Ignacia moreno biography of rory
Wolfchild v. United States
Plaintiffs are lineal descendants of Mdewakanton Sioux Indians who were loyal to the United States and assisted white settlers in Minnesota during the 1862 Sioux uprising ("the loyal Mdewakanton" or "1886 Mdewakanton").SeeWolfchild v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 521, 524(2004)("Wolfchild I").Approximately 20, 750 persons have joined in this litigation as plaintiffs.1On October 27, 2004, the court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that a trust for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants was created in connection with and as a consequence of appropriations statutes enacted in 1888, 1889, and 1890("Appropriation Acts"), providing money to the Department of the Interior("the Department") for the benefit of the loyal Mdewakanton and their families.SeeWolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 555.2
The court concluded that the relationship created pursuant to the Appropriations Acts contained the three traditional elements of a trust: a trustee(the United States), specific beneficiaries (the 1886 Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants), and trust property acquired by the Department using the appropriated funds (the 1886 lands, improvements to those lands, and funds derived from those lands).SeeWolfchild I, 62 Fed. Cl. at 541.The court found additional evidence that a trust was created by looking to the arrangements made by the Department for the use of the 1886 lands by the loyal Mdewakanton and their lineal descendants over the years following acquisition of those lands.Seeid. at 541-43.Ninety years of detailed management of the 1886 lands by the Department, including its assigning rights of use to particular loyal Mdewakanton, monitoring beneficiaries' use of the lands, and leasing non-assigned land to third parties, and the Department's own repeated characterization of the 1886lands as being held "in trust" for the loyal Mdewakanton, further persuaded the court tha
3,000 SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICS CALL FOR A FOSSIL FUEL NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
Thousands of academics have urged governments to negotiate an international treaty to tackle the climate crisis at its source: fossil fuels.
We, the undersigned, call on governments around the world to adopt and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, as a matter of urgency, to protect the lives and livelihoods of present and future generations through a global, equitable phase out of fossil fuels in line with the scientific consensus to not exceed 1.5ºC of warming.
The fossil fuel system and its impacts are global and require a global solution. We call on governments to urgently commence negotiations to develop, adopt and implement a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty laying out a binding global plan to:
End new expansion of fossil fuel production in line with the best available science as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme
Phase out existing production of fossil fuels in a manner that is fair and equitable, taking into account the respective dependency of countries on fossil fuels, and their capacity to transition;
Invest in a transformational plan to ensure 100% access to renewable energy globally, support fossil fuel-dependent economies to diversify away from fossil fuels, and enable people and communities across the globe to flourish through a global just transition.
The scientific consensus is clear that human activities are primarily responsible for global climate change, and that the climate crisis now represents the greatest threat to human civilization and nature. [1]
The burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil, and gas - is the greatest contributor to climate change, responsible for almost 80% of carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. [2]
To keep warming to below the temperature goal of 1.5ºC, as reflected in the sc
United States Court of Federal Claims.
Sheldon Peters WOLFCHILD, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
No. 03?2684L & No. 01?568L
Filed: January 28, 2013
Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Wolfchild plaintiffs. With him on the briefs was William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.
Jody H. Schwarz, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her on the briefs were Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General, and Stephen Finn and Daniel G. Steele, Trial Attorneys, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Of counsel were Gladys Cojocari, James Stroud, and Michael Bianco, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Jack E. Pierce, Pierce Law Firm, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Cermak plaintiffs and for the Stephens, R. Cermak, J. Cermak, Henderson, Klingberg, Alkire, Arnold, and Godoy groups of intervening plaintiffs.
Kelly H. Stricherz, Vermillion, SD, for the Mozak group of intervening plaintiffs.
Garrett J. Horn, Horn Law Office, Yankton, SD, for the Saul, Trudell, Taylor, Ferris, Henry, and Vassar groups of intervening plaintiffs.
Creighton A. Thurman, Yankton, SD, for the Cournoyer, Robinette, Kimbell, French, and Wanna groups of intervening plaintiffs.
Elizabeth T. Walker, Walker Associates, Alexandria, VA, for the anonymous Walker, the Enyard, and the Kitto groups of intervening plaintiffs.
Robin L. Zephier, Abourezk & Zephier, PC, Rapid City, SD, for the Zephier group of intervening plaintiffs.
Larry Leventhal, St. Paul, MN, for the Burley group of intervening plaintiffs.
Wood R. Foster, Jr., Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Lafferty, Blaeser, Whipple, and Lowe groups of intervening plaintiffs.
Bernard J. Rooney, Amherst, WI, for the Ro .