Principal Documents.

The Principal Documents upon which the final Court Order was made start with item #30.

In our Pleadings, we assert that the AS-IA, in his Determination of August 31, 2011 violated many aspect of the Administrative Procedures Act - 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). Further he allowed illegal contact with representatives of Ms. Burley. And he violated principles of Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, and the Indian Civil Rights Act (which was disallowed by the Court); and his actions damage the members of the Tribe in denying their rightful opportunity to participate in the organization and governance of the Tribe, which will cause them to suffer irreparable injury and financial loss. We argue that Yakima Dixie was never the only member of the Tribe and therefore could not enroll the Burleys without the consent of the community. The AS-IA's "180° change in policy" is prevented or estopped by prior Court decisions, which were made made previously in reference to this very same situation. The both the 1998 Enrollment of the Burleys and the 1998 Resolution on which the AS-IA's Determination are is illegitimate. Other substantive and procedural allegations are also made. See #32, #49, #61, #65.

In the BIA's Pleadings, first they answer with a standard perfunctory response to each of our paragraphs with statements such as: "admitted:", "denied", "the document speaks for itself", etc. This is a standard first response and is not substantive argument - see #34. Then they argue that the August 31 Decision is a Reasoned Decision under the APA and that neither judicial estoppel nor collateral estoppel apply. See #56, #67.

The main documents are:

#49 (Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement of 2012-03-02) and

#56 (Defendant's Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment of 2012-03-29)

#88 (Court Order Granting Our Motion for Summary Judgment)

Early History.

In October, 1999, Bill Martin made a business deal with Yakima Dixie to develop a casino. Subsequently, the BIA told him that Dixie did not control the Tribe but rather Silvia Burley did. Martin and Dixie protested to the BIA - to no avail. In 2001, Dixie filed suit against Burley in Federal court (case CIV.S-01-1389), which was Dismissed in 2002 on the grounds that "... plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims." In 2003, Everone took on the case and, following the prior courts memorandum, filed an administrative appeal on behalf of Dixie with the BIA, which got to the Washington Central office in October 2003. In that same year, the greater Tribal community became involved. Various communications ensued; and in December 2004, Everone and WhiteBear went to D.C. to meet with Michael Smith on the issue. In February 2005, the AS-IA issued a formal Determination that the Tribe is "unorganized" (based on a 2004 Determination of the Superintendent which Burley could have but did not appeal), that Burley did not attempt to organize the Tribe with the community, and that the BIA would help the Tribe organize under the IRA. Burley filed suit in District Court, in opposition, which is dismissed; she appealed to the Court of Appeals which Affirmed the lower court and ruled that the Tribe must be organized by the community along "majoritarian" lines of governance, if it is to receive government benefits. In 2007, the BIA formally identified the Putative Members (lineal descendants of 14 historic persons, ostensibly some 200 adults plus 300 children) as the organizing group and began to move forward with organization, until that was stayed by Burley's IBIA administrative appeal. Thus, from at least April 2007 until December 2010 (3.5 years), the BIA recognized our group as the tribal authority. With Burley's IBIA appeal being dismissed, the matter was sent back to the AS-IA to implement organization. Instead of following the 2007 guidelines of the BIA, the AS-IA decided to over-turn the administrative and court actions, and he identified a 1998 "resolution" which holds that Dixie, Burley, and her daughters are the only members of the Tribe. Thus, ensued the actions below. Among many causes of action, we allege that the AS-IA had been contacted independently by Burley's lobbyist, Wilson Pipestem, which we allege was an improper communication, something which on its own could invalidate the Determination of the AS-IA.

History of Current Litigation.

Responding to the IBIA Determination of January 28 2010, the AS-IA, in a Determination of December 22, 2010 over-turn all of the administrative and court determinations and identified a November 1998 Resolution of Silvia Burley as the organizing premise for the Tribe and which identified herself and daughters and Dixie as the only members of the Tribe - See #A, below. Our attorney, wrote a letter to the DOI requesting a retraction - See #B, below. The Solicitor for the DOI rejected our request - #C. On January 24, 2011, we filed suit (Preliminary Injunction) in District Court, D.C. Circuit - #1. On April 1, 2011, we withdrew our Motion for Injunction because the AS-IA set aside his Determination on April 1, 2011 - #22-1, pending a re-evaluation of that Determination; and the court action was temporarily stayed. In August 31, 2011, AS-IA re-issued his same Determination (ostensibily the set-aside was a delaying tactic), and we filed our First Amended Complaint - #32. In this First Amended Compaint, we allege that the Determination was illegal for various reasons - see #32, pages 24 et seq. The Administrative Record was then file with the Court (i.e., the documents which were in the possession of the BIA and available to the AS-IA in making his Determination) #33. The BIA filed its Answer to our Complaint, which was not a substantive pleading, just answering each of our paragraphs in a perfunctory manner (admitted, denied, the documents speaks for itself, etc.) #34. Silvia Burley filed a petition to be a Party Intervenor-Defendant - #35, which was eventually granted by the Court.

On March 2, 2012, we filed our Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of our Summary Judgment, and this is the main pleading - #49.

On March 29, 2012, the Defendant (BIA) filed its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment - #56.

The Intervenor Burley filed a Motion to Dismiss our Complaint - #58.

We filed our Opposition to Intervenor's Motion #58 - #59 as did the BIA - #60.

Various replys and responses ensued which finalized the pleadings - #61- 67.

We and the BIA filed a joint Administrative Record of undisputed facts to help make the Court in having a clear understanding of the factual basis for the allegations - #68.

Joint - Administrative Record. NOTICE by ANTOINE AZEVEDO, CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE, YAKIMA DIXIE, ANTONIA LOPEZ, MICHAEL MENDIBLES, TRIBAL COUNCIL, VELMA WHITEBEAR, EVELYN WILSON re 33 Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Index to Appendix, # 2 Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit 2 Part 3, # 5 Exhibit 2 Part 4, # 6 Exhibit 2 Part 5)(Goldberg, M.) (Entered: 06/01/2012)