Summary
The lawsuit argues that the U.S. government violated its trust obligations to the Sioux Half-Breed lineal descendants of the Lake Pepin Reservation, which was established by the 1830 Treaty of Prairie du Chien and 1854 and 1858 Congressional Acts. Currently, the United States does not recognize the Sioux Half Breed lineal descendants as Indians and does not recognize the Lake Pepin reservation or its boundaries. The lawsuit calls for a paradigm shift in the government’s treatment of Sioux Half-Breed lineal descendants.
Key Legal Arguments
1. Creation of a Trust Relationship: The 1830 Treaty of Prairie du Chien and the 1854 and 1858 Acts created the Lake Pepin Reservation for the Sioux Half-Breeds and, in doing so, established a trust relationship between the U.S. government and the beneficiaries of the reservation. The U.S. government took control of these lands, assuming the role of a trustee.
2. Failure to Abrogate the Treaty: the 1854 and 1858 Acts did not abrogate, terminate, or repudiate the original 1830 treaty or the trust established for the reservation lands. The trust relationship and the Sioux Half-Breeds' rights to the land remained intact.
3. Breach of Trust: The U.S. government breached its trust duties by failing to properly manage the reservation lands and their proceeds. Instead of holding the funds from the sale of these lands in trust for the benefit of the Sioux Half-Breed lineal descendants, the U.S. government improperly retained the proceeds. This action constitutes a breach of the trust obligation.
4. Failure to Honor Indian Title in Lake Pepin reservation: A central claim is that the U.S. government failed to honor the continuing Indian title to the reservation lands. By selling the lands and keeping the money, the government did not recognize the rightful ownership and interests of the Sioux Half-Breed lineal descendants in the Lake Pepin reservation.
Requested Relief
Requested Relief
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages from the United States government for its breach of trust. The goal is to recover the proceeds from the land sales that were improperly kept by the U.S. government, with interest, and to have these funds placed in a trust for the lineal descendants of the Sioux Half-Breeds as originally intended by the 1830 treaty and the 1854 and 1858 Congressional Acts.
Overview
1. Strong Legal and Factual Basis:
-
Established Precedent: There is a long history of successful lawsuits against the U.S. government for trust mismanagement. The landmark cases of United States v. Mitchell and the Cobell v. Salazar class-action lawsuit demonstrate that the U.S. has a fiduciary duty to Native Americans and can be held liable for breaches of that duty. This provides a strong legal foundation for the Lake Pepin Reservation claim.
-
Clear Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The project alleges a clear-cut breach of the government's trust responsibility. The 1830 Treaty and the 1854 and 1858 Congressional Act created the trust, and subsequent laws did not abrogate, terminate or repudiate it. The government's alleged failure to put the land sale proceeds in a trust for the beneficiaries is a direct violation of this duty.
-
Indian Title and Trust Law: The legal framework for this case combines federal Indian law and common-law trust principles, both of which are well-developed and can be used to prove the government's liability. The argument that Indian title in the lands has not been honored adds another layer of legal strength to the claim.
2. Social and Impact Investment Opportunities:
-
Addressing Historical Injustice: This project is not just a financial investment; it's a form of social impact investing. It aims to rectify a historical wrong against a specific group of Native American lineal descendants. Investors can be part of a project that seeks justice and accountability from the federal government.
-
Supporting Indigenous Rights: Successful litigation in this area can set important precedents for other Indigenous groups seeking to hold the government accountable for its historical actions. Investing in this case contributes to the broader movement for Indigenous sovereignty and justice.
-
Community Empowerment: A successful outcome would not only provide a financial recovery for the beneficiaries but could also empower the community by providing resources for economic development, education, and cultural preservation. This aligns with the goals of many impact-focused investors who want to generate positive social change.
Team
.jpg)
Gregory M. Erickson
Contact Me: (612) 979-9791
Education University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minnesota J.D. - 1997 Honors: cum laude Miami University, Oxford, Ohio B.A. - 1993 Honors: Cum Laude Major: Political History Science Bar Admissions Minnesota Wisconsin United States Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois Representative Cases Advanced Communication Design v. Follett, 615 N.W. 2d 285, 2000 Pergament v. Loring Properties, Ltd., 599 N.W.2d 146, 1999 Digital Resources LLC v. James Loestetter, et. al., 246 B.R. 357, 2000 Past Positions Rider Bennett, LLP, Partner Professional Associations Minnesota Bar Association, Member Hennepin County Bar Association, Member American Bar Association, Member Certified Legal Specialties M.S.B.A. Board Certified Real Estate Specialist
.jpg)
Elizabeth Nielsen
Contact Me: (612) 979-9791
Education University of Illinois College of Law, Illinois J.D. - 2022 Honors: magna cum laude Honors: Rickert Award for Excellence in Advocacy Honors: Paul M. Lisnek Award for Excellence and Ethics in Trial Advocacy Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois B.A. - 2014 Honors: summa cum laude Honors: Chancellor’s Scholar Major: Political Science Major: Theater Minor: French Bar Admissions Minnesota Michigan Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan
Erick G. Kaardal
Contact Me: (612)-341-1074
Education University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois J.D. - 1992 Harvard College Honors: magna cum laude Honors: U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship Major: Economics Bar Admissions Minnesota Wisconsin U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit U.S. District Court District of Minnesota U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court Northern District of Iowa U.S. District Court District of Idaho U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Tax Court Representative Cases Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (U.S. Supreme Court victory 5-4), 2002 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (U.S. Supreme Court victory 7-2), 2018 Honors Outstanding Contribution to the Cause of Liberty, Institute for Justice Minnesota Lawyer, Lawyer of the Year, 2018 Life Legal Defense Foundation "Defender of Life" Award Winner – 2021 Pro-Bono Activities Republican Party of Minnesota, Past Secretary/Treasurer John Adams Society, Past Chairman Minnesota Chapter of the Federalist Society, Advisory Board Member Past Positions Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, PA - since January 1, 2000 Trimble & Associates, Ltd., Associate Attorney, 1994-1999 Faegre & Benson, Associate Attorney, 1992-1994 U.S. Army Reserves, Minnesota and Illinois National Guard, Field Artillery Officer, Captain (retired)
About
Project Pitch :
This is a significant lawsuit against the United States government for a massive breach of trust dating back to the 1830s. The Lake Pepin Reservation was set aside by treaty for the Sioux Half-Breeds, creating a federal trust responsibility. When the government later sold these lands, it was legally required to place the proceeds in a trust for the lineal descendants. Instead, it pocketed the money. This isn't a new legal theory; it's a claim based on a clear breach of federal trust obligations, similar to other landmark cases. It’s a compelling opportunity to not only achieve significant financial returns but also to right a historical wrong.
Organization Information:
Minnesota Dakota Oyate
https://www.mklaw.com/
Milestones
Phase 1: Case Preparation, Investigation & Legal Analysis (Phase 1) = $290,000
Phase 2: Pleadings, Jurisdictional Motions, & Early Case Strategy (Phase 2) = $405,000
Phase 3: Discovery (Phase 3 - Includes Class Certification Discovery & Document Review) = $6,350,000
Phase 4: Expert Retention & Reports (Phase 4 - Multi-Expert Team) =
$1,062,500
Phase 5: Dispositive Motion Practice (Phase 5 - e.g., Summary Judgment) = $635,000
Phase 6: Trial Preparation & Trial (Phase 6 - 4-Week Bench Trial) = $1,480,000
Phase 7: Case Management & Settlement Efforts (Ongoing) = $290,000
Phase 8: Hard Costs & Expenses (Estimated) = $3,455,200
Potential Settlement
1. Damages for Lakota Indian Tribe
2. Change of Land Records
3. Tribe is Recognized as Federally Recognized Tribe