The United States Supreme Court will consider the petition for writ of certiorari in Wolfchild, et al. v. United States on Friday, January 15, 2010.  The Court's order relating to the petition is expected to be issued on Monday, January 18, 2010.

The Wolfchild case involves claims brought by over 20,000 Minnesota Mdewakanton lineal descendants claiming the United States has breached its statutory obligations relating to the Shakopee, Prairie Island and Lower Sioux Reservations in Minnesota -- sometimes called the "1886 Lands." 

Basically, petitioners claim Interior violated its statutory obligations to the lineal descendants by not ensuring they are treated roughly equally.  Instead, Interior's intentional policies have allowed a few hundred Shakopee members benefit from the 1886 lands at the complete exclusion of about 95% of the lineal descendants.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "Well, it's up to the United States Supreme Court now.  The petitioners and their attorneys have done everything possible to present their case.  If the Supreme Court grants the petition (and that's a big IF), the Wolfchild case will become the most important Indian trust case decided by the Supreme Court since it issued its second opinion in the Mitchell case in 1983."  

In the December 2009 issue of Minnesota Law and Politics, neopopulism's own per diem lawsuit was picked as one of the lawsuits of the year.  The article can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "Minnesota Law and Politics again recognizing a neopopulist lawsuit as a lawsuit of the year is confirmation of neopopulist successes. Obviously, our work as neopopulists is credible with the public -- and the media.  By going to work on simply enforcing Minnesota's constitution and statutes -- as they are written -- against the government and its experts, neopopulists are making a difference.  These cases -- and the per diem case in particular -- are examples par excellence of the people managing the government's experts rather than the people deferring to the government's experts and their arbitrary subjectivity.  Bravo!  Neopopulists!  Bravo!"

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has set the hearing date for the citizens' case against St. Anthony School District for violations of the campaign finance disclosure laws.  The hearing is set for January 20, 2010.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "The citizen-plaintiffs pursue their remedies in the Court of Appeals because the Office of Administrative Hearings mis-interpreted the campaign finance disclosure statutes which require all parties, even school districts, to disclose their election expenditures.  The Office of Administrative Hearings made a mistake when they interpreted the statutes to excuse school districts from disclosing that they are spending tens and, in some instances, hundreds of thousands of dollars advocating for passage of tax and bond referenda.  If the citizens of St. Anthony must report their campaign expenditures, so must the St. Anthony School District -- as the law requires.  The courts should not allow school districts to look for legal loopholes to avoid the campaign finance disclosure laws. We look forward to the Court of Appeals oral arguments on January 20, 2010."

The Prior Lake American, the local newspaper covering Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, has covered the filing of the Wolfchild petition in the U.S. Supreme Court.  The article can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "The petitioners appreciate the coverage in the Prior Lake American.  People in Shakopee and the local area are well aware that the problems with beneficiary status go back to the founding of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in 1969.  Ever since, the federal government has allowed about 200 people at Shakopee to benefit at the expense of many thousands of poor Indians.  The U.S. Supreme Court should take the case simply to review whether these absurd results which Interior permitted are what Congess intended.  The Shakopee Community seems to think so. The federal statutes suggest otherwise."

The Startribune printed an article on November 12, 2009 covering the filing of the Wolfchild petition for writ of certorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The article can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "The 1886 Mdewakanton appreciate the media coverage from the Startribune.  This case is very important and has nationwide implications.  Never have so few benefitted so much at the expense of so many.  We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will grant the petition and consider requiring the Department of the Interior to follow the statutes and fix the problems at Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and the other communities."

On November 6, 2009, over 10,000 plaintiffs in Wolfchild v. United States, an Indian trust case against the United States, filed their petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.  The petition seeks discretionary review of a 2009 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The petition can be found here.

Attorney Erick Kaardal comments, "This David v. Goliath contest against the United States and, particularly the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs, continues.  The Petitioners are seeking for the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case that the Department of the Interior has violated its statutory obligations by allowing Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Praire Island Indian Community and Lower Sioux Indian Community to exclude Congressionally-intended beneficiaries.  These beneficiaries -- the 1886 Mdewakanton -- were specifically identified as beneficiaries in 1888, 1889 and 1890 Appropriation Acts.  Interior used the money appropriated under these Acts to purchase the reservation lands."

Attorney Kaardal further comments, "The case really presents simple questions to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Does Interior need to comply with statutory obligations to Native Americans?  Does the Plain Meaning Rule of statutory interpretation apply to Native American statutes just like other statutes?  Do trust law principles apply in Native American trust cases? Since these questions are left open by the Federal Circuit decision, the U.S. Supreme Court should take the case." 

On October 21, 2009, counsel for Citizens for the Rule of Law received notice that the Minnesota Supreme Court had denied discretionary review in the state legislative per diem case.

The plaintiff group Citizens for the Rule of Law sought judicial review of 2007-2008 state legislative per diem policies.  The per diem policies targeted included those intended to compensate state legislators via $96 per day "per diem" payments over and on top of the state legislators' salaries and reimbursed expenses.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals had previously held that per diem payments, even above and beyond reimbursed expenses, are not "compensation" for the purposes of Minnesota Constitution.

Attorney Erick Kaardal respondes, "We are disappointed that we lost, but we are not giving up on the state legislative per diem issue. The Citizens for the Rule of Law believe social progress is obtained by enforcing the laws on the books -- including giving each word in the Minnesota Constitution its ordinary meaning.  The word "compensation" in the Minnesota Constitution has an ordinary meaning which was not applied by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Avoiding ordinary meanings of constitutional words and phrases is the opposite of social progress -- and it's certainly not rule by law.  So, now, the Citizens for the Rule of Law must wait for another opportunity -- which will surely be given in the next legislative session.  Stay tuned.  We're experts at this now."

  NEWS FLASH! 

The following article was recently published by NRB's President and Chief Executive Officer Frank Wright. NRB is a group of Christian broadcasters.  The article can be found here.  Neopopulism.org is formulating a response to be published on this website soon.

"A Bridge too Far"  by  Frank Wright, Ph.d, President and CEO of NRB

George Washington had a lot to say about our Republic and its government. He was the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and presided over the Philadelphia Convention when the Constitution was written. Given those positions, and the fact that he served as America’s first President, Washington was a uniquely suited commentator. Perhaps few men in human history have held so many pivotal – and different – roles in relationship to the governing of a people. To say the least, his perspective was large and informed by a great deal of personal experience.

Yet I often wonder if many of our nation’s political leaders have any real knowledge of, or at least appreciation for, the details of our nation’s founding. In his Farewell Address, Washington warned against the harmful effects of allowing a “faction” to circumvent the will or good of the people. Saying that such factions are “often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community,” it almost seems that he was prophetically looking down the corridors of time to this very hour.

We stand, today, at the threshold of a bridge that, once crossed, may not offer a way of return anytime soon. The shifting political landscape has enabled the advancement of ideas that were almost unthinkable a generation ago. “Right” and “wrong” have been turned on their heads. It seems that policies are “right” if you have the raw power to enforce them – or rather force them – upon the general populace.

I wonder if there will be any principled young men and women training to be doctors when, if the President has his way, the government directs healthcare and mandates that one’s medical training include abortions? After all, abortion is “legal” in our nation, “desired” by some, and described as a “fundamental human right” by everyone from college professors to Hollywood icons.  

In this environment, neo-populism is gaining ground. One neo-populist entity defines the term as “identification and redress of public and private rules, regulations, laws, policies, ‘expertise’, and/or attitudes that violate the Rule of Law and/or institutionalize elitism with an adverse impact on the common man.” Talk about subjective!  Given that definition, one could topple any “rule” if you’re able to suggest that it propagates “institutional elitism.” In reality, far too many of today’s neo-populist ideas involve the abandonment of truth and principles derived from truth. Truth would, in fact, only stand in the way of anyone who seeks to “redress” a public or private rule that they don’t like.

Even worse is the fact that leaving truth behind has implications far beyond today's political and philosophical battlefields. Some political leaders seem ready to jettison the very Constitutional protections that have been the guardrails of this Republic. Free speech? It is inconsequential unless it’s regulated by those enlightened ones in political power. Free religious expression? Religious speech and action should only be free, in the neo-populist world, if it is “tolerant.” Any discussion of sin (or Truth), is dangerous in their paradigm.  

As a result, many of today's leaders naturally reject the central tenant of the American Experiment – that our rights are endowed by God and not granted by human governments. As George Washington is credited with saying: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

If men believe that they alone grant rights, those same men will believe that they have the authority to take them away. Which explains why our nation is standing today at the approach of a bridge that – if we step upon it – may forever bind us to government as that fearful master. We face unique challenges that did not exist in previous generations; consequently we face choices from which there can be no return. Surely this is a bridge too far.

[Paragraphs 16-17, “George Washington’s Farewell Address To the People of the United States,” The Independent Chronicle, September 26, 1796:  re-printed by “Archiving Early America,” www.earlyamerica.com; www.neopopulism.org.]

Yahoo Answers recently answered the question "What is a good website on rationalism?"  Yahoo Answers cited the Wikipedia entry on "neoconservativsm" and this neopopulism.org website.  The Yahoo Answers response can be found here. 

Attorney Erick Kaardal responds, "This is a big internet win for neopopulism.org.  It is a sign of progress.  Neopopulists want the following situation: whenever the people hear or see rationalism, they think neopopulism. If this is the case, neopopulists have won.  My friends, we are winning."

On Friday, October 9, it was announced that President Obama would receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Attorney Erick Kaardal reacts, "My mother told me ''success' comes before 'work' only in the dictionary.'  Now, apparently, that would have to be amended that success comes before work when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the dictionary.  Neopopulists see that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on rationalist lines.  It's not important what Obama has done. What's important is what Obama thinks.  Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his thoughts, not his actions. What could be more perfectly rationalist?  What could be more antithetical to neopopulism?"