Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Case No. 03-2684L Defendants. Honorable Charles F. Lettow STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA County of Clay ) )§ ) AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY KELLY STRICHERZ IN SUPPORT OF MOZAK MOTION TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

The undersigned does duly state and swear under oath, to the best of her knowledge and belief as follows: 1. The undersigned is admitted to practice law in all state courts and federal courts in South Dakota and all state courts in Nebraska. 2. On March 20, 2006, the undersigned was granted admission to practice in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The undersigned applied for admission to this Court solely to represent potential plaintiffs in the abovecaptioned litigation. 3. By late April 2006, the undersigned had received documents for over 500 persons who wished to be represented in this litigation. Accordingly, the undersigned submitted a Motion to Intervene which was filed June 9, 2006. (Documents 158 and 159).

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 6

4.

The undersigned continued receiving numerous requests from persons who wished to be represented. Of those requests, the undersigned agreed to represent persons who were blood-related to the intervenor-applicants already listed in the original Complaint.

5.

The undersigned submitted additional Complaints to the Court as names and documents were received. (Documents 168, 215 and 221).

6.

On July 18, 2006 the undersigned attended a hearing in the abovecaptioned litigation in Washington D.C.

7.

The week following the hearing, the undersigned participated in a preplanned family vacation in New Mexico.

8.

Upon the undersigned's return to South Dakota she received numerous requests for representation in the above-captioned litigation. Some contact was in the form of facsimile. Many of the documents were illegible. The undersigned also received many documents from clients who had already been submitted as applicants. Many of these documents were illegible.

9.

During the week of August 13, 2006 through August 21, 2006, the undersigned was in Santa Barbara, California with her son who attends college there. On or about August 21, 2006, the undersigned received a phone call from Doug Kettering, attorney, requesting a list of her clients because Mr. Kettering believed that he represented some of the same clients who the undersigned had listed in Complaints. Upon returning to South Dakota, the undersigned inquired into the alleged duplicate clients. The undersigned learned that Mr. Kettering was intervening on behalf of a

2

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 6

family group that included some clients of the undersigned. Purportedly, some of the undersigned's clients were lineal descendants from a line separate from the one the undersigned is working from. 10. The undersigned received contacts from clients stating that their name was incorrect on Complaint/s or that family names that should have been on the Complaint were not present. In many cases, a person was appointed as the contact person for a particular branch of a family. That person would submit all the documentation supporting lineal descent for the family. However, signed attorney-client agreements had to be sent to some family members who did not reside locally. Therefore, the undersigned would have individual documentation from all family members but would not list them as a client because the agreement was not received as complaints were submitted. 11. The undersigned began constructing an electronic list of clients which included the names of parents/guardians with minors. This process included assigning initials to identify minors. Because many minors shared the same initials differentiation was required. Such endeavor was partly undertaken pursuant to Defendant's request for such a list. 12. Sometime in September or October of 2006, the undersigned was contacted via phone by a person purportedly related to the Mozak Group. He resided in Tennessee. He requested that he and his extended family, who mostly reside in Montana and Wyoming, be represented by the undersigned. A list of all persons who would be included was requested

3

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 6

and also a genealogical chart as to their descendancy. A few weeks later, the undersigned was given a stack of documents numbering over 1,000 birth certificates, baptismals, probates, etcetera that had been submitted to another attorney on behalf of this group requesting representation. The undersigned again contacted the man from Tennessee and requested a list. A few days later the undersigned received an email stating that his group had chosen to hire another lawyer. However, the undersigned had sorted the documents received for this group and included were documents for persons who were already represented by the undersigned. The undersigned therefore asked that a list be submitted of people in his family that were not to be represented. On or about November 16, 2006, the undersigned received a letter from a Montana member of the group. Enclosed with the letter was a list of persons not to be "added" to an amended complaint. However, several of the persons listed were already submitted on prior Complaints. The undersigned inquired as to their representation. 13. The undersigned contracted with an individual in November 2006 to create a complete genealogical chart for persons represented. 14. In December 2006, the undersigned's father suffered a heart attack and subsequently underwent open heart surgery. The undersigned was with her father from December 27, 2006 through January 19, 2007. 15. The undersigned completed an analysis of the completed genealogical chart. This included reviewing the names of persons appearing on the

4

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 6

undersigned's complaints. There were applicants inadvertently left off of prior Complaints and duplicate applicants listed on Complaints. 16. The undersigned's clients live in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 17. The individuals listed in Section I-A and E of Exhibit 1 of the Motion to Amend submitted paperwork or attempted to submit paperwork to the undersigned on or before the July 12, 2006 deadline. The individuals listed in Section I-B were all born on or after the deadline as stated in the Motion. The individuals in Sections I-C and D, contacted the undersigned after the deadline. In addition to the reasons stated in the Motion, the undersigned was also informed by Denise Milford that she and her brother David Lang had originally submitted their paperwork to Mohrman and Kaardal in 2005 as had many of the individuals of the Mozak Group. Neither Denise nor David received communication from Mohrman and Kaardal. It was not until after Wolfchild III issued that they realized they were not listed as plaintiffs. After inquiring as to who represented other members of the family, the undersigned was then contacted. 18. In the interest of justice, the amendment to add parties is requested on the behalf of these additional applicants.

5

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 443-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 6

FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. DATED this __________ day of March, 2007.

____________________________________ Kelly Hope Stricherz Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of February, 2007.

SEAL

____________________________________ Notary Public Commission Expires___________________

6