Judge drops Golden Hill Paugussetts' land claims

[Okwes]

Judge drops Golden Hill Paugussetts' land claims
By Dave Collins, Associated Press Writer | November 29, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed all of the remaining land claims filed by the Golden Hill Paugussett tribe, which had sought to use them as leverage to acquire land for a casino in Bridgeport.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Conn. RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe City/Region stories |
Latest local news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven ruled that the Trumbull-based tribe cannot pursue land claims in court because it is not recognized as an American Indian tribe by the federal government. The Paugussetts, who contend their ancestral lands were seized illegally, have been repeatedly denied federal recognition, but are recognized as a tribe by the state.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Wednesday that the ruling should end the tribe's 14-year attempt to seize thousands of acres of land in Fairfield and New Haven counties.

"This final result should put to rest any remaining land claims by this group and provide peace of mind to property owners in the region," Blumenthal said.

"As we said from the beginning, we would relentlessly and tirelessly resist any attempts to bully innocent property owners or the state and use the land owners as hostages in efforts to gain federal tribal recognition," he said.

But the Paugussetts said the legal battle is far from over and they plan to appeal Wednesday's ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York within 30 days.

"We disagree with Judge Arterton's decision and will appeal our case to the 2nd Circuit, as is our legal right," the Paugussetts' Chief Quiet Hawk said in a statement.

Wednesday's ruling dismissed claims filed in federal court to 140 acres in Bridgeport, Trumbull and Orange.

In 1992, the tribe filed claims in state and federal courts to 17,000 acres in Bridgeport, Trumbull, Orange, Seymour, Southbury and Shelton. It had also threatened to file claims to nearly 700,000 more acres throughout southern and western Connecticut.

The claims in state court were thrown out in 1997, and those in federal court were dismissed over the years.

The tribe had said it would drop the land claims in return for 300 acres in Bridgeport for a casino.

[Okwes]

Judge dismisses Paugussett land claim


Tom Giordano, Freelance writer December 06, 2006

While numerous local property owners are heaving a sigh of relief over a federal judge's dismissal of the Paugussetts' land claims last week, a spokesman for the tribe said the issue is far from over.

"The tribe will appeal the ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days," said Steve Ellwanger.

Since the early 1990s, the Trumbull-based Golden Hill Paugussett tribe has been trying to recover thousands of acres in Connecticut it claims it owns. The tribe first filed its land-claim action in 1992 against properties in Shelton, Seymour, Trumbull, Orange, Derby, Woodbridge, Bridgeport, Westport, Southbury, Branford and East Haven.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton, sitting in Bridgeport, dismissed the case, noting that the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) last year rejected the tribe's request for federal recognition.

"But the judge didn't rule on the merits of the land claims themselves," said Ellwanger. "She said in her 21-page ruling, essentially, that the tribe didn't have legal standing to bring the claims. That's contrary to the federal appeal court's 1994 ruling in which it sided with the tribe, saying the Paugussetts didn't need BIA recognition in order to file the claims."

That same federal appeals court in New York is precisely where the tribe is going to file this latest appeal, said Ellwanger. The Paugussetts' leader, Chief Quiet Hawk (Aurelius H. Piper Jr.) said, "We disagree with Judge Arterton's decision and will appeal our case to the (U.S.) 2nd Circuit (Court of Appeals), as is our legal right."

One property owner in Orange who said he was relieved after hearing about Judge Arterton's ruling hedged a little. Robert D. Prior, who said he's been worried over the tribe's land claims for the past 12 years, said he wants to see some papers that show his property is free and clear.

Connecticut Atty. General Richard Blumenthal, who has opposed the tribe's claims, said he will continue to oppose the Paugussetts, but indicated he thinks Judge Arterton's ruling should be the end of the matter. The attorney general had rejoiced last year when the federal Department of Interior (DOI) denied the tribe's petition for federal tribal recognition.

Not long ago, the tribe offered to drop its claims to thousands of acres in Connecticut in exchange for 300 acres in Bridgeport and the right to build a casino there.

Having failed to prevail on those claims in federal courts in Connecticut, as well as failing to gain federal recognition, the tribe recently took a different approach: It sought what could amount to millions of dollars in back rent from local property owners, claiming the land they occupy was illegally taken from its ancestors.

Lawyers for the tribe recently filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court in New Haven seeking the back rent. While it named the city of Bridgeport as the primary defendant, it also listed the owners of properties in the towns and cities of Shelton, Seymour, Trumbull, Orange, Derby, Westport, Southbury, Woodbridge, Branford and East Haven. Also named as defendants were Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Bridgeport Mayor John M. Fabrizi.

The state opposed the tribe's efforts, maintaining that it did not have federal recognition. Michael D. O'Connell, the Hartford lawyer who filed the amendment on the tribe's behalf, said it's "ironic that the state would hold that position, since the Paugussetts are one of only five tribes explicitly recognized by state statute in Connecticut as an indigenous Indian tribe."

The amendment claims the tribe has been denied "the use and enjoyment of any rental income and profits rightfully due to it from the land" and asked for "damages representing the fair rent value of the land."

"The tribe has said all along that it didn't want to hurt any individuals, but in order to seek to recover their lands, they had to go through the courts and follow procedure," O'Connell said. "But that's why the offer for the Bridgeport land was made in exchange for dropping the legal action."

At the heart of the dispute is the tribe's claim that deals to give the land to early settlers were done in violation of a 1790 law that stated all land deals with tribes must be approved by Congress.

O'Connell is keeping a close watch on a case involving the Shinnecock Nation in the town of Southampton, N.Y., which could affect the outcome of the Connecticut case.

In 1978, that tribe applied for federal recognition, and in 2003 was placed on the Bureau of Indian Affairs' "Ready for Active" list. In 2005, the tribe was recognized by a federal court as an Indian tribe, though the federal DOI doesn't recognize it.

But James Lynch of Waterbury, who heads up the Historical Consulting and Research Services, said if a federal appeals court rules in the Shinnecocks' favor, it could order the DOI to recognize the tribe, and the agency would have to.

Lynch said he is scheduled to appear as an expert witness in the Shinnecock case on behalf of the town of Southampton, one of the defendants. He said a victory by the Shinnecocks could give weight to the Paugussetts' claim in Connecticut, and could lead to the tribe re-opening its original land claim lawsuit.

"One of the reasons the Indians are encouraged," said Lynch, "is that a federal judge in Long Island has allowed a non-federally recognized tribe to bring land claims in a federal court, despite that non-recognition."

Also, said Lynch, "the judge did something ground-breaking when he bestowed upon the Shinnecock Indians traditional recognition as a federal tribe. Once he did that, the Department of the Interior made it known that it won't recognize his decision. But if the appellate court upholds the judge's ruling, it can order the DOI to recognize the tribe."

Lynch also said it was important to note that the Paugussetts chose to file the amended claim for back rents to change the damages being sought. "They changed the legal remedy being sought because of an important U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the state of New York in Sherrill vs the Oenida tribe in which it said, in part, that seeking the expulsion of current residents in land claim actions is too drastic a remedy.

"So the Paugussetts got rid of the expulsion clause in their complaint and sought back rent and any other remedy the courts may deem proper."