IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 (RCL) 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE REGARDING 
PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY NOTICE REGARDING ONGOING 
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDERS 
On November 15, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Emergency Notice Regarding Ongoing 
Retaliation in Violation of This Court's Orders ("Second Emergency Notice"), accusing the 
Department of the Interior of withholding a trust check and delaying processing of an appraisal 
for Carmen Patricio, in alleged retaliation for the Court's September 29, 2004 Order. In response 
to Plaintiffs' Second Emergency Notice, Defendants file the attached Declaration of Nina 
Siquieros, Superintendent with the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Papago Agency in Arizona. 
("Siquieros Declaration") (Exhibit 1).1 The Siquieros Declaration disproves Ms. Patricio's claims 
of retaliation. 
The Siquieros Declaration conclusively establishes that Ms. Patricio's trust check was 
handled in the ordinary course of business and processing of her trust check was not delayed as a 
result of the Court's September 29, 2004 Order. Siquieros Declaration at ¶¶ 4-10. Moreover, it 
1 Exhibit 1 is a redacted version of the Siquieros Declaration. Defendants have 
concurrently filed a motion requesting an order to file the un-redacted Siquieros Declaration 
under seal.
proves that her appraisal was processed in the ordinary course of business and that any delay in 
providing her a copy of the completed appraisal was not done in retaliation but in order to 
comply with the Court's September 29, 2004 Order. Id. at ¶¶ 11-20. The appraisal document 
was completed in connection with the proposed partition of Ms. Patricio's land, id. at ¶11, a land 
transaction regulated by 25 CFR Part 152 and subject to the Court's September 29, 2004 Order 
prohibiting communications concerning such transactions. See 25 CFR Part 152.33. On October 
22, 2004, the Court clarified its September 29, 2004 Order, and indicated that it did not prohibit 
written communications concerning the appraisal of trust lands. Order of October 22, 2004 at 5. 
On November 12, 2004, the BIA mailed Ms. Patricio a copy of the appraisal. Siquieros 
Declaration at ¶18. 
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that there was retaliation against Ms. Patricio and the 
Siquieros Declaration establishes that her trust checks were processed in the ordinary course of 
business. If, however, the Court decides to make findings of fact concerning Plaintiffs' 
allegations, Defendants' respectfully request that the Court first conduct an evidentiary hearing. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Dated: December 14, 2004 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
Deputy Director 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
- 2 -
/s/ Timothy E. Curley 
TIMOTHY E. CURLEY 
D.C. Bar No. 470450 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
- 3 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on December 14, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Notice Regarding 
Plaintiffs' Emergency Notice Regarding Ongoing Retaliation in Violation of this Court's Orders 
was served by Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for Electronic 
Case Filing, by facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs 
No. 1:96CV01285 
1 
) 
) 
1 
) 
) 
) 
(Judge Lamberth) 
V. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary 
of the Interior, et d., 
Defendants. 
1 
1 
) 
D E C W T I O N OF NTNA SIQUIEROS 
1, Nina Siquieros, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1746 do declare as follows; 
I am the Superintendent with the Bureau of l n d h Affairs (SIA) at the Papago 
Agency in ~ Z O M My duties and responsibilities include planning, organizing, 
staffing, budgeting and directing a variety of programs and services, including 
realty services. In this capacity, I oversee all Agency administrative programs, 
including realty opcrations and allotment payout procedures. 
I have prepared this declaration in response to Ms. Carmen Patricio's allegations 
that the Papago Agency is retaliating against her. Ms. Patrk4o alleges that we 
have withheld her royalty payment and that we have improperly withheld her 
appraisal. 
AAer receiving notice that W.' Patricio believed my office and stafT had retaliated 
- 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
against her, I asked my staff to investigate the facts surrounding the allegations 
and report the facts back to me. 1 will address each one in tum. 
AUc~ed Wilhholdinp of Ms. Patrjcio's Royalty Payment 
The Branch of Administration of the Papago Agency receives lease payments on 
behalf of landowners. Ms. Carmen Patricia is among numerous beneficiaries on 
whose behalf we receive income processed through the Papago Agency. Ms. 
Patricia's payment is generated as a result of preliminary royalties paid by 
Asmo, h e . (Asarco) for copper mined on San Xavier Mission Mine located on 
the Tohono O'odham Nation, in which Ms. Patricio owns an interest. 
1 
EXHIBIT 1 . 
Defendants' Notice Regarding 
Plaintiffs' Emergency Notice Regarding Ongoing 
Retaliation in Violation of this Court's Orders 5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
The royalty payments reccived by the Papago Agency are normally made by 
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to Asarco’s Special Deposit Account. This 
payment is subsequendy processed by the B M through the Integrated Records 
Management System (rruVrS) Lease Distribution system. The checks to each 
landowner are generated by the Office of the Special Trustee (OST) in 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. . 
when pparing to make a deposit, Asarco provides notice to the Papago Agency 
Superintendent by letter lhat a paymcnt will be made on a certain date. Once the 
deposit appears in Asarco’s Special Deposit account, in the Trust Funds 
Accountix~g System (TFAS), BIA will run the lease distribution for that payment 
through the lRMS Lease Distribution system. After reconcdiation, my office 
notdks the BLA Office of infomation Operations (010) in Reston, Virginia to 
ntn an inre- with the BIA database and the OST database; this inteddce is an 
overnight process, Checks are generated by OST in Albuquerque, New Mexico 
and mailed to b e individual landowner the following day. 
My office has verified that Asarco posted the August 2004 Royalty payment to 
TFAS on September 28,2004. After the deposit was made fkom 
My office has also verified that Asmo posted the September 2004 Royalty 
payment to TFAS on October 25,2004. After tihe deposit was made from Asarm, 
At no time did BIA or the Papago Agency attempt to &lay or withhold any 
royalty payments. However, over the past few years, Asarco has faiIed to make 
timely iease and royalty payments. Through meetings with the landowners and 
the San Xavier Allottee Association, Asarco bas informed us that this is due to a 
Serious reduction in the pnce of copper. Asarco proposed renegotiations for a 
lower rate; however, the landowners did no1 accept the renegotiation. 
Ms. Patricio’s trust payments were processed in the ordinary course of busincss 
and the processing time is unrelated to any court orders in Cobell v Norton. 
Alleged Withholding of Ms. Patridio’s Au~raisal 
Upon review, my ofice bas determined that on August 7,2003, we received a 
request from Ms. Patricio for a review and concurrence of an “appraisal” done on 
Allotment # 64 done by GNbb and Ellis, Tucson, Arizona, for purposes of 
partitioning the parcel. 12’ 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
I 
I 
Our Realty officer forwarded the Gmbb and Ellis document to the Office of the 
Special Trustee for American Indians (OST), Office of Appraisal Services. 
On January 27,2004, the Office of Appraisal Service notified our ofice that the 
Grubb and Ellis document did not constitute an appraisal. The Office of 
Appraisal Services had concluded that the Grubb and Ellis document was merely 
a market analysis report that did not meet the BIA standards for an appraisal. 
We tben prepared an appraisal request for OST dated March 4,2004. On May i I, 
2004 through a follow-up of our request, it came to our attention that OST had not 
received OUT appraisal request dated March 4,2004 so we submitted another 
request for an appraisal for a partition of Allotment 64. 
On September 1,2004. my oflice reccived an appraisal h m OST for the partition 
of Allotment 64. 
As of September 1,2004, Ms. Patricio had not providcd us with notification that 
she had obtained agreement to the partition of the allotment from 100% of the co- 
owners, and al the tune of her retaliation claim she had still not provided our 
0ffice.wit.h such notice. In the ordinary course of business, we wodd not 
automatically send out appraisals to landowners until we have received 
notification that there is consent by 100% of the owners to partitioning of the 
land. W e would, however, provide a copy oft!! appraisal, upon request of an 
owner. 
Ms. Paticio had contacted our office and requested a copy oflhe appraisal and 
we agreed to provide a copy to her. However, before we provided a copy to her, 
on September 30,3004, our ofice received departmental guidance that the Court 
had issued an order prohibiting commUnications concerning the sale, exchange, 
transfer, and conversion of Indian trust land. We interpreted that guidance as not 
permitting us to communicate witb Ms. Patricio by sending out the appraisal to 
her. 
On November 12,2004, the appraisal was mailed to Ms. Patricio at the direction 
of thc Western Regional W k e . 
Our office did not retaliate W n s t Ms. Panicio in handing the copy of her 
appraisal, but sought to comply with the Court’s order concerning 
communications on land transactions. 
To my knowledge, as of this date Ms. Patricjo still does not have consent to the 
partition fmm 100% of the co-owners of the land. Until such consent is obtained, 
the partition cannot take place, regardless of when Ms. Patricio received a copy of 
her appraisal. 
3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to thc kst of my 
knowledge, information, and belief. 
NINA SIQWEROS 
4