Paul v. United States

Last updated
Paul v. United States
US Claims Court Seal.png
Court United States Claims Court
Full case nameFrederick Paul v. United States
DecidedApril 23, 1990 (1990-04-23)
Citation(s)20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990)
Case history
Prior action(s)Arctic Slope Native Ass'n v. Paul, 609 P.2d 32 (Alaska, 1980);
Paul v. United States, No. C77-399V, (W.D.Wash);
Paul v. Andrus, 639 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1980);
Paul v. United States, 687 F.2d 364, 231 Ct.Cl. 445 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 927, 103 S.Ct. 2086, 77 L.Ed.2d 297 (1983);
Jackson v. United States, 485 F.Supp. 1243 (D.Alaska, 1980).
Subsequent action(s)21 Cl.Ct. 758 (1990) (affirming HOR in part and finding that any payment would be a gratuity).
Case opinions
That Paul did not have a legal or equitable claim to the money and if Congress did grant him the money, it would be as payment of an equitable claim and not as a gratuity.
Court membership
Judge sittingKenneth R. Harkins

Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990), was a Congressional reference case brought before the United States Claims Court as a result of Senate Resolution 187 of the 100th Congress' 1st Session in 1988, which referred the proposed private bill, S. 966 to the court for a report on whether Frederick Paul's claim was a legal, equitable, or gratuitous claim and what amount was legally or equitably due him by the United States. [1] Paul claimed he was due additional money from the government for his work with the native Inuit of Alaska that led to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 and the creation of the modern borough system of local government in Alaska.

Contents

The hearing officer held that while Paul did not have a legal or equitable claim to the money, if Congress did grant him the money, it would be as payment of an equitable claim and not as a gratuity. [2] The review panel to the case agreed that there was no legal or equitable claim, but held that any payment would be a gratuity. Subsequently, Congress failed to act on the proposed bill before Mr. Paul's death in 1994. [3]

Background

In 1966, natives from the Alaskan Arctic Slope villages of Kaktovik, Nooiksat, Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope, Anaktuvuk Pass, Meade River, Wood's Camp and Colville joined together to form the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) to represent their land interests to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). [4] While Frederick Paul was not the organization's initial legal representative, he was appointed as a representative shortly after and sought to negotiate a contract with the BIA for his services on behalf of the natives. However, the Bureau rejected his proposed contract as it was not sure if the ASNA was an actual organization and because it disagreed with Paul receiving a percentage of any eventual recovery.

Despite the BIA's rejection, Paul submitted a substantially similar contract to the ASNA, which signed it. The Bureau notified him that the contract was not valid and subsequently he re-executed the same contract with seven of the eight villages comprising the ASNA. [5] The Bureau again denied the contracts citing that they were not the same form as the standard contract and that the rate should be three times the usual hourly rate and not a percentage of the eventual recovery.

During this time, Paul made substantial efforts on behalf of the ASNA to ensure the natives received money for the land of the Arctic Slope that was being sold to various oil concerns, culminating in the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), which provided over forty-six million dollars and several million acres of land to the natives in compensation for their land claims. It also provided for the attorneys who had assisted the natives in preparing their claims to receive up to 1.9 million dollars if they filed a request for payment within one year of the law's passage. [6] Paul claimed he was due over 10 million dollars, later reducing the claim to 5.9 million and then having a court find the amount at 3.6 million. [7] However, during the distribution of the 1.9 million dollars, Paul was only paid two-hundred seventy-five thousand dollars and continued to seek further remuneration, filing a suit in 1974 in Alaska against ANSA and the cities he had contracted with. This resulted in a judgment for twenty-thousand dollars to Paul. [8] Paul then filed a claim in the Western District of Washington for the same claim in 1976, only to have the court dismiss it in light of the statute of limitations.

In 1977 Paul sued the United States in the Court of Claims arguing that the ANCSA had unconstitutionally infringed on his contract. That suit was dismissed by the court for failing to state a claim that the court could render a judgment under. [9] Also in 1977, Paul sued the United States, the villages and several associations in Alaska federal court for his own fees and the fees of other attorneys. The court dismissed this claim citing that they were not contracts made under the ANCSA or claims that could be paid otherwise. [10] Paul re-filed suit against the United States, ASNA, and eight villages for fees in the Western District of Washington during the same year, only to have the court suspend the case in light of the other pending litigation. [11]

Congressional reference

Paul appealed to his congressman and his senators for the passage of a reference resolution to empower the Claims Court to hear his dispute. Despite the introduction of resolutions in the 98th (Senate Resolution 432 and House Resolution 571) and 99th (S. Res. 78 and H. Res. 61) Congresses, no action was taken. [12] Finally, in 1998, Senate Resolution 187 was approved, which directed the Claims Court to report on whether Paul's claim was a legal, equitable, or gratuitous claim and what amount was legally or equitably due him by the United States. [1] [13]

Holding

In a detailed holding, Hearing Officer Kenneth Harkins examined the court's entire Congressional reference jurisdiction and found that the court was not required to view the resolution as being favorable towards Paul, that the legal theories of res judicata and stare decisis do not apply to Congressional reference cases, and that any findings of the court are merely advisory to Congress. [14]

Harkins found that there was no legal grounds for the government to pay Paul, and that even under the wider Congressional concept of "broad moral principles of right and justice", there were not equitable grounds for payment to Paul. [14] Harkins also found that in such cases, "equitable" can have two meanings, both the traditional meaning of "equity at law" and the broader meaning of "upon considerations of a moral or merely honorary nature". He stated that under the traditional theory of equity, there was no action possible, as equity deals with things "such as reformation of contracts, or mandamus orders to government officials who have failed to follow statutory commands", and this was a request for payment of money. [15] Even under the broader theory of equity as a "moral action", Harkins did not find a duty to pay him additional funds. However, he did hold that if Congress were to pay him funds in light of his contributions to the development of native government, it would be as an equitable claim and not a gratuity. [16]

Review panel

Paul appealed the hearing officer's report to a review panel consisting of Judges James T. Turner, Bohdan A. Futey, and Roger Andewelt of the Claims Court. He claimed that Harkins was incorrect in holding he lacked a broader equitable claim against the United States under the Congressional reference sense of the term. [17]

The panel held that Harkins was accurate in holding there was no legal or equitable claim under any sense of the words and further held that Harkins was incorrect in holding that payment of the claim would be payment of an equitable claim. The panel instead held that if Congress were to pay the claim, it would be as a gratuity, due to the poor record keeping that supported the amount of his claim and for the other reasons that the hearing officer put forward. [18]

Following the review panel report, Congress did not take action towards paying Frederick Paul and he died in 1994 as a pauper due to tax seizures. [19] [20]

Related Research Articles

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 18, 1971, constituting at the time the largest land claims settlement in United States history. ANCSA was intended to resolve long-standing issues surrounding aboriginal land claims in Alaska, as well as to stimulate economic development throughout Alaska.

Tongass National Forest National forest in Alaska

The Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska is the largest U.S. National Forest at 16.7 million acres. Most of its area is temperate rain forest and is remote enough to be home to many species of endangered and rare flora and fauna. The Tongass, which is managed by the United States Forest Service, encompasses islands of the Alexander Archipelago, fjords and glaciers, and peaks of the Coast Mountains. An international border with Canada runs along the crest of the Boundary Ranges of the Coast Mountains. The forest is administered from Forest Service offices in Ketchikan. There are local ranger district offices located in Craig, Hoonah, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka, Thorne Bay, Wrangell, and Yakutat.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is a United States federal law signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 2, 1980. ANILCA provided varying degrees of special protection to over 157,000,000 acres (64,000,000 ha) of land, including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, recreational areas, national forests, and conservation areas. It was, and remains to date, the single largest expansion of protected lands in history and more than doubled the size of the National Park System.

The Alaska Native Regional Corporations were established in 1971 when the United States Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which settled land and financial claims made by the Alaska Natives and provided for the establishment of 13 regional corporations to administer those claims.

Tucker Act United States act

The Tucker Act is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.

The 13th Regional Corporation, is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) in settlement of aboriginal land claims. It was incorporated in Alaska on December 31, 1975. The 13th Regional Corporation is a for-profit corporation presently headquartered in Seattle, Washington, with approximately 5,500 Alaska Native shareholders of Eskimo, American Indian, and Aleut descent. Its original enrollment was of Alaska Natives who were no longer resident in Alaska.

William Paul (attorney)

William Lewis Paul was an American attorney, legislator, and political activist from the Tlingit nation of Southeast Alaska. He was known as a leader in the Alaska Native Brotherhood.

Federal Indian policy establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Some scholars divide the federal policy toward Indians in six phases: coexistence (1789–1828), removal and reservations (1829–1886), assimilation (1887–1932), reorganization (1932–1945), termination (1946–1960), and self-determination (1961–1985).

Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) was formed in 1972 as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) regional corporation for the Bering Straits and Norton Sound region. The corporation actively pursues responsible development of resources and other business opportunities. Through its subsidiaries, BSNC serves the federal government and commercial customers.

Doyon, Limited Oil services company

Doyon, Limited is one of twelve Alaska Native regional corporations established by Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. Established on June 26, 1972, as a for-profit corporation pursuant to the ANCSA of 1971. ANCSA addressed the aboriginal claim to the land by Alaska Native people by mandating the formation of for-profit corporations representing different regions of the state.

The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. The last in this series of cases is notable as the most recent Supreme Court opinion whose outcome was leaked to the press before the official release of its decision.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

An equitable adjustment, in government contracting, is a contract adjustment pursuant to a changes clause, to compensate the contractor expense incurred due to actions of the Government or to compensate the Government for contract reductions. An equitable adjustment includes an allowance for profit; clauses that provide for adjustments, excluding profit, are not considered "equitable adjustments."

A changes clause, in government contracting, is a required clause in United States government construction contracts.

Cross v. United States, 81 U.S. 479 (1871), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to Congressional reference cases. This was because Congress' intent in referring the case to the Court of Claims was to waive the defense of time bar for the entire controversy and that such intent could not be interpreted narrowly to prevent full recovery.

Aboriginal title in the United States First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

United States v. Paul may refer to:

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American (Indian) tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if Congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

The administration of Richard Nixon, from 1969 to 1974, made important changes in United States policy towards Native Americans through legislation and executive action. The Nixon Administration advocated a reversal of the long-standing policy of "termination" that had characterized relations between the U.S. Government and American Indians in favor of "self-determination." The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act restructured indigenous governance in the state of Alaska, creating a unique structure of Native Corporations. Some of the most notable instances of American Indian activism occurred under the Nixon Administration including the Occupation of Alcatraz and the Standoff at Wounded Knee.

Emil Reynold Notti is an American engineer, indigenous activist, businessman, government employee, and political candidate of Koyukon Athabaskan heritage.

References

  1. 1 2 Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990).
  2. ↑ Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 272 (1990).
  3. ↑ Paul v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 758, 767 (1990).
  4. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 243 (1990).
  5. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 247 (1990)
  6. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 257 (1990).
  7. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 238 (1990).
  8. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 262 (1990).
  9. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 263 (1990).
  10. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 263-264 (1990).
  11. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 264 (1990).
  12. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 239 F.5 (1990).
  13. ↑ Swisher, Larry (1987-11-16). "Some grievances are redressed". Eugene Register-Guard. Retrieved 2010-01-06.[ dead link ]
  14. 1 2 Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 264-269 (1990).
  15. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 269 -270 (Cl.Ct.,1990).
  16. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 272 (1990).
  17. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 21 Cl.Ct. 758, 759 (1990).
  18. ↑ Paul v. U.S., 21 Cl.Ct. 758, 767 (1990).
  19. ↑ Associated Press (1990-04-29). "Lawyer loses request for fee". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2010-01-06.[ dead link ]
  20. ↑ Hulen, David (1994-05-06). "Claims act architect dead at 80". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2010-01-06.[ dead link ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.