What? What legal idiot put these together?

As far as I can tell from all this political mumbo jumbo, is that the do not own any part of Mille Lacs Lake. They only own property to the WEST of the Mississippi.

Check this out:

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/TreatyWithTheChippewaOfTheMississippi1867.html

This is the latest treaty that we had with the Chippewa nation. Here's the excerp that I've been checking on:

Article 1.

The Chippewas of the Mississippi hereby cede to the United States all their lands in the State of Minnesota, secured to them by the second article of their treaty of March 20, 1865,* excepting and reserving therefrom the tract bounded and described as follows, to wit: Commencing at a point on the Mississippi River, opposite the mouth of Wanoman River, as laid down on Sewall's map of Minnesota; thence due north to a point two miles further north than the most northerly point of Lake Winnebagoshish; thence due west to a point two miles west of the most westerly point of Cass Lake; thence south to Kabekona River; thence down said river to Leech Lake; thence along the north shore of Leech lake to its outlet in Leech Lake River; thence down the main channel of said river to its junction with the Mississippi River, and thence down the Mississippi to the place of beginning.

And there is further reserved for the said Chippewas out of the land now owned by them such portion of their western outlet as may upon location and survey be found to be within the reservation provided for in the next succeeding section.

AND THE SURVEY SAYS.....................
This is what we missed in the case against the earlier treaties:

IV. The Consequences of the Minnesota’s Failure to Apply the

Lac Courte Oreilles and

Mille Lacs Judgments to All Minnesota Anishinabe.(CHIPPEWA)

Because

only the Anishinabe Bands who were parties to the Lac Courte Oreille

1854 Treaty litigation intervened in the

Mille Lacs case,147 the judgment in favor of the

Mille Lacs

plaintiffs formally did not extend to Minnesota Bands other than the Mille

Lacs Band (in the 1837 and 1855 ceded territory) and

Fond du Lac, Bois forte and Grand

Portage Bands (in the 1854 ceded territory). However, it appears that principles of

res

judicata

,148 and/or offensive collateral estoppel149 would preclude the State from relitigating

its objections to the treaty claims and factual issues decided in the previous

litigation. But, in addition to resolving facts and law beyond dispute, the

Mille Lacs

decision also put the State on notice that it was bound to recognize the

usufructuary

rights clearly set out in the 1837 Treaty and not removed by the 1855 Treaty, or later.

Further, in entering into the Tri-Band Agreement with the

Anishinabe Bands in

Minnesota’s “Arrowhead” region in 1988, the State apparently has considered itself

bound by the terms of the 1854 Treaty, although, like the

Anishinabe Bands of northern

Minnesota in the

Milles Lacs case,150 the State of Minnesota never intervened in that

litigation. The State of Minnesota has chosen

not to recognize that the same treaty

interpretation principles either within, or outside of the 1837, 1854, 1855 ceded territory,

nor in territory later ceded by the Treaties did not discuss abrogation of

usufructuary

rights.

Ain't it a cryin' shame they didn't even take into consideration the treaty of 1867? That was a ratification of all the other treaties and the point of law being he last word said. Ain't it lawyers out there?



I know some of you fish, Here's a picture of Minnesota.

Notice that the Mississippi River is to the west of Mille Lacs Lake.

They don't even own the land Grand Casino is on!