Akwesasne Mohawk Opening Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________________ THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Action Nos. 82-CV-783 82-CV-1114 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 89-CV-829 (NPM) v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. _________________________________________________ THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, by THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBAL COUNCIL and THE PEOPLE OF THE LONGHOUSE AT AKWESASNE, by THE MOHAWK NATION COUNCIL Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. _________________________________________________ OBJECTIONS OF THE MOHAWK COUNCIL OF AKWESASNE TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DANCKS ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY......................................................................................1 II. THE FACTS IN THE MOHAWK CLAIMS ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN CAYUGA, ONEIDA, AND ONONDAGA – AND STRIKINGLY SO IN THE ISLAND CLAIMS ..................................................................3 A. The facts in Cayuga .................................................................................................3 B. The facts in Oneida ..................................................................................................4 C. The facts in Onondaga .............................................................................................5 D. The facts in the Mohawk claims ..............................................................................6 1. In general .....................................................................................................6 2. The Island claims .........................................................................................9 III. EQUITABLE “LACHES” AS DEFINED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN CAYUGA, ONEIDA, AND ONONDAGA IS HIGHLY FACT-DEPENDENT AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED HERE .....................................................................................12 IV. JUDGE DANCKS SHOULD NOT HAVE RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE ISLAND CLAIMS. .............................................................................................13 A. The Federal Power Act inherently prevents any “disruption,” even if the Islands are held to be owned by the Mohawks. .....................................................13 B. The Mohawk Island claims also involve New York’s violation of international treaties between the United States and Great Britain – treaties that were not involved in the Cayuga, Oneida, or Onondaga claims ....................17 C. Only the State of New York, the original wrongdoer, and its agency NYPA occupy the Islands, preventing any potential disruption to the legitimate expectations of innocent non-Indian landholders ..................................................19 D. The Mohawks did not delay in seeking relief for the Islands, contrary to Judge Dancks’ assertion. ........................................................................................20 i Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 3 of 34 V. CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY INTENDED TO PRESERVE CLAIMS LIKE THE MOHAWK CLAIMS. ....................22 VI. THE “DISRUPTION” HERE HAS BEEN TO THE MOHAWKS. .................................25 VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................26 ii Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 4 of 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887) ................................................................................. 18-19 Bethley v. Louisiana, 520 U.S. 1259 (1997) ..................................................................................25 Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York, 573 F. Supp. 1530 (N.D.N.Y. 1983) ..................................................................................18 Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................... 1-6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26 City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) ........................ 3-4, 6, 24-25 County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ...........................................................................................................24 Deere v. New York, 22 F.2d 851 (N.D.N.Y. 1927) ........................................................................21 DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 662 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) .........................................................6 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) ............................................................................... 18-19 Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010) .............1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26 Onondaga Nation v. State of N.Y., No. 10-4273-cv, 2010 WL 3806492 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2011), aff’d Onondaga Nation v. State of N.Y., No. 5:05-cv-0314, 2012 WL 5075534 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) ....................................... 1, 2, 5-6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26 United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482 (1923) ...............................................................................25 United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch.) 103 (1801) .................................................18 State Cases St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. New York, 5 N.Y.2d 24 (1958) ...............................................10, 11, 21 iii Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 5 of 34 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 .................................................................................................................18 Federal Statutes and Treaties 25 U.S.C. § 465 ........................................................................................................................ 24-25 Act of August 30, 1935, 49 Stat. 1028 (1935) ......................................................................... 16-17 Act of July 18, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-505, 80 Stat. 304 .................................................................23 Boundary Treaty of 1842, Aug. 9, 1842, 8 Stat. 572 ......................................................... 10, 17-18 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-436, 108 Stat. 4577 (1994) ................................................................ 16-17 Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a -828c ............................................................... 12-17, 19-20 797(e) .................................................................................................................................14 803(e) .................................................................................................................................14 Indian Claims Limitation Act, Pub. L. No. 97-394, tit. I, §3(a) 96 Stat. 1966, 1976 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2415) .................................23, 24 Indian Non-Intercourse Act of July 22, 1790, 1 Stat. 137 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 177) ....................................................... 13, 21, 22-23 Pub. L. No. 96-217, 94 Stat. 126 (1980) ........................................................................................23 Treaty of Buffalo Creek, Jan. 15, 1838, 7 Stat. 561 ....................................................................4, 6 Treaty of Ghent, Dec. 24, 1814, 8 Stat. 218 ...................................................................... 10, 17-18 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada, May 31, 1796, 7 Stat. 55 ....................................7, 9, 21 Federal Legislative Materials 123 Cong. Rec. H6894-H6900 (daily ed. July 12, 1977) ........................................................ 23-24 H.R. Rep. No. 96-822 (1980) .........................................................................................................24 S. Rep. No. 89-1328 (1966) ...........................................................................................................23 S. Rep. No. 95-236 (1977) .............................................................................................................23 iv Case 5:82-cv-00783-LEK-TWD Document 590 Filed 11/16/12 Page 6 of 34 To Extend the Time for Commencing Actions on Behalf of an Indian Tribe, Band, or Group: Hearing on S. 1377 Before the Select Comm. on Indian Affairs, 95th Cong., 24 (1977) ................................................................................23 Administrative Cases and Materials 48 Fed. Reg. 13,920 (Mar. 25, 1983) .............................................................................................23 Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, Complete List of Issued Licenses (2012), available at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/licenses.xls ....................16 In re Power Auth. of N.Y., 12 F.P.C. 172 (1953) .....................................................................12, 20 Mont. Power Co., 38 F.P.C. 766 (1967), aff’d sub nom. Mont. Power Co. v. F.P.C., 459 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1972) .......................................