Court Denies Office of Homeland Security Motion 
Reuters 
Friday 3 January 2003 07:45 AM ET 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Office of Homeland Security lost a round in efforts to keep its
activities private with a federal court ruling that it must answer questions about its operations and activities. 

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last week ruled that the White House office must show it had
no independent authority in a ruling denying a motion to dismiss a privacy group's lawsuit seeking material
under the Freedom of Information Act. The ruling was made public on Thursday. 

The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center last March requested Office of Homeland
Security records on proposals for standardized U.S. driver's licenses, records associated with a
"trusted-flier" program and other proposals concerning biometric technology for identifying individuals. 

The Office of Homeland Security sought to have the case against the office and its director Tom Ridge
dismissed, arguing that it could not be subjected to the Freedom of Information Act information requests
because it was not an agency and that its sole function was to advise and assist the president. 

President Bush established a U.S. Department of Homeland Security in November and nominated
Ridge to head the new Cabinet-level agency. 

Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling granted the Electronic Privacy Information Center's request to obtain
information that would establish the status of the White House Office of Homeland Security. 

A White House spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment. 

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the ruling a
critical step in a case about "openness" in government. 

"There's been a lot of secrecy in the activities of this office ... We think that the activity of this office, like
the activity of other federal offices should be open," Rotenberg told Reuters. 

"So many of the original plans, program goals and objectives were set out in the office," he said. "If you
want to get a sense of what this new agency will do, we think it's important to see what its precursor did." 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.) 

Back to Main News Page

=========================================================

Shooting the messenger: Report on layoffs killed

David Lazarus Friday, January 3, 2003
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/03/MN120712.DTL>

The Bush administration, under fire for its handling of
the economy, has quietly killed off a Labor Department
program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies.

The statistic, which had been issued monthly and was
closely watched by hard-hit Silicon Valley, served as a
pulse reading of corporate America's financial health.

There's still plenty of economic data available
charting employment trends nationwide. But the mass-
layoffs stat comprised an easy-to-understand overview
of which industries are in the greatest distress and
which workers are bearing the brunt of the turmoil.

"It was a visible number," said Gary Schlossberg,
senior economist at Wells Capital Management in San
Francisco. "In times like these, it was a good window
on how businesses were cutting back."

No longer. But then, businesses cutting back didn't
exactly jibe with the White House's recent declarations
that prosperity is right around the corner.

You had to look pretty hard just to learn that the
mass-layoffs stat had been scotched. No announcement
was made by the Labor Department, and no prominent
mention of the change was posted at the department's
Web site.

In fact, news of the program's termination came only in
the form of a single paragraph buried deep within a
press release issued on Christmas Eve about November's
mass layoffs.

It simply said that funding for the program had dried
up and that the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor
Statistics was unable to find an alternative source of
funding.

No doubt as intended, the announcement slipped by
virtually unnoticed. Even state officials were
surprised to learn of the demise of what they called an
important, if downbeat, barometer of the nation's
economy.

Sharon Brown oversaw compilation of the mass-layoffs
number at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington.
She was pleased to blow her agency's horn.

HIGH-QUALITY PROGRAM

"This was a high-quality program, producing timely
information on important developments in the labor
market," Brown said.

According to the bureau's final monthly report, U.S.
employers initiated 2, 150 mass layoffs in November,
affecting 240,028 workers. A mass layoff is defined as
any firing involving at least 50 people.

California by far had the most employees given the boot
-- 62,764, primarily in administrative services.
Wisconsin was a distant second with 15, 544, followed
by Texas with 14,624.

Between January and November, 17,799 mass layoffs were
recorded and nearly 2 million workers were handed their
hats by businesses.

Brown said that because of a bureaucratic quirk, the
$6.6 million in annual funding for the mass-layoffs
program -- money primarily doled out to state officials
to gather relevant data -- was channeled through the
Labor Department's Employment and Training
Administration.

FUNDING ELIMINATED

When that agency decided it needed more cash to handle
its own affairs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was
told to look elsewhere for its budget needs.

Apparently no extra money was to be found anywhere
within the Labor Department, which had a total budget
of $44.4 billion last year, up from $39.2 billion in
2001.

"With very finite discretionary resources, we have to
make difficult decisions," said Mason Bishop, the Labor
Department's deputy assistant secretary for employment
training. "We didn't see how this program was helping
workers re-enter the workforce."

Coincidentally, the same conclusion was reached in 1992
when the first President Bush canceled the Mass-Layoffs
Statistics program amid election-year charges that he
had bungled handling of the economy.

REVIVED BY CLINTON

The program was resuscitated two years later by the
Clinton administration.

Now Bush the younger is following in his father's
footsteps, once again deciding that the American people
have no real need to know how many mass layoffs are
made each month.

"It's questionable what value this program has for
workers," insisted Bishop.

On the other hand, the Labor Department this week
released a sweeping study of volunteer work over the
past year, reporting that 59 million Americans donated
their time and know-how to helping others.

President Bush has spoken repeatedly about the virtues
of volunteerism since taking office in 2001.

VOLUNTEERISM MEASURED

During his own stint in the White House, the elder Bush
was a proud advocate of community service. That was
also the last time the Labor Department was told to
devote its finite discretionary resources to a study of
volunteer work by U.S. citizens.

Then, as now, it's difficult to see how feel-good
surveys of volunteer activities contribute to an
understanding of the economy's vitality or the re-
employment of displaced workers.

There does seem to be merit, though, in easily seeing
how many people have received pink slips as companies
tighten their belts, and which states and industries
are in facing the greatest challenges.

"The United States economy is growing again," Bush
declared in a holiday radio address from his Texas
ranch. "This economy is strong and it can be stronger."

And if not, best to just sweep the whole mess under the
rug.

E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.

Back to Main News Page

========================================================

NY Post Ravages the memory of Sonny Carson


By Herb Boyd
TBWT National Editor
Article Dated 12/30/2002


New York--Family members of the late Abubadika Sonny Carson made it clear
that the media were not wanted at his funeral last week since it was the
mainstream media that had defamed him and distorted his words.

But, as an editorial in last Thursday's New York Post demonstrates, the
media don't have to be present to continue its assault on Carson's
reputation and legacy. The Post took exception to the New York Times'
balanced obituary of the fallen activist, and rather than noting his
relentless fight against the spread of drugs and police brutality said he
"spent 35 years pursuing a racist, anti-Semitic agenda that often crossed
the line into urban terrorism."

The editorial assailed Carson for his role in the Korean boycott that forced
the grocers to close their stores; for his condoning the murder of Hasidic
scholar Yankel Rosenbaum during the Crown Heights rebellion; and his praise
for the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad at a tribute in his honor. A long ago
event was added to these assertions when the editorial berated Carson for
his involvement in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville community control of school
issue in the 1960s.

'In fact," the editorial concluded, "Sonny Carson contributed nothing to the
betterment of this city. He was a racist, a demagogue and a thug. New York
has lost nothing by his passing."

Let's take the first point on racism and see if we don't have a case of the
pot calling the kettle black. Time and time again over the last score of
years the Post has issued its own brand of racist bile. To find an example
of the Post's support for racist blather one need look no further than such
columnists as Dunleavy and Peyser; they are the chief purveyors of the venom
that makes no apology for their advocacy of the police in the Central Park
jogger case, the attack on Abner Louima and those who took Tawana Brawley on
her word.

During the last mayoral campaign, it was the Post that published at least
two cartoons that demeaned Rev. Sharpton, Yasir Arafat and Fernando Ferrer.
These were exemplary of the Post's bad taste and journalistic demagoguery
and thuggery.

But rather than dredging up the all the villainy and vile the Post has
released since Alexander Hamilton parted company, let's look at some aspects
of Carson's life that were contributions to us all, even to the Post, if it
would take time to review honestly. "The Education of Sonny Carson," a film
made in 1974 and based on the early years of the activist's life is a good
place to start. It has been recently released in a DVD format, and given
Carson's death, it may be more available than ever.

After serving time in a juvenile detention center and a subsequent
three-year prison sentence, Carson, much like Malcolm X, remade himself,
firmly dedicating the rest of his life to redeeming the earlier false steps.
And this began after a tour military tour in which he was wounded while on
duty in Korea, though the film version of his life makes it abundantly clear
that he was torn by the conditions of his community upon being released from
prison. Not only was his gang, The Lords, disbanded most of his former
friends as well as his lover were caught in the throes of the heroin
scourge.

Carson placed his considerable skills, contacts and newly informed community
dedication at Brooklyn's CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), which he was
later to chair. When the struggle erupted over community control of the
public schools, Carson was right in the vortex, and his outspoken leadership
was the source of charges that he was anti-Semitic when he demanded that
black teachers and principals be given more significant roles in
administering the education of the community's children.

In the seventies he remained on the ramparts of activism, particularly
against the rampant spread of police brutality. With each act of aggression
against the black community, Carson became more willful in his determination
to offset the advances of white supremacy. Given the name Mwalimu Amiri
Abubadika, his black nationalist agenda reached beyond New York City.
Elements of his emerging international stature is evidenced in the film of
his life where he is widely respected for his ability to intervene and
negotiate potentially explosive situations.

In the early 1980s, Carson was among the leading activists taking a stand
against the menace of crack, forming his Black Men Against Crack that helped
to combat the drugs penetration into the black community. His organization
was instrumental in the closing of several popular crack houses in Brooklyn.

The African Burial Ground was Carson's main issue in the following decade,
and he cajoled, badgered and threatened the establishment to relinquish the
bones of his ancestors uncovered in the excavation in downtown Manhattan so
they could be re-interred in their African homeland. "I will not rest until
those bones are back where they belong," he said on many occasions.

Toward the twilight of his life Carson created an organization to honor our
fallen heroes, and while Carson might feel it would be the epitome of
self-aggrandizement, he should be enshrined there among those he so
thoughtfully honored.

There is no way to capture Carson's redemption in this brief passage; a
portion of the man's life can be seen in the film. But the film only
anticipates the good he would later bestow, a good that the Post is too
meanspirited to ever acknowledge.

Back to Main News Page

=========================================================

The American plan: "a new Pearl Harbor"!



John Pilger reveals the American plan
New Statesman (London)
16 December 2002

www.newstatesman.co.uk http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759


Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George
W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its
published aims have come alarmingly true, writes John Pilger

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and
individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document
written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What
was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the
world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor",
described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have
since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan,
when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to
avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was
an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend"
following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century
was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the
Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions
of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush
regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed
Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total
war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the
term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages,"
he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of
enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about
first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . .
this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our
vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we
don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a
total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years
from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American
Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now
vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul
Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's
chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary,
and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are
the modern chartists of American terrorism.

The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences:
strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint
of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended
an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could
"fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This
has happened. It said the United States should develop
"bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national
priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush
taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were
dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is.
"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein."

How has this grand strategy been implemented?

A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob
Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with
senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11
September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who
the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq.
According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq
should be "a principal target of the first round in the war
against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because
Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public
opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is
possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option.

If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some
20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with
their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In
last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas
Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice,
told him she had called together senior members of the National
Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you
capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with
those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.

Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways
to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central
Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across
Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse
gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International
Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said
he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if
necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged
weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new
weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties
on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin
describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to
those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress
outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring
together the "CIA and military covert action, information
warfare, and deception". According to a classified document
prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its
Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group,
or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require
"counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring
the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United
States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put
to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney
terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane
crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of
Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months
later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with
resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite
caution.

You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that
truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have
power. The thread running through their ruminations is the
importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on
board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I
have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today.
We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and
Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb
(which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious
lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to
would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station,
are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are
black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere
ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million
suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it
were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be
pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality
of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is.
There is no admission that their decision to join the war party
further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis
condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their
doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in
the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American
fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too
long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

Back to Main News Page

==========================================================

From: 
rkarriem@webtv.net (Raushana Karriem) 
Date: 2002/12/31 

National Commission For Reparations


NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR REPARATIONS DEBUTS AT AFRICAN AMERICAN RESEARCH
LIBRARY

An overview of the International Reparations fight currently in the
United Nations, on behalf of Afro Descendants will be presented by the
National Commission For Reparations, Jan. 18, 2003, at the Auburn Avenue
Research Library in Atlanta, Georgia.

The National Commission For Reparations is advocating for Afro
Descendant Reparations, Restoration and Recognition, before the U.N.
Working Group of People of African Descent, in Geneva, Switzerland.

This special Working Group received its mandate at the World Conference
on Racism and is commissioned to study the problems of people of African
Descent world wide.

The meeting will begin at1pm, at 101 Auburn Ave, Meeting Room 2,
Atlanta, GA 30303.

For more information on how to support this effort
email:NCRSOUTH@WEBTV.NET

Back to Main News Page

========================================================

At Home and Abroad, Bush's "War on Terror" Faces Mounting Criticism 
Agence France-Presse 

December 30, 2002 

At home and abroad, US President George W. Bush's "war on terror" was facing mounting criticism
over fears that fundamental human rights and freedoms were being eroded. 

Actors, writers, lawyers, politicians, and millions of ordinary people worldwide have in recent weeks all
questioned the no-holds-barred US policy which many fear will be counter-productive. 

Huge anti-war demonstrations have taken place in cities across the globe and more are planned for the
new year, including a major one in Washington on January 18. 

Spain's top anti-terror judge became the lastest to add his voice to the growing chorus of critics,
warning Sunday of "the risk of a false system of security being put in place to the detriment of freedoms
and rights. 

"The case of terrorists held in Guantanamo (the US base in Cuba), Afghanistan and Pakistan proves
that security is trumping every other principle of justice or rights," said Baltasar Garzon said. 

Garzon, who has fought against Basque separatists in Spain, made a world name for himself when he
led international efforts to prosecute former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for war crimes. 

In Germany, where anti-US sentiment is at its highest level since the euro-missile crisis of the 1980s,
Nobel prize-winning author Guenter Grass called Bush's response to the September 11 attacks on the
United States as "truly dangerous" and a major threat to world peace. 

He compared the US president to a Shakespearean character who wants only to appear before his
father, a dying king, and tell him: "Look, I have accomplished what you wanted." 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder narrowly squeaked home in recent elections after saying his
country would not join any US-led strike on Iraq. 

That declaration angered Washington, straining relations already damaged by comments from a former
justice minister comparing Bush's methods on Iraq to those of Hitler. 

Nearer home, Bush faces opposition from Hollywood to Havana. Film and rock stars have protested his
policy in Iraq and human rights groups his treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. 

US star and filmmaker Sean Penn led Hollywood's dissent with a high-profile three-day visit to Baghdad
earlier this month. 

Penn may have taken the most militant stand, but other stars, such as Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins,
Barbra Streisand and Robert Redford, have also lined up against the Texan president. 

The 65-year-old Redford wrote to Bush in an open letter published in the Los Angeles Times, attacking
his environmental policy and suggesting that Washington should not intervene in Iraq. 

Redford's public hostility came after a constellation of other top Hollywood celebrities appeared at
anti-war demonstrations or signed peace petitions in recent weeks. 

Martin Sheen, who plays the US president in the hit television series "The West Wing," branded Bush's
campaign against Iraq a "personal feud," alluding to the 1991 Gulf War waged by Bush's father against
Saddam. 

In October, Barbra Streisand led an attack on Bush saying she found his administration "frightening"
and slamming its alleged bellicose stance towards Baghdad and failure to protect civil rights at home. 

Human Rights Watch has meanwhile said the US could be in breach of international law if it either held
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely without charges or sent them to countries where they could face
torture. 

That concern has been echoed by the UN's top human rights official Sergio Vieira de Mello who called
for the detainees either to be released or sent to face trial. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.) 

Back to Main News Page

=========================================================

Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed 
PakNews.com 

December 28, 2002 

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2
billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries. 

The ceremony was held at the Presidential Palace with the three leaders, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah
Khan Jamali, President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signing
the document. 

The framework agreement defines legal mechanism for setting up a consortium to build and operate the
pipeline. 

According to a study by Asian Development Bank (ADB), the 1460 km pipeline would use gas reserves
at Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan, which has world's fifth largest reserves, while passing through
Afghanistan into Pakistan. 

The three countries had earlier signed a trilateral agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline
from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan in May this year, during the first trilateral summit in
Islamabad. 

The three countries are laying great importance on the project as it could provide much needed boost to
their economies. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.) 

Back to Main News Page

========================================================

Justice Department Attorneys' Conduct to Be Investigated 
Washington Post 

Thursday 26 December 2002 

Federal judge criticizes the lawyers for letters mailed to plaintiffs in a class-action
suit filed on behalf of 300,000 Native Americans. 

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge this week ordered a court ethics panel to investigate six Justice
Department attorneys for their conduct in a landmark class-action suit against the government that seeks
billions of dollars and was filed on behalf of more than 300,000 Native Americans. 

In a 20-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also blocked the Interior and Justice
departments from continuing to send mass mailings to the Indian plaintiffs that include a provision that
would terminate the Indians' rights to claim damages, even as the lawsuit continues. 

Lamberth already has held three Cabinet officials in contempt of court for their failures in Indian trust
fund reform, including Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton. His most recent order in the 6-year-old case,
signed late Tuesday, said government attorneys failed to ask for the court's permission to send the notices
to more than 1,100 plaintiffs. 

That was a clear violation of rules governing attorney conduct, he wrote, and referred the issue to the
disciplinary panel of U.S. District Court here. 

"The court ... is at an utter loss to understand why defendants thought this court would consider it
acceptable for them to include language [in the letters] that extinguishes the very rights that are the heart of
this class-action litigation," he wrote. 

The court's Committee on Grievances, which investigates allegations of misconduct, could dismiss the
case or issue a range of sanctions. 

"It's just astonishing," said Keith Harper, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, who is
helping to represent plaintiffs. "They communicated with our clients in violation of court orders, even when
the issue was pending before the judge." 

Calls to the Justice Department's press office were not returned. In court motions filed earlier, attorneys
had said they did not think they were required to inform the court about the letters. 

Jon Wright, a spokesman for the Interior Department, declined to comment. 

The Indian plaintiffs are seeking a full historical accounting of the Individual Indian Monies trust fund, a
sprawling series of accounts started in 1887 when the government forced Indian tribes off 90 million acres of
their land. 

In return, they and their heirs were granted royalties from the sale of oil, gas, timber, mineral and other
rights on an additional 11 million acres. 

The fund now generates more than $500 million a year to at least 300,000 account holders, although so
many records have been lost or incompetently kept over the decades that the government is unable to
provide an accurate history for a single account. 

The Indians filed suit in 1996, claiming the government owes them at least $10 billion in lost or missing
funds. 

But in October, with the trust fund under Lamberth's oversight, the government sent out 1,100 notices to
trust fund account holders, claiming that enclosed statements were full and accurate historical accounts. 

The data would be "final and cannot be appealed" unless the recipient filed a challenge within 60 days,
the note said. 

The Interior and Justice departments were planning to send an additional 14,235 historical accounts
when Lamberth blocked the move this week. 

The attorneys Lamberth referred for investigation are Assistant Atty. Gen. Robert D. McCallum Jr., as
well as Stuart E. Schiffer, J. Christopher Kohn, Sandra P. Spooner, John T. Stemplewicz and Cynthia L.
Alexander. 

Lamberth's order says that any other attorneys, either from Justice or Interior, who participated in the
mailings also should be investigated. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes.)

Back to Main News Page