )

)JOHN FRANKLIN BAILEY III )

1104 West Ridgetop Crest )South Jordan, Utah 84095 )

)JAMES WINTHORP BAILEY )

1901 Timberline Drive )Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920 )

)EDITH DENVER OBERHANSLY GARDNER )

C/O BETTY O. SPRINGER )1022 West 2405 South 510-9 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)BETTY O. SPRINGER )

1022 West 2405 South 510-9 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)LORNA O. BARKER )

430 East 300 North )Salina, Utah 84654 )


-22-

GWENDA O. OSQUATHORP )6808 Courtland Avenue )Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 )

)WADE OBERHANSLY )

1509 East McCanse Street )Springfield, Missouri 65803 )

)MARY O. REYNOLDS )

4719 Newton Drive )Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 )

)WARREN D. OBERHANSLY )

5817 East Unalaska Drive )Wasilla, Alaska 99654 )

)KAREN O. MESSA )

2921 Chickasaw Ct. )Nunnelly, Tennessee 37137 )

)PHYLISS DANIELS OBERHANSLY )


)ROBERT D. OBERHANSLY )


)LORAINE OBERHANSLY RICHENS )


)CECELIA PANTALOON LAMBETH )

514 West 2675 North )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )

)BRAD LAMBETH )

1688 North 175 West )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )

)BRENT LAMBETH )

237 North 400 West )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )

)KEVIN L. LAMBETH )

4224 North Morgan Drive )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )


-23-

BRENDA LAMBETH JUDD )4784 Northfolk Court )Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 )

)IDESSA HACKFORD REBER )


)JOHN REBER )


)FRED REBER )


)RICKIE REBER )

252 East 100 South )Mantua, Utah 84324 )

)BRENDA REBER ANDERSON )


)ROBERT. REED )


)STEWART E. REED )

P.O. Box 343 )Altamont, Utah 84001 )

)RUSSELL REED )


)JULIAN REED )

Box 882 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)DONALD ELLIS REED )

762 Shoshone )Lander, Wyoming 82520 )

)STEFAN JULIAN REED )

762 Shoshone Street )Lander, Wyoming 82520 )


-24-

MELVIN REED )C/O TIMOTHY REED )P.O. Box 302 )Myton, Utah 84052 )

)TIMOTHY (TIM) REED )


)JACK LYNN REED )


)RITA REED McNAC )


)SHEILA McNAC )

C/O Box 323 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)NELDON REED )

C/O P.O. Box 323 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)KENNETH ROSS McNAC )


)JOHN WAYNE TABBEE )


)STACY ROBB REED, JR. )

C/O RITA REED McNAC )P.O. Box 323 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)STACY ROBB REED, SR. )


)MARTIN REED )



-25-

HENRY REED )165 East Leslie Avenue #2 )Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 )

)DENNIS REED )


)CLARINDA M. REED HOLLENCAMP )


)BEATRICE REED HARPER )


)LURA REED )


)JOHN WAYNE REED )


)MARY REED HONNA )


)PAULINE REED )


)ANITA REED REYOS )

C/O KAYE REYOS BLACK )3908 Jackson Street )Riverside, California 92503 )

)KAYE REYOS BLACK )

3908 Jackson Street )Riverside, California 92503 )

)EVERETT P. BLACK )



-26-

LORENZO BLACK, JR. )P.O. Box 546 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)OWNA M. BLACK )

3908 Jackson Street )Riverside, California 92505 )

)GLENDA JUNE REYOS )

C/O KAYE REYOS BLACK )3908 Jackson Street )Riverside, California 92503 )

)LINDA REYOS KELLY )

3290 West 4700 South )West Valley City, Utah 84118 )

)MARIE KELLY )


)SHAUNA KELLY )


)CHARLES KELLY )


)DELORES K. GONZALEZ )

4147 W. 3280 South )West Valley City, Utah 84120 )

)KENNETH C. REYOS, SR. )

839 West 1300 South )Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 )

)KENNETH C. REYOS, JR. )

839 W. 1300 South )Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 )

)FRANK P. REYOS )


)RICKY L. REYOS )



-27-

JESSICA C. REYOS )839 W. 1300 South ) Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 )

)ALLAN REYOS )


)LAJEAN N. RICHMAN )


)LARRY L. RICHMAN )

P.O. Box 397 )Crawford, Colorado 81415 )

)LYNDA RICHMAN MORE )


)GROVER WALTER SIXKILLER )

C/O ALLISON S. WHIPPLE )1508 17 Road )Loma, Colorado 81524 )

)ALLISON SIXKILLER WHIPPLE )

1508 17 Road )Loma, Colorado, 81524 )

)KOLENE SIXKILLER MARTINEZ )

925 East 300 North 109-7 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)REUBEN SIXKILLER, JR. )

C/O TEDDY SIXKILLER )General Delivery )Neola, Utah 84053 )

) JACK SIXKILLER )


)JUSTIN SEAN SIXKILLER )



-28-

KYLE SIXKILLER )C/O P.O. Box 706 )Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026 )

)LISA SIXKILLER WHITEHEAD )


)MARIE SIXKILLER )


)REUBEN L. RUSSELL )

C/O ROBERT L. RUSSELL )Route 1 Box 1025 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)ROBERT LEROY RUSSELL )


)MYRA TAYLOR BAUM )

Box 19 C )Hanna, Utah 84031 )

)DENNIS L. TAYLOR )

1407 Ambassador Way )Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 )

)NORMAN TAYLOR )

C/O DENNIS L. TAYLOR )1407 Ambassador Way )Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 )

)CLAUD TAYLOR )

C/O GENEVIEVE TAYLOR LUCERO )P.O. Box 319 )Neola, Utah 84053 )

)MARJORIE THOMPSON LEE ROSS )

P.O. Box 1582 )Vernal, Utah 84078 )

)LA DONNA K. WINN JOHNSON )



-29-

JOAN WINN REIDHEAD )393 East 700 North 96-3 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)TONY L. WINN )


)LILLIE REED WASH )

C/O MAXIE E. CHAPOOSE )145 South 2nd West 40-16 )Roosevelt, Utah 84066 )

)NOLA ZUNIGA )

5249 West 3700 South )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )

)AUTUMN AVIELLE GILLIARD )

5249 West 3700 South )Cedar City, Utah 84720 )

)Plaintiffs, )

)v. )

)GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior )

1849 C Street, N.W. )Washington, D.C. 20240 )

)AURENE M. MARTIN, Acting Assistant Secretary )

of the Interior for Indian Affairs )1849 C. Street, N.W. )Washington, D.C. 20240 )

)WAYNE NORDWALL, Director, Bureau )

of Indian Affairs, Southwestern )Regional Office )P.O. Box 10 )Phoenix, Arizona 85001 )

)CHESTER MILLS, Superintendent, Bureau )

of Indian Affairs, Uinta and Ouray Agency )P.O. Box 130 )Ft. Duchesne, UT 84026 )


-30-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, VIOLATIONS OF 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF

UTE PARTITION ACT, VIOLATIONS OF 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUEPROCESS, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY TRUST OBLIGATIONS

AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING

Above named individual plaintiffs bring this action against the defendants alleging

as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to seek redress of numerous wrongs committed against

them by defendants as the result of the premature, incorrectly implemented and unlawful

termination of the federally-recognized “Indian” status of each individual plaintiff as a

member of the Uinta Band of Utes (“Uinta Band”), a separate and independent Band of Ute

Indians, residing and living on or near the Uinta and Ouray Reservation, Utah, at all times

alleged herein.

2. Plaintiffs seek redress of numerous wrongs committed against them by defendants

as the result of the loss of their ownership and interest in federal trust property that was

intended to be held and managed by defendants under continuing the federal trust

relationship until such time as their special status as “Indians” and members of the Uinta

Band was “terminated” in accordance with laws passed by Congress and the intent behind

the various “termination” laws as more fully discussed below.

3. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief recognizing that, because defendants failed to

correctly implement and execute toward them federal termination laws intended to terminate

their special status as “Indians”, they never relinquished that status.


-31-

4. Plaintiffs seek compensation for damages suffered by them as a consequence of

defendants’ failure to correctly implement federal laws intended to terminate their special

status as “Indians” and members of the Uinta Band of Ute Indians.

5. Plaintiffs seek an accounting of funds entrusted to and held by defendants in

federal trust status for the benefit of plaintiffs at times prior to and after their purported

“termination”.

6. Plaintiffs have no adequate administrative remedies. For over forty (40) years,

Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that defendants comply with their legal and moral

obligations and redress the breaches of trust herein complained of and to correct their failure

to implement their so-called “termination” as originally intended by the United States

Congress. Defendants owe and have owed a legal duty to each plaintiff to assist them in

identifying specific instances or events that caused their termination to be ineffective, faulty

and not as intended by Congress.

7. Plaintiffs allege that defendants, as “fiduciaries”, are engaged in and have been

engaged in a historical pattern and practice of hiding or intentionally diverting plaintiffs, the

“wards”, from knowing that they were legally wronged as alleged herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Administrative

Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S C. §701 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §1331, in that plaintiffs seek

judicial review of the past and current actions of federal officers, agents and employees in

connection with the purported termination of the Indian status of the indigenous people of

the Uinta Band under the “Ute Partition Act” (“UPA”), Pub. L. No. 671, 68 Stat. 868

(codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 677-677aa (1982)).


-32-

9. This Court has venue over this action in that this is a civil action against officers

of the United States and the decisions which are the subject of this action were made within

the District of Columbia.

10. Plaintiffs allege that the actions of said defendants were and are contrary to Acts

of Congress, Executive Orders and the federally-approved Indian Reorganization Act

(“IRA”) Constitution and By-laws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray

Reservation, Utah, in excess of their legal authority and arbitrary and capricious, and that

said actions have deprived and are continuing to deprive, plaintiffs of their aboriginal

federally-recognized status as members of the Uinta Band and other vested federal rights in

violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, as more fully described below.

11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) in that

plaintiffs seek to recover damages against the United States for claims for breach of

contractual, statutory and fiduciary obligations owed by the United States to plaintiffs as

“wards” and as individuals who were wrongfully deprived of their status as Indians, said

claims not sounding in tort and arising under the Constitution and/or laws of the United

States.

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 25 U.S.C. §345 and 28

U.S.C. §1353, in that plaintiffs claim the right to allotments, parcels of land, minerals, oil,

gas, grazing rights, water rights and other valuable property interest which they were and are

entitled by virtue of laws of the United States, and that they have been unlawfully denied,

excluded and/or deprived of such allotments, parcels of land, minerals, oil, gas, grazing

rights, water rights and other valuable property interest, as more fully described below.

13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202 in that an


-33-

actual controversy exist between all plaintiffs and defendants which requires a declaration

of rights and other legal relations of plaintiffs upon and after the correct interpretation by this

Court of the UPA, Acts of Congress, the Constitution of the United States of America and

the Amendments thereto, the IRA “Constitution and By-Laws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the

Uinta and Ouray Reservation, Utah”, a modern consolidation of three (3) aboriginal Bands

of Ute Indians, and other federal laws and regulations and tribal customs and practices of the

Uinta Band regarding tribal membership, tribal status and continuity of tribal governance.

14. Unless and until the Court declares the rights and obligations of the parties, the

actions of the federal defendants in approving a document referred to as the “proclamation

of termination”, published in the Federal Register on August 24, 1961 (26 Fed. Reg. 8042),

will continue to deprive plaintiffs of their right to fully participate in the tribal governance

of the “Uinta Band” and to benefit from their unbroken “special relationship” with the United

States, as established through their relationship with the “historical” Uinta Band.

PARTIES

15. Individual plaintiffs were directly affected by the actions of the named defendants

toward them as further described herein as a consequence of the long rejected and universally

condemned federal policy of “termination”, which arose in the early 1950's, that has been

largely reversed among those victims of this grotesque experimental and genocidal federal

policy that has no parallel among honorable democratic nations.

16. The status and legal standing of individual plaintiffs derives from their special

relationship as one of the 490 “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band or as a descendant

from a person classified by the defendants as among the originally labeled “490".

17. Individual plaintiffs are also deceased members of the 490 so-called “mixed-


-34-

blood” members of the Uinta Band and their descendants and/or Indian successors in interest

for whose benefit the United States of America acquired and created the Uinta and Ouray

Indian Reservation by Executive Order of October 3, 1861, as confirmed by the Act of May

5, 1864, 13 Stat. 63, by the Executive Order of January 5, 1882 and by Act of March 11,

1948, 62 Stat. 72.

18. Individual plaintiffs also include undetermined numbers of persons who were not

denominated as 490 “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band and, thus, not specifically

targeted by the defendant United States for “termination” of their special “political”

relationship with the United States through a proclamation published on August 27, 1961,

subject to restrictions on certain property which continued until August 27, 1964. These

“forgotten” or “should have been enrolled” plaintiffs were born prior to the publication of

the termination proclamation in 1961 and they retain their status to this day as members of

the Ute Indian Tribe by virtue of the fact that the UPA did not expressly extinguish or

abrogate the entity known as the “Uinta Band”, a separate tribal entity existing and

recognized at all times prior to January 19, 1937.

19. Defendant Gayle Norton, sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior

of the United States, is the chief executive officer of the United States Department of the

Interior. As such, defendant Norton has ultimate authority over and responsibility for the

actions of her predecessors and subordinates within the Department of the Interior, including

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), and for the discharge of the statutory, trust and

fiduciary obligations owed by defendant United States of America to the members of the

Uinta Band specifically targeted for termination under the UPA and those plaintiffs born and

living prior to August 27, 1961 but “forgotten” and left off the published termination


-35-

proclamation. References herein to defendant Norton are intended to include her

predecessors in office and/or her/their subordinates acting under color and/or on behalf of

the authority of that office.

20. Defendant Aurene M . Martin is the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for

Indian Affairs and is responsible for the management and operation of the BIA, an Agency

within the Department of the Interior. References herein to defendant Martin are intended

to include her predecessor, Neal McCaleb, and his predecessors in office and/or his/their

subordinates acting under color and/or on behalf of the authority of that federal office.

21. Defendant Wayne Nordwall is the Director, BIA, Southwestern Regional Office.

References herein to defendant Nordwall are intended to include his predecessors in office

and/or his/their subordinates acting under color and/or on behalf of the authority of that

federal office.

22. Defendant Chester Mills is the Superintendent, BIA, Uinta and Ouray Agency.

References herein to defendant Mills are intended to include his predecessors in office and/or

his/their subordinates acting under color and/or on behalf of the authority of that federal

office.

23. All the defendants are officers and employees of the United States and have direct

and delegated statutory duties in fulfilling the trust and fiduciary responsibilities of the

United States to all persons with established “special relationships” to the historic

predecessor Uinta Band, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe, that was consolidated under

the 1934 IRA, on January 19, 1937, with the Uncompaghre and Whiteriver Bands of Ute

Indians into one Tribal government referred to as the “Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and

Ouray Reservation.” The members of the Uinta Band were the aboriginal occupants of the


-36-

area of land in and around the modern day Uinta and Ouray Reservation.. The Uncompaghre

and Whiteriver Bands historically resided in Western Colorado at all times prior to

September 13, 1881.

24. The actions of all defendants resulted in the forced “trail of tears” type removal

of plaintiffs from their historical and spiritual homelands in favor of Ute Bands from

Colorado and non-Indians possessing no historical or contemporary moral or legal claim to

that part of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation lost by plaintiffs except through the unlawful

actions of defendants herein described. However, unlike the notoriously famous Cherokee

“Trail of Tears”, plaintiffs in this action were not “removed” to another Indian reservation -

plaintiffs and their children were cheated, defrauded and driven out of their cherished

ancestral homelands and other tangible and intangible things of immense spiritual and

monetary value. As a consequence of official policy, they were left to languish in poverty

and die in hopeless despair across a barbed wire reservation line fence and within sight of

their birthright.

25. All federal defendants were and are under a lawful mandate to implement the

UPA in accordance with the plain language and intent of Congress in enacting this racially,

politically and culturally selective federal law so that implementation would not lead to the

destruction of the status of plaintiffs as members of the Uinta Band and the theft or loss of

their beneficial ownership of land, water and money as members of the Uinta Band.

26. Further, all federal defendants were under a continuing lawful mandate and duty

to take corrective action to properly implement the UPA and to insure that any and all pre-

existing laws and other regulations not specifically extinguished by the passage of this

abhorrent racially, politically and culturally-based genocidal federal law would remain intact


-37-

and respected by everyone, including those Indian Tribes, corporations, companies,

individual non-Indian persons and other entities who wrested control and ownership of the

immensely valuable land and water rights from them in violation of UPA and the enforceable

terms of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray

Reservation of Utah, as more fully described below.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIMS

27. On October 3, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln declared the entire Uinta Valley,

consisting of 2,487,474 acres of land, an Indian “reservation.” By 1869, the Uinta Band had

been forced to relocate to the newly declared reservation set aside for them. This set aside

parcel, which became known as the “Uinta and Ouray Reservation” (“Reservation”), was

purchased in order to provide said Indians with a secure land base on which to build homes,

grow crops for food and sale, graze cattle and cut wood for fuel and sale, and where said

Indians would be free from depredations by non-Indians.

28. The original reservation included the entire valley of the Uinta River within Utah

Territory, extending on both sides of the river to the crest of the first range of contiguous

mountains on each side and was established for such Indians of the Uinta Band as could be

persuaded to locate there. Prior to 1881, the only Indians from the territory of Utah to

occupy the Reservation were members of the Uinta Band.

29. On or about 1881, the Uinta Utes’ interest in the Reservation was diminished

when the United States opened it to the White River Band of Utes, originally occupying their

homelands in Western Colorado until the Band was removed to the Uinta Band of Utes’

reservation under a “removal agreement” executed with the United States under less than

honorable circumstances.


-38-

30. By Acts of January 27, 1897 (30 Stat. 62, 87), June 4, 1898 (30 Stat. 429), and

the joint resolution of June 19, 1902 (32 Stat. 744), amending the Act of May 27, 1902 (32

Stat. 245, 263), the Secretary of the Interior was directed to allot lands of the Uinta Valley

reservation to the Uncompaghre as compensation for the taking of their Colorado reservation.

31. By operation of law and fact, the United States continued to recognize the Uinta

Band’s Reservation as their exclusive property by making appropriations to compensate them

for the reductions in their interest in the Reservation due to the forced occupation by the

White River and Uncompaghre Bands of Reservation lands that, prior to August 21, 1950,

had been held exclusively in title for the Uinta Band.

32. The Uinta Band’s interest in the original reservation set exclusively aside for them

was further reduced by a series of Acts of Congress reducing the reservation: Act of May 24,

1888 (25 Stat. 157) restoring certain portions of the reservation to the public domain; the Act

of March 3, 1905 adding approximately 1,010,000 acres of land within the reservation to the

Uinta Forest Reserve; the Act of April 4, 1910 (36 Stat. 269, 285) extinguishing the Indian

rights in approximately 60,000 acres of reservoir sites and other irrigation works.

33. The “Ute Indian Tribe”, a modern fiction, came into existence by the adoption of

a Constitution and Bylaws, approved under the IRA of 1934 on January 19, 1937. Prior to

the adoption of this Constitution, the three (3) Band known as the Uinta, Whiteriver and the

Uncompaghre maintained their individual status as federally-recognized tribal sovereigns,

existing since time immemorial and before the creation of the United States of America. The

different Bands had their own individual spokesman and representatives for each tribal entity

and each Band’s rights were different in nature due to the geographical locations that they

had originally occupied with the Uinta Band in the status of the original occupant prior to the


-39-

time their lands were turned over to the other two (2) Bands for their use.

34. At the time the “Ute Indian Tribe” was created under the IRA in 1937 pursuant

to a governing document approved by the BIA, the Bands and the United States clearly

intended that the right of each Band to exercise its inherent sovereignty independently from

the other consolidated Bands would be respected under the enforceable Constitution and By-

laws of the “Ute Indian Tribe.” At the time the “Ute Indian Tribe” was created, all parties

to the federally-approved governing document intended that each Band would be governed

by a Tribal Business Committee consisting of six (6) members, two (2) members duly elected

from each of the three (3) Band of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation,

known as the Uinta, Uncompaghre and Whiteriver Bands.

35. In adopting the Constitution and By-laws in 1937, each of the three (3) Bands, the

defendant United States, the defendant Department of the Interior and the defendant BIA, all

agreed that no property rights shall be acquired or lost through membership in the modernly

created entity known as the “Ute Indian Tribe” except in the manner(s) specified in the

governing document. Each plaintiff’s status to enjoyment of the special federal trust

relationship with the United States is a property right that cannot be lost through the

execution of a vote by only two (2) of the Bands undertaken and executed in an illegal

manner and in violation of the IRA-approved Constitution and By-laws of the “Uinta Indian

Tribe”.

36. In adopting the Constitution and By-laws in 1937, each of the three (3) Bands, the

United States, the Department of the Interior and the BIA, all agreed that the Business

Council of the modern creation titled the “Ute Indian Tribe” would only exercise certain

enumerated powers subject to the limitations imposed by the statutes or the Constitution of


-40-

the United States, and subject to all express restrictions upon such powers contained in the

federally-approved IRA Constitution and By-laws, contingent upon further and full review

by each of the Ute Bands themselves at any annual or special meeting.

37. In the early 1950's, the “Confederated Bands of Colorado Utes” obtained a $32

million judgment from the Indian Claims Commission that was to be divided among the five

(5) Confederated Tribes of the Utes. Two (2) of these Ute Bands, the Uncompaghre and

Whiteriver, were living on the Reservation and the remaining Bands were in Colorado except

those on a small portion which was located in Utah in the area commonly known as the “Four

Corners”. At this time, a majority of the Confederated Bands (exclusive of the Uinta Band)

did not reside on the Reservation.

38. In the early 1950's, the Uinta Band filed a claim in the Indian Claims Commission

against the United States for monetary compensation for all lands taken from them lying

south of the Reservation to the Arizona border. A condition of settlement between the

Confederated Bands and the Uinta Band was that the Uinta’s would withdraw approximately

130,000 acres of land out of their claims against the United States for an alleged

uncompensated taking since this amount of land was occupied by members of the

Confederated Bands.

39. On June 1, 1950, Resolution No. 3 of the Ute Indian Tribe, the “share and share

alike” agreement, was adopted to resolve that the Uinta Bands would share in the Colorado

judgment funds for lands relinquished from their part of a separate Indian Claims

Commission action against the United States. In effect, the Uinta Band acquired the right

to share in the Colorado judgment funds because of the Uinta’s agreement that they would

release 130,000 acres of lands that they had claimed in their own independent and separate


-41-

Indian Claims Commission action.

40. For Resolution No. 3 to be valid, according to federal and tribal law, the Uinta

Band had to vote separately on the “share and share alike” agreement. No records prove that

such a separate vote by the Uinta Band was ever conducted. Defendant BIA knew, on June

1, 1950, and continues to know that no vote on approval of the “share and share alike”

agreement had been executed according to applicable provisions of the “Ute Indian Tribe’s”

governing document.

41. Resolution No. 3 embodied the Executive Orders of 1861 and 1862 and stated

that: “Be it further resolved, that the members of the Uncompaghre, Whiteriver and Uinta

Bands of the Ute Indians in the same meeting hereby compromise and settle all existing

controversies between themselves as to the ownership of land within the Uinta and Ouray

Reservation and income issuing therefrom, both heretofore and hereafter, by determining and

agreeing that such land and income shall be tribal property of all Indians of the Ute Indian

Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation without regard to band derivation.”

42. The three (3) Bands maintained their separate identities and the exclusive title of

the Uinta Band to the Reservation lands continued to be recognized at all times to and

including August 21, 1951, the date the United States Congress implemented the “share and

share alike” agreement as a means of attempting to resolve a controversy involving the varied

interest of the Bands in a $32 million dollar judgment and the interest of the Uinta Band in

recovering for things of value provided to the Colorado Bands from Uinta Band land and

assets that had been included in the Indian Claims Commission claims against the United

States.

43. Under pressure from a United States Congressman named Arthur Watkins, a


-42-

Mormon and fervent religious advocate of the concept of “termination”, a law based on the

concept of destroying the spiritual and cultural basis of an indigenous tribal group by

stripping them of their politically-based identity with the United States, the “Ute Indian

Tribe”, including all three (3) Bands, was coerced, threatened, fooled and otherwise forced

by defendants to consider discarding their special relationship with the United States in

return for the dispersal of the $32 million dollar judgment.

44. Congressman Watkins made sure that the “share and share alike” agreement was

so closely intertwined with the release of the $32 million dollar judgment that repeal of the

Act of August 21, 1951, a taking of property subject to the Due Process Clause, by the “Ute

Indian Tribe” would be foreclosed provided that the defendants would not duly disclose to

its Indian wards, including plaintiffs on the 490 termination roll, that Watkins’ approach was

unlawful or not in accord with the UPA, Acts of Congress, the Constitution of the United

States of America and the Amendments thereto, the IRA “Constitution and By-Laws of the

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation, Utah”, and other federal laws and

regulations and tribal customs and practices of the Uinta Band regarding tribal membership,

tribal status and continuity of tribal governance.

45. On information and belief, non-tribal political operatives and other persons and

non-Indian business entities maintaining direct and attenuated relationships with

Congressman Watkins wound up with vested rights, property and interest owned by plaintiffs

as the original designated 490 “mixed-bloods” or their descendants as a result of all

defendants’ failure to correctly implement the UPA.

46. On March 31, 1954, a General Council meeting of the Ute Indian Tribe was called

and the matter of the “termination” of the “Mixed-bloods” of the Uinta Band of Utes was


-43-

placed on the floor without compliance with the plainly understood terms of the IRA-

approved Constitution and By-Laws of the Ute Indian Tribe, including Article II, § 2 stating

that “no property rights shall be acquired or lost through membership” in the IRA created Ute

Indian Tribe and Article VII, § 1 which further states that the Business Committee shall not

exercise certain enumerated powers to deprive the Bands or individual members of those

Bands their rights as granted under the Constitution of the United States or the IRA

Constitution of the Ute Indian Tribe unless reviewed by the Ute Bands themselves at any

annual or special meeting.

47. As a consequence of the March 31, 1954 meeting and upon no legal notice issued

on discussing any aspect of blood quantum changes of any Band, the General Council of the

“Ute Indian Tribe” purportedly voted 152 to 8 against to separate the assets of the IRA

created “Ute Indian Tribe” between the so-called mixed-blood Utes, predominately members

of the Uinta Band, and the full-blood Utes.

48. Based upon the allegedly invalid and null and void vote purportedly held by the

“Ute Indian Tribe” on March 31, 1954, the United States Congress passed the UPA on

August 27, 1954 over the stated objection of hundreds of Utes, Uinta Band (mixed-blood)

and full-bloods, who protested the fraudulent misrepresentations made to Congress on the

acceptance of “termination” by the “Ute Indian Tribe.”

49. On information and belief, although Congressman Watkins’s and the defendants

originally intended to “terminate” the so-called full-blood Utes of the Whiteriver and

Uncompaghre Bands, these Bands were not, through deft political maneuvering with certain

members of Congress and officials of the Department of the Interior, ultimately terminated.

The Whiteriver and Uncompaghre Bands managed to obtain, through a conspiracy with the


-44-

defendants, extremely valuable land, water rights and other things of value owned and held

in federal trust for the 490 mixed-blood members of the Uinta Band as well as land, water

rights and other property intended to be given to the individual mixed-bloods under the UPA

for their use and ownership after proper implementation of the UPA.

50. The trust relationship between the United States and the Indians of the Uinta Band

or, more commonly labeled as the “mixed-bloods”, was intended by Congress to continue

unless and until said relationship was terminated pursuant to and in total conformity with an

Act of Congress, the UPA, having as its express purpose the termination of said trust

relationship with each of the 490 persons named and listed on the “Final Roll of Mixed-

bloods”.

51. Under the UPA, a mandatory condition precedent to the lawful distribution of

assets held in beneficial ownership by the 490 members of the Uinta Band classified as

“mixed-bloods” was that the profits, income and other valuable consideration arising from

those divisible and indivisible assets and properties were to be directed toward the benefit

of members of the Uinta Band, as well as those included with them, and their families to

accomplish the goals of the termination policy.

52. In enacting the UPA, Congress clearly intended to foster a climate in which

Indians could manage their own affairs to create an atmosphere where the mixed-bloods

would not have their assets wrongfully dissipated into the hands of the other two (2) Bands

or non-Indians, leaving many of the mixed-bloods poverty-stricken and more dependent than

before.

53. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate consequence of defendants’

intentional efforts to throw a cloud of confusion over the disposition of Indian Claims


-45-

Commission settlement funds earmarked and targeted for distribution under Act of Congress

enacted on August 21, 1951 that affirmed the “share and share alike” agreement, plaintiffs

share of the allocated $32 million dollar judgment and the interest owed to them as members

of the Uinta Band was lost to them, their children and their heirs.

54. On information and belief, defendants’ failure to account for all plaintiffs’ share

of the allocated federal trust funds has resulted in unlawful benefit to defendants and other

unintended persons and non-Indian business entities and resulted in an enormous loss of

income to plaintiffs, their children and their heirs from funds held by the United States

Treasury for their benefit as defined under the UPA.

55. Plaintiffs’ dilemma as discarded and forgotten victims of a mistaken federal policy

has been the subject of two (2) recently published books: The Dispossessed: Cultural

Genocide of the Mixed-Blood Utes, an Advocate’s Chronicle, University of Oklahoma Press,

1998, authored by Parker M. Nielsen and Termination’s Legacy: The Discarded Indians of

Utah, University of Nebraska Press, 2002, authored by R. Warren Metcalf.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION[Declaratory Judgment Act - 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202]

All Plaintiffs’ Claims For Individual Declaratory Relief For Violation Of IRA Constitution

56. Plaintiffs re-allege each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 55

above, and by this reference incorporate each such allegation herein as if set forth in full.

57. In enacting the UPA, the United States Congress did not relieve the named

defendants from respecting or otherwise complying with substantive pre-existing laws,

statutes or regulations such as the federally-approved 1937 IRA Constitution and By-Laws

and its provision mandating that no property rights shall be acquired or lost through

membership in the modernly created entity known as the “Ute Indian Tribe” except in the


-46-

manner(s) specified in the document.

58. In the haste of the defendants to defraud the individual mixed-blood members of

the Uinta Band out of their special relationship with the United States and to misrepresent

to the United States Congress that each of the 490 persons listed on the “Final Roll of Mixed-

bloods” published in the Federal Register on August 27, 1961 “voluntarily” agreed to

“termination” of their special political relationship with the United States, defendants failed

to follow the plain language of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Ute Indian Tribe, created

in 1937pursuant to the IRA, mandating that all consolidated Bands would not act to affect,

diminish or deprive the property rights of plaintiffs except in the manner(s) specified in the

governing document.

59. Each plaintiff’s status to enjoyment of the special federal trust relationship with

the United States is a substantive “property right” that cannot be lost through the execution

of a vote by only two (2) of the Bands undertaken and executed in an illegal manner and in

violation of the IRA-approved Constitution and By-laws of the “Uinta Indian Tribe” and the

intent of the “share and share alike” agreement implemented on August 21, 1951 by the

United States Congress.

60. All defendants were under a moral and legal obligation and common law duty to

immediately take proper actions to correct the plain and open violation of the substantive

federally-approved and enforceable IRA governing document of the modernly created “Ute

Indian Tribe”, a fiction non-existent under the common laws of the Uinta Band, and the Act

of Congress, dated August 21, 1951, enacting the “share and share alike” agreement..

61. Prior to the purported termination of the special trust relationship with each of the

490 Mixed-bloods listed on the published proclamation, the defendant BIA was obligated to


-47-

disclose any plans, secret or otherwise, to terminate the individual mixed-blood members of

the Uinta Band that would result in their exclusion from obtaining any share of the $32

million dollar judgment and to exclude them from the aboriginal homelands.

62. Prior to and during the process of promulgating the UPA for the Uinta Band

mixed-bloods and the “Plan for Distribution of the Assets of the Individual Mixed-blood

Members” and during the process of obtaining the approval of said Plan by the Uinta Band

mixed-bloods and during the implementation of said Plan, defendants failed and/or refused

to provide the Uinta Band mixed-bloods with such accurate and adequate information, advice

and assistance as reasonably was required by them in order that said individual mixed-blood

members of the Uinta Band could fully and accurately understand their rights and the

obligations of the United States under the UPA, the relative advantages and disadvantages

of accepting termination and the options available to them under the UPA and the legal

consequences of exercising those options. Had defendants provided such adequate

information, the individual mixed-blood members of the Uinta Band would have been

informed of the steps they could take for themselves to accomplish the goals of the

termination policy which was to foster a climate in which the terminated Indians could

competently manage their own affairs and the affairs of their minor children.

63. When plaintiffs within the “490" attempted to competently manage their affairs

with financial resources derived from the UPA, defendants sought to undermine and destroy

their efforts so that the true and intended purposes of the substantive laws and regulations

underlying the UPA would be frustrated in such a manner that their land, water rights and

other valuable property would go into the hands of unintended beneficiaries, such as the “Ute

Indian Tribe”, non-Indian members of the “Ute Distribution Corporation” and non-Indian


-48-

business entities.

64. Defendants participated and knew about this wrongful transfer of their land, water

rights and other valuable property in derogation of Congress’ intent behind the UPA but,

nonetheless, connived with the unintended beneficiaries to insure that the Uinta Band’s

property and valuable assets and those of its mixed-blood members would be taken from

them. Defendants perpetuated this scheme by aligning themselves with and supporting the

“Ute Indian Tribe” and other unintended beneficiaries so they would wrongfully benefit from

a breach of the fiduciary trust relationship owed by the defendants to the Uinta Band, as a

whole, and to each of the individual plaintiffs.

65. Because the relationships between the persons named on the Final Roll of Mixed-

blood Utes were not properly terminated as intended by Congress when it passed the UPA,

defendants have been and continue to be obligated not only to protect plaintiffs' status and

interests in the faulty and incomplete termination of their individual special relationship with

the United States, but also to affirmatively act to ensure that plaintiffs receive all

opportunities, rights, benefits and improvements to which they are entitled under the

Constitution and laws of the United States, the IRA approved Constitution and Bylaws of the

“Ute Indian Tribe” and their pre-existing status as members of the Uinta Band who held

exclusive beneficial title to the Uinta Reservation at all times prior to August 21, 1950.

66. As a direct and proximate consequence of each defendants’ intentional failure to

respect provisions of the substantive 1937 IRA Constitution and By-Laws of the Ute Indian

Tribe and the substantive “share and share alike” agreement, the defendants breached their

duty toward properly accounting for the earlier enacted federally-approved governing

document and an Act of Congress and wrongfully deprived each of the plaintiffs out of their


-49-

special relationship with the United States.

67. By reason of these breaches of substantive and independent federal law and

regulation, plaintiffs are entitled to 1) a decree rescinding the “Final Roll of Mixed-bloods”

published in the Federal Register on August 27, 1961, 2) restoring their rights, status and

privileges and immunities as Indians under the law of the United States, 3) declaring that any

of their rights and property obtained through the UPA and lost as a consequence of

defendants’ disregard for the 1937 federal law and the “share and share alike” agreement, 4)

declaring the continuing obligation of defendants not only to provide plaintiffs with services,

benefits and programs necessary to bring their living and economic conditions in conformity

with the goals, objectives and intended policies of the United States in implementing the true

and intended purposes of the UPA, and 5) to provide such remedial services as will remedy

the deficiencies and damages which have existed during the time when the plaintiffs were

unlawfully deemed to have been terminated.

68. An actual controversy exist between the plaintiffs, in that said plaintiffs contend

that defendants breached their trust obligations toward them by violating the plain terms of

the 1937 federal law and the “share and share alike” agreement and the moral and legal

duties owed to them in the manner alleged above, and thus that said plaintiffs are entitled to

relief sought immediately above.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION[Declaratory Judgment Act - 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202]

Plaintiffs’ Claims For Individual Declaratory Relief As Members Of The Uinta Band Of Utes




-50-

70. Beginning with the creation of the Reservation in 1861, a trust relationship existed

and continues to exist between the United States and the mixed-blood members of the Uinta

Band due to the faulty and incomplete termination, under the substantive UPA, of the special

trust relationship between plaintiffs on a list naming 490 persons published by the

Commissioner of Indian Affairs on August 27, 1964 and referred to as the “Final Roll of

Mixed-blood Utes”.

71. The UPA lacks any unequivocal expression of congressional intent to subject the

pre-existing tribal sovereign, the Uinta Band, to an abrogation of its sovereign authority.

There is no clear indication in the UPA that Congress has implicitly deprived the Uinta Band

of its sovereign power, upon which its contemporary existence to the date of the filing of this

action, is predicated.

72. The UPA focused on the “Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation”

in Utah. The UPA did not terminate federal supervision over the entire Ute Indian Tribe, but

instead divided the “Ute Indian Tribe into two (2) groups, “full-blood” members and “mixed-

blood” members, and provided that the “mixed-blood” members would have their federal

supervision terminated first. This federally approved “divide and conqueror” tactic resulted

in Ute families divided by hatred and emotion to the point where plaintiffs were placed in the

most defenseless and weakened state possible by defendants so that they would be unable to

exercise their right to defend their property and culture from destruction - a right granted to

all United States citizens except plaintiffs named herein.

73. The stated purposes of the UPA were to partition and distribute the assets of the

Ute Indian Tribe between the Uinta Band (mixed-bloods) and the full-blood group; to end

federal supervision over the trust and restricted property of mixed-blood members of the


-51-

Uinta Band first; and to create a development program for the full-blood members to assist

them in preparing for later termination of federal supervision over their property that never

happened because of deft maneuvering that resulted in Congress’ amending the UPA so the

full-blood group would not suffer termination.

74. In 1961, federal guardianship over only the individual mixed-blood members of

the Uinta Band was purportedly officially terminated by issuance of a proclamation of the

Secretary of the Interior. Although the proclamation ended federal supervision over the

assets distributed to the mixed-blood group, it did not terminate the trust status of the

indivisible assets nor did it terminate the status of the Uinta Band as one (1) of the three (3)

Bands consolidated under the IRA of 1937.

75. It is a well-established principle that a tribe retains all inherent authority not

explicitly divested by Congress. Because defendants failed to effect the termination of the

individual “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band pursuant to and in accordance with

provisions of and/or as authorized by the UPA or other Act of Congress, the purportedly

“terminated” Uinta Band “mixed-blood” members are and have always been members of the

Uinta Band despite the efforts of defendants to conceal this fact from plaintiffs for the benefit

of those unintended beneficiaries who absconded with plaintiffs’ land, water rights and other

valuable property.

76. A detailed review of the history of the Uinta Band proves that the United States

has maintain an uninterrupted and continuous relationship with the Uinta Band from early

times to the present and the United States maintains in federal trust status to land, money and

property of the Uinta Band by reason of its breach of 1937 IRA Constitution .

77. By reason that defendants failed to properly execute the UPA envisioned by


-52-

Congress, plaintiffs are entitled to a decree restoring their rights, status and privileges and

immunities as Indians of the Uinta Band and a decree that the conveyance of land, money

and property belonging to the “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band to the “Ute Indian

Tribe” or other non-Indians and non-Indian entities is unlawful and in violation of the 1937

IRA Constitution.


that defendants have breached their trust obligations toward them and their tribal Band, the

Uinta Band, by failing or refusing to acknowledge plaintiffs’ existence of as full members

of the Uinta Band in the manner alleged above, and thus that said plaintiffs are entitled to

relief sought herein.


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION[Declaratory Judgment Act - 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202]

“Should Have Been Enrolled” Plaintiffs’ Claims For Individual Declaratory Relief As Members Of The Uinta Band Of Utes



80. Plaintiffs not named on the list of 490 who were born prior to the publication of

the termination proclamation in 1961 and living at the moment the defendants purportedly

terminated the special relationship of the 490 so-called mixed-blood Utes with the United

States retained their status in the un-extinguished tribal sovereign entity known as the “Uinta

Band” pursuant to substantive custom and substantive tribal law mandating that a child born

of parents who are members of a tribe retain their tribal identity at the time they are born.

Pursuant to substantive tribal custom, law and tradition, plaintiffs who were not officially


-53-

enrolled in accordance with the substantive and independent provisions of the 1937 IRA

Constitution and By-Laws of the Ute Indian Tribe, a modern fiction, were considered as

automatically assuming the status of the tribe or band from which their parents originated,

in this instance, the Uinta Band.

81. Defendants failure to disclose the fact that Congress never intended to abrogate

the “Uinta Band” as a federally-recognized sovereign caused confusion over the status of

plaintiffs “who should have been enrolled”as members of the “Uinta Band” and, thus, these

children were unlawfully placed in a “forgotten” category of Indians under federal law that

has resulted in immense emotional pain, agony and depression to them because they have

been deprived of their tribal status and both federal and tribal benefits that should have been

available to them as of right.

82. By reason that Congress has not explicitly divested the Uinta Band of its inherent

sovereign authority, the “should have been enrolled” plaintiffs are entitled to a decree

restoring their rights, status and privileges and immunities as Indians of the Uinta Band.


that defendants have breached their trust obligations toward them and their tribe, the Uinta

Band, by failing or refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Uinta Band in the manner

alleged above.


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION[5 U.S.C. §701 et seq.]

All Plaintiffs’ Claims For Judicial Review And Relief




-54-

85. Pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S C. §701 et seq., plaintiffs seek judicial review of all

past and current actions of federal officers, agents and employees in connection with the

purported termination of the “Indian” status of the “mixed-blood” people of the Uinta Band

under the UPA on the grounds that the actions of said defendants were and are continuing

to be contrary to Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and the federally-approved

Constitution and By-laws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uinta and Ouray Reservation, Utah,

in excess of their legal authority and arbitrary and capricious, and that said actions have

deprived and are continuing to deprive, plaintiffs of their aboriginal and federally-recognized

status as members of the Uinta Band and other vested federal rights in violation of the

Constitution and laws of the United States.

86. In the course of acting and continuing to act contrary to law as described above,

defendants employed the judicial system of the United States against the plaintiffs to

establish case law precedent favorable to defendants that was built on misrepresentations of

facts, false allegations and bogus legal arguments to the United States District Court, United

States Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court.

87. In the course of making such misrepresentations, allegations and bogus legal

arguments to the Courts, defendants never told the Courts that minors named on the list of

the 490 were not competently represented by the defendant BIA or not competently

represented by legal counsel who had irreconcilable conflicts of interest known to the

defendant BIA or that the UPA had been enacted by the United States Congress upon

defendant BIA’s fraudulent misrepresentations that the “Ute Indian Tribe” had complied with

the provisions of the 1937 IRA Constitution and By-Laws requiring separate action by the

Uinta Band and formal notice to the Uinta Band that the so-called “mixed-bloods”, largely


-55-

consisting of the Uinta Band members, were going to be subjected to a vote on their blood

quantum by the other two (2) Bands, with no historical relation to the Uinta tribal territory,

who had self-serving and financial reasons for singling them out for spiritual, racial and

cultural extermination.

88. In the course of making such misrepresentations to the Courts of the United States,

defendants never exercised their duty of ethical candor to the Courts to present to these

judicial bodies that the federal policy of termination had been officially rescinded by

Executive Order or that overwhelming evidence proved that the termination of the members

of the Uinta Band was gained through criminal and civil fraud, duress, coercion,

overreaching and other numerous violations of the defendants toward plaintiffs, intentionally

placed by defendants in a weakened position, so that the UPA would appear to the Courts to

be the end result of voluntary action taken by the 490 “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta

Band.


defendants relied upon their overpowering presence as representatives of the Executive

Branch of the United States over the intentionally weakened plaintiffs, to promote the

continuation of a disfavored genocidal agenda, i.e., termination, knowing that the defendants

would likely prevail against plaintiffs in the Courts of the United States because of

defendants’ position would be favored by the federal judiciary, who made findings, upon key

misrepresentations and deceptive statements, that the plaintiffs had “voluntarily agreed” to

and accepted their termination. Defendants orchestrated a program designed to lead to the

failure of the UPA by disregarding the notice and rule-making provisions of the APA.



-56-

defendants intended to deprive plaintiffs of their right to exhaust their administrative

remedies as provided under federal administrative law. This deprivation of plaintiffs’ right

to a fair and just resolution of their administrative appeals of BIA action relied upon the

misuse of the federal courts by the defendants to create case law precedent built entirely upon

overpowering, overreaching, fraud, misrepresentation and deception, all in derogation of the

interest of the Uinta Band, an aboriginal Indian Nation whose existence has never been

extinguished by Act of Congress.

91. Defendant’s motive for the perpetuation of the false scenario to the federal

judiciary and the United States Congress was to hide or otherwise obscure the Executive

Branches’ unlawful dissipation of the extremely valuable land, property and assets of the

“mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band to non-intended parties, the “Ute Indian Tribe”,

a modern fiction, and non-Indians who were freely allowed and encouraged by the BIA to

obtain the property and assets of the purportedly “terminated” mixed-blood members of the

Uinta Band in violation of Acts of Congress. Defendants knew that the conveyances of trust

property and assets of the “mixed-blood” members of the Uinta Band members was defective

and not in accordance with the UPA, the 1937 IRA Constitution of the modern fiction called

the “Ute Indian Tribe” and the Congressionally approved “share and share alike” agreement.

92. By reason of the violations of the UPA, the 1937 IRA Constitution and the “share

and share alike” agreement as alleged above, plaintiffs are suffering systematic deprivations

of valuable Indian rights, to their severe and irreparable injury, and for which deprivation

they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.



-57-

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION[28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)]

All Plaintiffs’ Claims For Damages For Breach Of UPA


above, and by this reference incorporate each such allegation herein as if set forth.

94. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1346(b), plaintiffs seek to recover damages against the

United States for claims for breach of contractual, statutory and fiduciary obligations owed

by the United States to each plaintiffs both as “wards” and as individuals deprived of their

status as Indians, said claims not sounding in tort and arising under the Constitution and/or

laws of the United States; 25 U.S.C. §345 and 28 U.S.C. §1353.

95. Plaintiffs are Indians listed on the Tribal roll of the Uinta Band as full members

or persons with a direct family relationship to a person listed on historical documents relied

upon by the defendant United States to execute its government-to-government relationship

to the historical Uinta Band prior to the termination of their individual special relationship

with the United States.

96. The actions and course of conduct of the federal defendants, and their failure to

follow an Act of Congress and the “share and share alike” agreement constitute breaches of

these federal laws that have damaged all plaintiffs as alleged above.

97. As a direct and proximate result of the invalid and void BIA actions in regard to

the breaches of the UPA and the “share and share like” agreement, plaintiffs and each of

them were damaged to the statutory maximum of $10,000 per plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.


-58-

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION[5th Amendment Right to Due Process]

All Plaintiffs’ Claims For Damages To All Plaintiffs’ Right To Due Process Rights For Violations Of Acts Of Congress, 1937 IRA Constitution, Indian Civil Rights Act

And The Common Law Of The Uinta Band Of Utes


above, and by this reference incorporate each such allegation herein as if set forth.


follow an Act of Congress and the “share and share alike” agreement constitute breaches of

these federal laws, the 1937 IRA Constitution, the Indian Civil Rights Act and the Common

Law of the Uinta Band of Utes under which the defendants were bound to protect by virtue

of defendants’ status as federal “guardians” over the Uinta Band and its individual members

and their land, water rights and other valuable property and assets.

100. Plaintiffs’ status as Indians conferred and continues to confer upon them

valuable rights and immunities under the laws of the United States, which rights cannot

lawfully be extinguished or suspended consistent with the Fifth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States, except by due process of law and upon payment of just

compensation therefore.


follow the plain and expressed language and intent of the UPA and the “share and share

alike” agreement, as alleged above, constitute arbitrary and capricious actions that are not

rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and which go beyond the authority

vested by the UPA in said defendants. Plaintiffs and/or their Estates were thus deprived of

their 5th Amendment Constitutional right to due process, and as a direct result suffered

damages in the amount of to be proven at trial.


-59-

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION[Breach of Trust]

102. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 to 101.

103. Under the trust relationship existing between the United States and plaintiffs

prior to and as confirmed by the 1937 IRA Constitution and Bylaws of the Ute Indian Tribe,

a consolidation of separate Ute Bands each exercising its independence and traditional

autonomy, defendants were and are obligated to safeguard the trust status of the lands and

Indian rights and status of the individual “mixed-blood” members Uinta Band, their Estates,

their children and their descendants and their immunities until such rights, status and

immunities were lawfully extinguished in accordance with the intent of the Act of Congress

in enacting the UPA and to compensate said Indians of the Uinta Band for monetary losses

sustained by reason of defendants’ breach of said obligations.

104. By reason of defendants’ breaches of federal trust obligations in prematurely and

unlawfully distributing the assets of the “490" and purportedly terminating the Indian status

of the people of the Uinta Band, each plaintiff has suffered damages and has been denied

rights, benefits and services and immunities in the amount of three million dollars

($3,000,000) each or in an amount to be proven at trial, exclusive of interest and cost, for

which defendant United States is liable.


EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION[Action for Accounting]

105. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained


-60-

in Paragraphs 1 to 104.

106. Pursuant to the trust relationship between the United States and plaintiffs

existing prior to and as confirmed by the 1937 IRA Constitution and Bylaws of the Ute

Indian Tribe, a consolidation of separate Ute Bands each separately exercising their

independence and traditional autonomy, defendants were and are obligated to safeguard the

trust status of the lands and Indian rights and status of the individual “mixed-blood” members

Uinta Band, their Estates, their children and their descendants and their immunities until such

rights, status and immunities were lawfully extinguished in accordance with the intent of the

Act of Congress in enacting the UPA and to compensate said Indians of the Uinta Band for

monetary losses sustained by reason of defendants’ breach of said obligations.

107. The individually named plaintiffs maintain vested rights and ownership interest

to a portion of monies derived from the disposition of settlement funds earmarked and

targeted for distribution to them that arise from a $32 million dollar Indian Claims

Commission judgment allocated under the “share and share alike” agreement as approved

by Act of Congress on August 21, 1951.

108. Defendants have failed to account for the principal and interest of funds owed

to them as members of the Uinta Band by Act of Congress that was lost to them and their

children, including the mishandling and maladministration of "offsets" charged against them

when they were full members of the Uinta Band.

109. At all times alleged herein, defendants were charged with carrying out the trust

obligations of the United States to account and properly withhold the distribution of the

claims settlement funds until the UPA was implemented as intended by Congress.

110. On information and belief, defendants have grossly mismanaged and continue


-61-

to grossly mismanaged trust funds and they have failed to account for such funds belonging

to plaintiffs.

111. Plaintiffs are owed an accounting by defendants, acting as their fiduciaries, of

the funds deposited to their benefit mandate issued by Act of Congress on August 21, 1951.

112. Upon precise accounting by defendants of the amounts owed and due to them

under the “share and share alike” agreement with the other foreign band of Colorado Utes,

defendants must return such sums to plaintiffs with interest in addition to paying back the

value of any “offsets” that were held against them during all times they were full members

of the Uinta Band.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants and each of them as

follows:

Pursuant to their First Cause of Action

1. That the court enter a judgment in favor of plaintiffs declaring that defendants

breached their duty toward plaintiffs by failing to account for the earlier enacted federally-

approved IRA governing document and an Act of Congress and, thus, wrongfully deprived

each of the plaintiffs out of their special relationship with the United States.

2. That the court enter a judgment in favor of plaintiffs declaring that the purported

termination of their Indian status as members of the Uinta Band was and is void and without

legal effect and that plaintiffs have been and remain eligible to participate in all federal

programs and benefits provided to Indians because of their status as “Indians”.

Pursuant to their Second Cause of Action

1. That the court enter a judgment in favor plaintiffs declaring that the United States


-62-

has maintained an uninterrupted and continuous relationship with the mixed-blood members

of the Uinta Band from early times to the present and the United States maintains in federal

trust status to land, water rights and other valuable property of the Uinta Band.

2. That the court enter a judgment in favor plaintiffs declaring that plaintiffs are

entitled to a decree restoring their rights, status and privileges and immunities as Indians of

the Uinta Band and a declaration that the conveyance of land, money and property belonging

to the Uinta Band to the “Ute Indian Tribe” or other non-Indians and non-Indian entities is

unlawful and in violation of the 1937 IRA Constitution.

Pursuant to their Third Cause of Action

1. That the court enter a judgment in favor plaintiffs declaring that plaintiffs not on

the list of 490 who were born prior to the publication of the termination proclamation in 1961

and living at the moment the defendants purportedly terminated the special relationship of

the 490 retained their status at all times in the un-extinguished tribal sovereign entity known

as the “Uinta Band” pursuant to custom and tribal law mandating that a child born of parents

who are members of a tribe retain their tribal identity at the time they are born.

2. That the court enter a judgment in favor of plaintiffs declaring that since the

plaintiffs in the “should have been” enrolled in the Uinta Band category are members of the

Uinta Band, their status as members of the Uinta Band never ceased to exist.

Pursuant to their Fourth Cause of Action

1. That the court enter a judgment in favor plaintiffs declaring that the past and current

actions of federal officers, agents and employees in connection with the purported

termination of the trust status of the lands and the Indian status of the mixed-blood people

of the Uinta Band under the UPA were and are contrary to Acts of Congress, Executive


-63-

Orders and the federally-approved Constitution and By-laws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the

Uinta and Ouray Reservation, Utah, in excess of their legal authority and arbitrary and

capricious, and that said actions have deprived and are continuing to deprive, plaintiffs of

their aboriginal status as members of the Uinta Band and other vested federal rights in

violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Pursuant to their Fifth Cause of Action

1. That the court enter judgment against defendant United States of America finding

that the actions and course of conduct of the federal defendants, and their failure to follow

an Act of Congress and the “share and share alike” agreement constitute breaches of these

federal laws that have damaged all plaintiffs.

2. That the court enter judgment against defendant United States of America

awarding to each plaintiff damages in the amount of $10,000 plus interest and cost.

Pursuant to their Sixth Cause of Action

1. That the court enter judgment against the defendant United States of America

finding that plaintiffs’ status as Indians was illegally extinguished or suspended in violation

of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

2. That the court declare that all plaintiffs have a right to submit to the federal

defendants all claims for damages resulting from the acts and omissions of said defendants

as alleged herein including damages resulting from lost eligibility for federal and tribal

benefits and services available to members of federally-recognized Indian tribes for all times

between the date judgment is entered in his case to the date the UPA became effective.

Pursuant to their Seventh Cause of Action

1. That the court enter judgment against the defendant United States of America


-64-

finding that defendants all breached their federal trust obligations in terminating the Indian

status of the “mixed-blood” people of the Uinta Band.

2. That the court enter judgment against defendant United States of America

awarding to each plaintiff damages in the amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000) or an

amount proven at trial.

Pursuant to their Eight Cause of Action

1. That the court enter an order directing the defendants to account for and compile

a historical accounting of all sums due and owed to plaintiffs as derived from the proceeds

of monies set aside for them under the “share and share alike” provision approved by an Act

of Congress on August 21, 1951.

2. That the court enter an order directing defendants to account for and compile a

historical accounting of all sums classified as “offsets” by the defendant and charged against

the plaintiffs for all times when plaintiffs were duly enrolled members of the Uinta Band.

For reasonable attorneys fees and cost of maintaining this action; and

For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: January 23, 2003

/s/ Dennis G. ChappabittyAttorney at Law, OK 0001P.O. Box 292122Sacramento, CA 95829(916) 682-0575 (voice/fax)Attorney for Individually NamedPlaintiffs

Jury Trial Demand


Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vocong
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE … complaint 2003.pdffor the district of columbia...

Documents