Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv—00820-PCD Document 89-5 Filed 06/30/2005 Page1 0f4
i EXHIBIT 3

areas as r I l
p f 05), caste deco-evitideéin-it-'FGTBFD ll%ci1r*i’ije8riEl@§@§i§347 Filed 06/30/2005 Page 2 0i\1?l` im Dm i
United States Department ofthe Interior »
il r orrica or rns saeasniav ` `§¤(
p Washington, DC 20240 I pguégt
MAY 23-2005
0 Mrr Richard L. Velky `
Schaghticoke Road.
P.O. Box 893 _
g Kent, Connecticut 06757. F
Dear Mr. Velky:
g On May I2, 2005, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) issued its decision in, In re
‘ Federal Acknowledgment of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation [STN]. In this case, the·IBIA
vacated the tina] determ.in.ation of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs to
acknowledge the petitioner as an Indian tribe and remanded it to the Assistant Secretary — Indian
i Affairs "for further work and reconsicl.eration," pursuant to 25 CFR §83.11(e)(l0). The 1BlA
T also described. alleged. grounds for recon.side:rati.on that are outside its jurisdiction, which were
` referred for consideration as appropriate. Inquiries have been received from represen.tati.ves of
r STN and the Town of Kent iconcerning how the Department will handle the reconsidered. iinal
I _ determination ..-`
Under 25 CFR §83.l. 1. (g)(l), the Office of the Assistant Secretary shall issue a. reconsidered. final
Y determination with.in 120 days ofreceipt ofthe IBlA’s decision. Th.e Assistant Secretary‘s office
i received. this remand on May 13, 2005. On May 13, 2005, that ofiice also received. the IBIA
s remand in, In re Federal Acknowledgment of the Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe [HE-P]. The
due date to issue these two reconsidered final determinations is Monday, September 12, 2005
(l20 days from May 13, 2005, lands on Saturday, May 10, 2005, and, thus, the deadline is
j moved to the next business day). · i A
i i During this l20—d.ay period, no technical assistance or consultation will be available to die
t petitioners and interested parties. Unsolicited arguments, evidence, comments, and briefings
from the petitioners and interested parties will not he accepted. The petitioners, third parties, and
s their representatives should not contact the Associate Deputy Secretary or any other Department t
D ofticial who may have been delegated authority to decide matters concerning these e
, ackn.owlecl.gni.ent petitions during this 120—day reconsideration period; n.or contact the
` researchers in the Oftice of Federal Acknowledgment who are assigned. to the reconsidered final
_ detemiination. Persons may contact the Director of the Oftice of Federal Acknowledgment g
‘ regarding th.e status of the reconsideration.
I p Under 25 CFR §83.l l(h)(3), the reconsidered d.etermination shall be tina] and effective upon
publicahon ofthe notice of the reconsidered. detertnination in the Federal Register.

l
as 23/2:2215 r
` 0 _ I cséé disc-cv-%“6éEB-BECBED ‘E%eGrr°i’é?i?Q8g$§§347Fa|ed oe/so/2005 Page e orhgm W5
d A one—page fax was received from the STN that does not indicate whether it was served on all
panics in compliance with the Court-approved negotiated settlement order. A copy of this fax i.s
enclosed. Should you have any questions regarding the status, please direct them in writing to
Mr. R. Lee Fleming, Director, Oftlce of Federal Acknowledgment, 195). Constitution Avenue,
NW., MS 3413-STB, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Sincerely,
Mints Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs
cc: STN interested parties, w/enclosure 1
I — · . . ·- ~

i . · . . tv 6
@$f23’2@@5 caééefeino-ev-Qfciéée-P·‘CI5ED @6ed rHé?l‘·PE@@?§3‘" Filed 06/30/2005 gage 4 of}? AQ? ,1 °
new tviiweittii tint = 61:4 BCHTR1 Eilill., i·‘36 @782 =.l:l¢f· $@9 ·'--- |‘ -E'e
. T
_§TN` Questions a`boutRe0o1tside1·gtion Procedures
l. Cj‘:t.n STN navel with OFA`? If so, how soon`? D0 we need to make a written ·
rot {limi'?
2. ‘¢\rhi:> will be the OFA team ilu- STN reconsiclcmtion?
3. Cam STN send its Tribal reptesemcttivc or legal counsel to all meetings conoeminra
S'l"N‘7 0
-’t. will new evidence be accepted that clatrities specific issues raised and discussed
Q by thu Vztoztie and Remzmd. for Roconsidertttion. issued on May l2, 2005%*
¢ - t . . . l
tt. On November 29, 2004 and Mm·ch‘l 8, 2005 briefs with documenumon were t
j Sulonrtitted to IIBTAFOFA, were those documents ret icwed and/or conslcl.ei·ed'?
0 ti. Wliatt methodology was used by the BIA to calculate S'1"N’s endogetmy rate to at I
j drop ol` %l'l%" i
A Please give the specific dates that cover the 120 day, time-period.
j Will iicconsitlevtttion. for STN & HEP take plucc an the same time, or will they be
stuggercetl? `
Un l)ec•:.ntb•:r 2, 2004 we received rt lcttor front the Solicitor and in the Enal
0 ptuatgrnph it states for the IBIA DOI tn tzilirm STN witltottt ftmher clarification. What do
0 we need to do`?
0 ` Q. The lxztimostetl lktrties t·e1`ei·uncccl in thc lill,\ Vacate and Remamd, does STN have _ _
0 to iiulcliv:-se: them‘." _ » 1
‘ 0 10. Did LEM request that OFA provide tculinitrtil assistance in deciding the appeal of i
the STN Fill'?
` i
l
A i
V T‘l3"l`t?tI._ Fx