Skip to main content

According to the Government Liasson for the Sand Hill Indians, in her blog post this morning at Blue Jersey, the NJ Sand Hill Band of Lenape Indians is considering suing the two judges involved in the case, based on judicial misconduct.

According to the liasson:

Since the end of June, Chief Holloway and the Tribe's attorney have located the judicial conduct rulings and codes which would allow them to sue both Judge Schwartz and Judge Hayden for their June 30th ruling that prohibits the plaintiffs' ability to use any previous case work in the current pending complaint.  This also encompasses the dismissing without any consideration the massive amounts of documented case law, as well as Supreme Court rulings.  In a letter of clarification written by the Judge she was also denying the Tribe the right to appeal their second amended complaint if they filed a third amended complaint.

At this time, both Chief Holloway and the Sand Hill Tribe are considering filing a personal suit against both judges and a final decision is expected shortly.

Mind you, there has as of yet in this long drawn out process, no discovery, no day in court.  From the absurd rulings, the court appears to have been trying to prevent the Tribe from actually getting to a courtroom.  Well, they may soon see the Sand Hill Indians in court.  Not as judges this time, but as defendants charged with judicial misconduct for preventing plaintiffs from actually being able to argue their case in a court of law.

Originally posted to Carol Hoernlein on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:12 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I appreciate knowing about these legal (3+ / 0-)

      difficulties, but what exactly are the Sand Hill Indians trying to accomplish? Aside from suing the judges themselves, what is the goal of the original lawsuit?

      Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. -- Harry S Truman

      by YucatanMan on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:19:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The whole thing started because Governor Corzine (0+ / 0-)

        signed off on a grossly inaccurate report by the Secretary of State basically writing the Sand Hill tribe out of existence, even though they are the only Lenape tribe left in NJ.  

        The tribe was left no choice but to sue the state of NJ.  Since filing, the tribe has for a year and a half been prevented from discovery and having their day in an actual courtroom.  

        The latest rulings which appear intended to PREVENT The tribe from appealing, were the last straw keeping the tribe from suing the judges involved.

        In the meantime, Special Rapateur at the UN, who HAS seen all the evidence, has agreed to represent the tribe in the world court, should the US not give the tribe a fair trial - which is what appears to be happening based on the June 30 ruling.

        One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

        by Carol Hoernlein on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:13:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good luck to them. (5+ / 0-)

    However, judges have immunity for most everything these days, so I won't be the least bit surprised if they find a way to wriggle out of it.  (sigh)

    A public uproar might help, depending upon how much corruption is involved.

    See "The Best Courts (Your) Money Could Buy" for a horrific example.

    •  indeed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maybeeso in michigan

      If these rulings are absurd as they sound the correct procedure is to file an appeal.

      Also the quoted article cannot be correct as written.  A court cannot "dismiss" case law, although it could ignore case law.

      ruling that prohibits the plaintiffs' ability to use any previous case work in the current pending complaint

      I don't see how such a ruling could possibly be enforced.  Is the court going to look over the attorney's shoulder and make sure he doesn't cut and paste?

      Scientific Materialism debunked here

      by wilderness voice on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 01:00:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are not allowed to use (0+ / 0-)

        the case law used in their previous complaints.  

        It is true as written.

        About filing an appeal - the judges have stated that by filing a 3rd amended complaint, the tribe is forbidden from filing an appeal to the unfair June 30 ruling.

        The judges appear to be taking great pains to keep this  case in Newark....

        One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

        by Carol Hoernlein on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:17:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not case "work" (0+ / 0-)

          case law. You need to be more accurate in your writing - it is completely misleading as written.  And it is indeed up a to a judge as to what case law applies. Also, a judge may state an opinion as to whether or not a ruling may be appealed but it is an appeals court that gets to decide whether to accept an appeal.  No way to tell what is actually going on here based on what you have written.

          Scientific Materialism debunked here

          by wilderness voice on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:04:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am a blogger, not an attorney. (0+ / 0-)

            Are you a friend of the defendants?  Or are you naturally this obnoxious to other bloggers?

            One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

            by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 04:19:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My guess is you are new to blogging (0+ / 0-)

            because someone sent you here.  You would otherwise know that I was QUOTING someone else in my diary, which you criticize my wording in.  The quote contained "case work" not case law.  If you were actually a regular blogger here, you would not go after me for something so petty that I did not even write.

            So who are you - really?

            One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

            by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 04:22:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  all you needed to do (0+ / 0-)

              was click on my user name to see I am a long-time regular on dKos.  You might want to put a little more effort into such research before you make accusations.  

              Quoting someone else's faulty writing, uncorrected, in support of your posting does not let you off the hook, especially when you follow up with

              It is true as written

              Nor does

              I am a blogger, not an attorney.

              absolve you of need to communicate clearly what you are writing about.

              Taking refuge in ad hominems:

              Are you a friend of the defendants?  Or are you naturally this obnoxious

              shows you have no valid response to the merits of my critcism.

              Just for the record I am from another state and am not acquainted with the case or the litigants.  

              Scientific Materialism debunked here

              by wilderness voice on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 08:29:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So I guess you are just obnoxious then. (0+ / 0-)

                One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

                by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:49:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You had no valid criticism. (0+ / 0-)

                Taking me to task for one WORD in a quote that someone else made.  Nice.

                One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

                by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:55:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  there were 3 serious errors in the quoted page (0+ / 0-)

                  which was the bulk of your "diary"

                  I checked into this matter and found:

                  The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Newark [in 2009] by two men -- one from Australia, one from California -- who say they are long-lost Sand Hills and are the Paterson group's new leaders. Its demands include state recognition of the Sand Hills and $1 trillion in damages, paid in 1-ounce gold coins.

                  Like a judge might ever grant a default judgment for $1 trillion.  Would bankrupt the entire state and shut down all state services, like state supported roads, airports, hospitals, police and courts.  If you walk into a coutroom you had better be prepared to show the judge you are entitled to what you are asking for.  I wouldn't treat these jokers very kindly either.

                  Scientific Materialism debunked here

                  by wilderness voice on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:19:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you read the diary prior to this one (0+ / 0-)

                    You would know that the link you found is from the Star Ledger - who has alleged links to the defendants in the case. The Star Ledger reporter was suprisingly in the courtroom during the very first hearing, when Holloway was ordered by the court NOT to bring anyone else with him.  And I also, was not allowed in the hearing to report on it.

                    Try THIS link if you want to know why and how Ron Holloway came to represent to oldest indigenous tribe in NJ WHO NEVER LEFT NJ.

                    Just because you temporarily live in a different state, does not mean you are no longer related to and part of your own family and doesn't mean you won't be called back to assist your own family - or tribe for that matter should they need your expertise.

                    Holloway moved back to the homeland of his tribe at the request of the tribe, who needed his leadership in their struggle with the State of NJ. The tribe is (according to the Smithsonian, not just me) the ONLY INDIGENOUS continuously operating tribe of Lenape left in New Jersey.

                    Prior to Ron's father (who has a residence within the traditional Lenapehoking homelands) being named Chief of the Sand Hill.  Sam Beeler, who was born in Paterson, and who is linked by DNA to the oldest Lenape remains found in NJ, and who STILL LIVES HERE, was Chief.  The Tribe has never left NJ, even though some family members have traveled throughout the world.

                    Just because you found one article written by friends of the defendants, doesn't give you even a sense of the epic proportions of this story.

                    You may think that the amount of money involved in absurd, but consider that this is the tribe that was cheated out of Manhattan, and the THEFT was way bigger than the amount asked for in the complaint.

                    Just because you can't comprehend the sheer amount of the theft and the compensation due, does not mean that the plaintiffs do not have a case and are therefore not due any justice at all.

                    Your obvious contempt for the plaintiffs in this case is not a good enough reason to deny justice to a tribe that has never left NJ in the thousands of years they have lived here.

                    One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

                    by Carol Hoernlein on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 11:55:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  thanks for that perspective (0+ / 0-)

                      It is apparent that the Star Ledger article, which was the only thing I found, is biased and one sided. I agree that Holloway et al are entitled to a fair hearing.

                      Unfortunately he broke rule #1 of litigation: don't piss off the judge.  Actually he did worse, he scared him/her by asking for that overreaching $1 trillion default judgment. Suing them personally only makes things worse. So ongoing nasty litigation lies ahead.

                      Scientific Materialism debunked here

                      by wilderness voice on Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 02:49:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  True (0+ / 0-)

                        but I think that the judges were in a bind no matter what.  NJ Politicians appoint judges and most need to stay on the good side of the most powerful ones here.  They could not rule against a sitting Governor, no matter how guilty he was of writing the tribe out of history.

                        The best possible outcome here would be an out-of-court settlement between the US and the Tribe. It is in everybody's best interest and could pave the way for a new blueprint of how to deal with Native American sovereign tribes who have not yet become supervised wards of the Federal Government.

                        One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

                        by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 01:18:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  More detail: (0+ / 0-)

            See previous diary on this case.

            One vote. Yours - it really does matter.

            by Carol Hoernlein on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 04:29:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It is a shame but you right. Sigh. These Judge (0+ / 0-)

      made laws like this Judicial immunity are circumventing the constitution they are required to uphold.

      Some strict constructionists.....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site