IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
__________________________________________ ) 
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN 
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Defendants submit this supplemental memorandum in response to the Court's Order of 
September 1, 2004, which directs the parties to submit further briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for a 
a preliminary injunction ("PI") prohibiting the sale of individual Indian trust land under 25 C.F.R. 
Part 152. The Court issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on August 31, 2004, and then 
extended the order to September 29, 2004. By this supplemental memorandum, Defendants urge 
immediate dissolution of the TRO and a prompt denial of all other relief requested by Plaintiffs. 
No injunctive relief is warranted on the law, the facts, or the equities that must be considered 
when deciding the propriety of extraordinary relief. 
The Department of the Interior ("Interior") has received letters from Native Americans 
and others describing hardships resulting from entry of the TRO and asking that their pending 
sales of allotted land be permitted to proceed without delay. Named Plaintiffs, who purport to 
represent the individual Indian sellers, have provided the Court with no basis at all to justify the 
halting of these sales. Yet, as a result of the TRO, another Interior program designed to benefit
Indians has been stopped, with no discernable benefit to anyone and to the detriment of 
individual Indians, including absent class members as well as Indians having no interest in this 
litigation, who wish to dispose of their land interests. 
Plaintiffs' motion is misguided and provides no legitimate basis for entering any 
injunctive order. Plaintiffs' arguments rest upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
challenged land transactions and a misstatement of the record in this case, as demonstrated 
below. The named class representatives, who have not proven any personal stake in the matter, 
are seeking to stop land sales that many other absent class members clearly favor.1 Given such 
an intractable conflict among class members, the Court should refuse Plaintiffs' request for 
extraordinary relief. 
The defects in Plaintiffs' motion are legion. No jurisdictional basis exists for the Court to 
grant relief, nor do Plaintiffs have standing to pursue it. Plaintiffs profess that their concern is to 
protect class members from losing their right to an accounting, but nothing relating to these land 
transactions affects a class member's right to an accounting of funds under the American Indian 
Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 ("1994 Act"), Pub. L. No. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239. 
The typical land sale under 25 C.F.R. Part 152 ("Part 152 sale") is initiated by an individual 
Indian for a host of individual reasons, and the regulations give preference for sales to the tribe 
and other Indians. The regulations require an appraisal prior to any sale. Nothing put forth by 
Plaintiffs indicates that Interior has communicated anything to individual Indians as part of Part 
1 As concerns Invitation No. 69, the bid invitation issued by the Anadarko Agency and 
attached to Plaintiffs' motion ("Invitation No. 69"), Defendants acknowledge that many of the 
individuals who had sought to sell their interests through this solicitation are class members. 
-2-
152 sales that discusses either the subject matter of this litigation or their right to an accounting. 
Continuation of the restraint will likely risk harm to those who are awaiting the sale of their land 
interest to meet some urgent financial need. The temporary restraining order should be dissolved 
forthwith and the request for a preliminary injunction denied.2 
FACTS 
The land sales that Plaintiffs attack and seek to enjoin are routine transactions undertaken 
in the ordinary course of business at the request of the individual Indians who own the properties. 
Plaintiffs concede that individual Indians have a right to sell their land. Interior established the 
procedures now at issue in 1973; they are codified at 25 C.F.R. Part 152.3 According to a recent 
survey conducted by Interior of its regional offices, approximately 1,663 applications for the sale 
of an interest in allotted Indian land have been approved but not yet sold pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 
Part 152. See Goodwin Decl. ¶ 6 (Sept. 8, 2004). A small minority (81) of these 1,663 
applications are for sale by bid invitation, while the rest are slated for a negotiated sale. Id. 
In the days following entry of the TRO, Interior has received letters from individual 
Indians describing hardships they face because their land sales were halted by the Court. See, 
e.g., Notice of Filing (Sept. 2, 2004) (Dkt. No. 2672) (attaching redacted letters). Several letters 
2 Interior has made prompt efforts to implement the TRO across all offices of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs around the country. All regions of the Bureau were directed to relay 
instructions to all agencies providing land sale services, including contracting and compacting 
tribes, to cease all sales under 25 C.F.R. Part 152 until further notice. See Declaration of Janet 
A. Goodwin (Exhibit 2) ("Goodwin Decl."). 
3 The governing regulations were adopted in 1973, see 38 Fed. Reg. 10,080 (Apr. 24, 
1973), and redesignated in 1982, see 47 Fed. Reg. 13,327 (Mar. 30, 1982). 
-3-
include statements that the sellers have negotiated a sale to their tribe; that the tribe has agreed to 
pay "a much higher price than the appraised value"; that the sellers were provided with the 
appraisal, maps and other information concerning their property interests; and that they consider 
their sales contract to be "more than fair." Some letters describe specific hardships the sellers 
face if the sales are not accomplished promptly. One letter states that the seller needs the sales 
proceeds because of the "need to pay for medications, bills and repairs to my home." Id. (First 
Letter, at 1). Another letter expresses a need to use the proceeds to help pay for "medical bills 
and medications," including surgery, id. (Second Letter, at 1), while a third letter describes a need 
to pay rent because "I could lose my house I am buying." Id. (Third Letter, at 1). Two other 
letters describe an urgent need to care for a close relative who is ill and how their land sale is 
necessary to alleviate that financial burden. See Notices of Filing (Sept. 8, 2004) (Dkt. Nos. 
2677& 2678) (additional redacted letters). 
Interior has also been contacted by the Department of Energy ("DOE") with concerns 
about whether it can continue a program of funding certain land acquisitions by tribes so that 
those lands can be permanently protected and managed by the tribes as fish and wildlife habitats. 
See Declaration of Gregory K. Delwiche (Sept. 7, 2004) ("Delwiche Decl.") (submitted with 
Defendants' Emergency Motion for Dissolution of the August 31, 2004 Temporary Restraining 
Order Insofar as It Restrains Tribal Acquisitions Funded By The Department of Energy as Part of 
Its Fish And Wildlife Mitigation Program (filed Sept. 8, 2004)). The tribal acquisitions of such 
lands, some of which are purchased from individual Indians pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 152, are 
funded by DOE as part of a federal program established under the Pacific Northwest Electric 
Power Planning and Conservation Act to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected 
-4-
by federal hydropower projects in the Columbia River Basin. See 16 U.S.C. § 839b(h)(10)(A). 
According to DOE, pending sales that do not close by September 30, 2004, the end of the fiscal 
year, are at risk of losing funding. Id. at ¶ 6. 
Pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 152, any individual Indian may file an application with Interior 
for sale of his or her trust land. 25 C.F.R. § 152.18.4 Part 152 does not govern only sales; it 
governs a variety of transactions involving Indian lands. For example, Part 152 provides that 
"trust or restricted lands acquired by allotment, devise, inheritance, purchase, exchange, or gift 
may be sold, exchanged, and conveyed by the Indian owner with the approval of the Secretary or 
by the Secretary with the consent of the Indian owner." 25 C.F.R. § 152.17 (citing multiple 
statutory authorities dating back to 1902) (emphasis added).5 Plaintiffs have only complained 
about sales of trust land, and sales are the only transactions halted under the TRO.6 
Two types of sales are possible under Part 152: sale by bid solicitation and sale by 
negotiated contract. See id. § 152.25. A sale by bid solicitation involves advertising the property 
for sale and inviting sealed bids, as was done in Invitation No. 69. See id. § 152.26 
("Advertisement"). A negotiated sale may occur only if the purchaser is (1) another Indian, (2) 
4 The regulations also authorize the natural guardian of an Indian under a disability, 25 
C.F.R. § 152.18, or a duly appointed fiduciary acting with court approval, id. § 152.19, to make 
an application on behalf of an individual Indian in his or her charge. 
5 These same regulations also provide a mechanism for an individual Indian to remove 
his or her land interest from trust without a sale or other immediate disposition. An individual 
Indian, for example, may apply to convert his or her trust land into a fee patent. 25 C.F.R. § 
152.4. 
6 Although the TRO uses the word "auctions," the Court expressed an intent during the 
August 31, 2004 hearing to enjoin all sales under 25 C.F.R. Part 152, which is how Interior has 
interpreted and applied the order. 
-5-
the tribe, (3) a co-owner, (3) the United States, a state or political subdivision thereof, or "[w]hen 
the Secretary determines it is impractical to advertise." See id. § 152.25. According to Interior's 
recent survey of regional offices, negotiated sales are far more common than sales by bid 
solicitation. See Goodwin Decl. ¶ 6. 
In the case of the Anadarko Agency, bid solicitations for the sale of individual Indian 
lands have occurred only every few years in recent experience. Since 1994, the Anadarko 
Agency announced the following solicitations: Invitation No. 65, issued on April 19, 1994; 
Invitation No. 66, issued on March 22, 1995; Invitation No. 67, issued on May 20, 1998, and 
withdrawn on or about June 5, 1998; Invitation No. 68, issued on June 5, 1998. See Exhibit 3 
(Anadarko Invitations). Interior cancelled Invitation No. 69 before accepting bids. Thus, for this 
agency, it appears that only one bid solicitation (Invitation No. 68) may have actually been 
completed during the pendency of this litigation. 
Whether a sale is to be accomplished through negotiation or an invitation for bids, the 
individual Indian must complete an application for Interior's review.7 The Indian must identify 
current sources of income and provide other information in order to satisfy Interior that the 
requested land sale is in the best interest of the applicant. See, e.g., Anadarko Agency Invitation 
No. 69 Application Files at DEF43844-7 (Exhibit 1, filed under seal Sep. 8, 2004) ("Application 
7 The regulations provide, in pertinent part, as follows: "Applications may be approved 
if, after careful examination of the circumstances in each case, the transaction appears to be 
clearly justified in the light of the long-range best interest of the owner or owners . . . ." 25 
C.F.R. § 152.23. 
-6-
Files")8 (completed application materials for parcel 1 of Anadarko Bid Invitation No. 69).9 The 
completed sales application is then reviewed, and various persons within the local agency and the 
Superintendent must recommend and approve the sale. See, e.g., Application Files at 
DEF43844, DEF43846, DEF43849-51, DEF43861 (parcel 1). Factors such as the applicant's 
finances and whether the property is encumbered are examined during this process. See, e.g., Id. 
at DEF43844-52. In all cases, the regulations require Interior to obtain an appraisal before any 
sale can be approved. 25 C.F.R. § 152.24. 
The regulations further limit Interior's ability to approve a sale unless the negotiated price 
or the winning bid, as the case may be, meets or exceeds the appraised fair market value. 
Transactions at less than fair market value are not permitted by the regulations, see id. §§ 
152.25(a), 152.28(b), except for transfers and sales among relatives or others who have a close 
relationship, see id. § 152.25(d). In bid solicitations, the regulations provide for approval of a 
sale if the winning bid is not less than the appraised value.10 See id. § 152.28(b). 
All of the parcels that are the subject of Plaintiffs' motion were advertised for sale by 
reason of an application filed by the individual Indian owners. Declaration of Bruce W. 
8 These documents (numbered DEF43844-DEF44519) are protected by the Privacy Act 
and were produced to Plaintiffs on September 3, 2004 pursuant to the Court's Order of Sept. 1, 
2004. 
9 The references to numbered parcels (e.g., "parcel 1") are to the numbers assigned to the 
properties being sold as part of Invitation No. 69 and set forth on the bid solicitation document 
attached to Plaintiffs' motion. 
10 In some bid situations, the highest bid may not exceed the fair market value, in which 
case the regulations allow a sale only if the top bid "approximates said appraised fair market 
value," the Secretary concludes that the amount bid is the highest price that may be realized in 
the circumstances, and the land owner gives his or her consent. Id. § 152.28(b). 
-7-
Maytubby ¶ 3 (August 30, 2004) ("Maytubby Decl.") (attached as Exhibit A to Defendants' 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction 
(Aug. 30, 2004)). As demonstrated by the applications, each parcel listed on the invitation to bid 
submitted by Plaintiffs has a corresponding application from the individual Indian land owner (or 
owners) specifically requesting the sale. Invitation No. 69 was later cancelled after Plaintiffs 
filed their motion to halt these sales. See Exhibit 4 (local advertisement). Had it proceeded, the 
regulations cited above would have required Interior to obtain an appraisal if and when bids were 
submitted. Maytubby Decl. ¶ 7. 
Plaintiffs' counsel asserted that individual Indians "are left with a Hobbesian [sic] choice. 
If they desperately need money because of their current financial condition and they need to sell, 
they have to sell in accordance with the scheme that does not ensure that they're going to get fair 
market value."11 Tr., Hearing on Land Sales Motion for TRO, at 9:11-15 (Aug. 31, 2004); id. at 
44:1-3. This assertion is false. As established above, the Invitation No. 69 parcels may not be 
sold for less than fair market value. 25 C.F.R. § 152.25(a),(b). As Invitation No. 69 shows, a 
number of the parcels being advertised in 2004 had previously failed to sell during the prior bid 
invitation (No. 68) in 1998, primarily because the bids received were less than fair market value. 
See Application Files at DEF44316, DEF44320, DEF44323 (parcel 19; rejected bid of 75% of 
appraised value); DEF44317, DEF44341, DEF44346 (parcel 20; rejected bid of 80% of 
appraised value); DEF44366, DEF44369, DEF44371 (parcel 21; rejected bid of 50% of 
11 "An apparently free choice that actually offers no alternative. . . . This expression 
alludes to Thomas Hobson of Cambridge, England, who rented horses and allowed each 
customer to take only the horse nearest the stable door [Mid-1600s]." The American Heritage 
Dictionary of Idioms (1997) (brackets in original), available at http://dictionary.reference.com/ 
search?q=Hobson%27s%20choice. 
-8-
appraised value). Parcel 8 failed to sell in 1995 as well as in 1998. Id. at DEF43997, DEF44003 
(1995 bid invitation No. 66); DEF43986, DEF43991, DEF43993 (1998 bid invitation No. 68; 
rejecting bid of same amount as in 1995; 1998 bid was for less than 50% of appraised value). 
Plaintiffs incorrectly assume that individual Indians are forced to settle for a low price.12 
Plaintiffs have made no showing that any sale under part 152 is forced by the government. 
Indeed, "inducing an Indian to execute an instrument purporting to convey any trust land or 
interest therein, or the offering of any such instrument for record, is prohibited and criminal 
penalties may be incurred." Id. § 152.22 (citing 25 U.S.C. 202 and 348). For advertised sales, 
the notice of sale must include a "statement warning all bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. [§] 
1860 prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders or potential bidders." 25 
C.F.R. § 152.26(b)(3). When bids are received, the owner's consent is required for acceptance of 
the bid, even if it "approximates [the] fair market value and in the Secretary's judgment is the 
highest price that may be realized in the circumstances." Id. § 152.28(b). Even when the bid 
exceeds the appraised value, the owner may reject the bid. See Application Files at DEF44386-7 
(parcel 22; sole owner rejected bid of $792 on parcel for mineral rights appraised as having no 
value). 
12 As the applications for Invitation No. 69 show, many parcels do not sell quickly. For 
11 of the parcels, the applications were submitted in the mid to late 1990s. See DEF43940-41 
(parcel 6), DEF43969-70 (parcel 8), DEF44133-44 (parcel 13), DEF44186-93 (parcel 16), 
DEF44226-35 (parcel 17), DEF44268-77 (parcel 18), DEF44293-300 (parcel 19), DEF44328-29 
(parcel 20), DEF44352-53 (parcel 21), DEF44383-84 (parcel 22), DEF44420-21 (parcel 23). 
Most were submitted before 2004. 
-9-
According to their applications, none of the 58 individuals13 lives on the parcels being 
offered for sale under Invitation No. 69. Id. at DEF43844-7, DEF43862-65, DEF43885-8, 
DEF43904-5, DEF43917-8, DEF43940-1, DEF43951-4, DEF43969-70, DEF44008-31, 
DEF44041-2, DEF44091-2, DEF44106-9, DEF44133-4, DEF44144-5, DEF44186-93, 
DEF44226-35, DEF44268-77, DEF44293-300, DEF44328-9, DEF44352-3, DEF44383-4, 
DEF44420-1, DEF44482, DEF44491, DEF44495-8, DEF44505-6. Most resided in Oklahoma, 
but others resided in Texas, California, New Mexico and Colorado. Id. Thus, it does not appear 
that they are losing their homes as a result of the requested sale. 
Half of the 70 applications relating to Invitation No. 69 indicate that the applicant 
received no income from the property being sold. Id. at DEF43969-70 (parcel 8); DEF44008-31 
(parcel 9); DEF44041-2 (parcel 10); DEF44091-2 (parcel 11); DEF44144-5 (parcel 14); 
DEF44186-93 (parcel 15); DEF44420-1 (parcel 23); DEF44495-8 (parcel 25); DEF44505-6 
(parcel 26). The owner of parcel 13, which generates grazing lease revenue, is again attempting 
to sell only mineral rights, which were appraised as having no value in 1998. Id. at DEF44386, 
DEF44393, DEF44004, DEF44007, DEF440017. 
A notice of sale by advertisement describes "all reservations to which title will be subject 
and any restrictions and encumbrances . . . ." 25 C.F.R. § 152.26(b)(4). The applications include 
a blank for the owner to indicate whether sale of the parcel will include surface or sub-surface 
rights. See, e.g., Application Files at DEF43844. In fact, for Invitation No. 69, 21 of the 26 
parcels reserved all mineral rights, one reserved "½" mineral rights, id. at DEF44133 (parcel 13), 
13 Seventy applications were submitted by 58 individuals. 
-10-
two made no reservation, id. at DEF44008, DEF44495 (parcels 9 and 25), while two reserved 
surface rights, id. at DEF44383-85, DEF44505 (parcels 22 and 26). 
Finally, a thorough review of the Invitation No. 69 application files reveals no evidence 
that Interior has communicated any information to the individual Indian applicants about their 
rights to an accounting or about any other issues in this lawsuit. In sum, the documentation 
supports a finding that the individual Indian applicants have been treated fairly and properly in 
accordance with the established regulations and without any violation of this Court's December 
23, 2002 Order. 
ARGUMENT14 
I. THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE SOLE RELIEF 
PLAINTIFFS SEEK 
The Court's Jurisdiction Does Not Extend to Asset Management A. 
Plaintiffs' motion attempts to bootstrap their arguments in favor of restraining asset 
management activities into this case, which is exclusively about Plaintiffs' right to an accounting 
of funds under the 1994 Act, by asserting that land sales compromise class members' right to an 
accounting. Defendants made it clear that, in their view, the land sales that are the subject of the 
Plaintiffs' motion are not events that cut off an individual Indian's right to an accounting. Tr. 
8/31/04, at 51:22-52:6. On that basis, Plaintiffs conceded that the effect of the sales on Plaintiffs' 
accounting rights is "off the table." Id. at 56:18-22. Plaintiffs now ask "this Court . . . to enjoin 
the sale[s] until this Court is assured that the procedures that are in place are in place so that each 
14 Defendants also incorporate by reference Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion 
For Temporary Restraining Order And For Preliminary Injunction, filed on August 30, 2004. 
-11-
trust beneficiary who wants to sell his land can do so and receive whatever his fair market value 
is." Id. at 57:7-11. This Court lacks jurisdiction to provide this relief. 
"[A]sset management is not part of this lawsuit." Cobell v. Babbitt, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1, 18 
(D.D.C. 1999) (emphasis added). The Court reaffirmed this fact as recently as last week. See 
Order, Sept. 2, 2004, at 3 (granting Defendants' Motion For A Protective Order Regarding 
Plaintiffs' Notice Of Deposition Of Gabriel Sneezy because "plaintiffs may not inquire into 
appraisals for purposes of evaluating management of trust assets as that may stray beyond the 
scope of the underlying litigation"). Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion should be denied for want of 
jurisdiction. 
Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate Standing B. 
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any of the named class representatives are 
threatened with any injury in fact absent the relief requested. 
That a suit may be a class action . . . adds nothing to the question of standing, for 
even named plaintiffs who represent a class "must allege and show that they 
personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, 
unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to 
represent." 
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357 (1996) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights 
Organiz., 426 U.S. 26, 40 n.20 (1976)). In the present case, then, if the representative plaintiffs 
lack actual injury with respect to a sale under 25 C.F.R. Part 152, the Court lacks jurisdiction to 
award relief. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 n.1 ("standing . . . is jurisdictional and not subject to 
waiver"). Plaintiffs have made no showing or even an allegation of such injury that would confer 
standing and, in turn, jurisdiction on this Court.
-12-
The Land Sale Process Is Committed to the Secretary's Discretion C. 
To the extent Plaintiffs attack the implementation of the sale regulations, this Court lacks 
jurisdiction, because the procedure is committed to the Secretary's discretion. Norton v. 
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 124 S. Ct. 2373 (2004) ("SUWA"); Lane v. Anderson, 67 F. 
563 (C.C.D. Wash. 1895). Here, it appears that Plaintiffs are attempting to obtain an unlawful, 
de facto receivership by placing the Court in the path of all decisions that Interior makes.15 The 
Supreme Court recently warned against injecting courts into such roles: 
The principal purpose of the APA limitations . . . is to protect agencies from 
undue judicial interference with their lawful discretion, and to avoid judicial 
entanglement in abstract policy disagreements which courts lack both expertise 
and information to resolve. If courts were empowered to enter general orders 
compelling compliance with broad statutory mandates, they would necessarily be 
empowered, as well, to determine whether compliance was achieved – which 
would mean that it would ultimately become the task of the supervising court, 
rather than the agency, to work out compliance with the broad statutory mandate, 
injecting the judge into day-to-day agency management. 
SUWA, 124 S. Ct. at 2381. Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because the Court lacks authority 
to grant the requested relief. 
II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ESTABLISH ANY OF THE FOUR ELEMENTS 
REQUIRED FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
The law is well established that when considering whether to grant an application for a 
preliminary injunction, this Court must examine (1) whether a substantial likelihood exists that 
the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if 
15 See, e.g., Pls.' Mot. at 3 ("Preservation of the status quo should compel this court to 
intervene immediately and supervise any such sale until [the Secretary] is replaced by a receiver 
. . . ."). 
-13-
the injunctive relief is denied, (3) whether the granting of injunctive relief will substantially 
injure the other party, and (4) whether the public interest will be served by the granting of the 
injunctive relief. E.g., Davenport v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 360-61 
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Serono Labs., Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1317-18 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); 
Kudjodi v. Wells Fargo Bank, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 n.2 (D.D.C. 2001). The burden placed upon 
the moving party is difficult because "'a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic 
remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden 
of persuasion.'" Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (emphasis in 
original) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 
2948, at 129-30 (2d ed. 1995)). Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden on any of these 
factors. Given the paucity of evidence, it would be hard to imagine a clearer case for denial of a 
request for a preliminary injunction. 
A. Plaintiffs Have Wholly Failed to Demonstrate Substantial 
Likelihood of Success on the Merits 
Although the four-part test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction requires a 
balancing of the factors, "it is especially important for the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of 
success on the merits." Nat'l Head Start Ass'n v. HHS, 297 F. Supp. 2d 242, 247 (D.D.C. 2004) 
(citing Davenport, 166 F.3d at 360, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1999), and CityFed Financial Corp. v. Office 
of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). This is intuitive, given the 
extraordinary nature of a preliminary injunction, whereby the court enters an order restraining a 
party before the court has considered the full record and merits of the parties' assertions. Such an 
-14-
order is plainly improper if the moving party cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood that it 
will, ultimately, succeed. 
Plaintiffs' motion does little more than pretend to address this crucial factor. Their 
motion devotes a mere page-and-a-half to this element, Pls.' Mot. at 9-10, and cites no evidence 
or law to support the entry of preliminary injunctive relief to bar land sales that are otherwise 
authorized by law, e.g., 25 C.F.R. Part 152, and specifically requested by individual Indian land 
owners, including members of the Plaintiffs' own class. Moreover, as we explain below, to the 
extent Plaintiffs do refer to the record and facts, their references typically misinterpret the record 
and fail to substantiate factual assertions. For example, during the TRO hearing, Plaintiffs 
falsely sought to equate class membership with ownership of an interest in trust land. They also 
misstated the record when arguing that a land sale would necessarily result in the loss of 
accounting records. Plaintiffs point to a number of other imagined concerns about sales of trust 
land, but their argument is undermined by the fact that they have been on notice of land sales for 
years but never expressed any concern until now. Plaintiffs wholly fail to demonstrate a 
substantial likelihood of success on the merits. 
1. No Evidence Exists That Part 152 Sales Involve Any Communications 
That Violate This Court's Order Prohibiting Class Communications 
Plaintiffs have come forward with no evidence that any communications that Interior has 
had with purported class members in the context of a Part 152 sale violate either the letter or the 
spirit of this Court's Order of December 23, 2002. The Order's prohibitions are expressly limited 
to the subject matter of this case: the rights of class members to a full and fair accounting of 
-15-
their IIM accounts.16 The Order contains no proscription against the communications involved 
here, which concern asset management, not accounting. Plaintiffs tender no proof at all that 
Interior has had any communication "regarding this litigation or the claims involved therein" and 
instead resort to the metaphysical contention that these land sales are not in the ordinary course 
of business. Part 152 sales are, of course, in the ordinary course of business of Interior as 
mandated by federal statutes and regulations. Plaintiffs' protestations to the contrary do not alter 
these facts. Even if, for the sake of Plaintiffs' contorted argument, such sales were assumed to be 
"extraordinary" events, Interior's communications about Part 152 sales do not violate the Court's 
Order on class communications absent proof that the communications discuss "this litigation or 
the claims involved therein." Without this proof, Plaintiffs' motion must fail and the TRO should 
be dissolved. 
16 The order provides, in pertinent part: 
[D]uring the pendency of the instant litigation, the parties to the 
litigation, their agents and officials, and their counsel shall not 
communicate, through the United States mail or any other mode of 
communication, with any class member in this litigation regarding 
this litigation or the claims involved therein, except as specifically 
permitted by order of this Court. This restriction includes, but is 
not limited to, any communications that affect the rights of class 
members to a full and accurate accounting of their Individual 
Indian Money trust accounts. 
The instant Order does not prohibit defendants from 
communicating with class members in the ordinary course of 
business on routine matters unrelated to the instant litigation. 
212 F.R.D. at 24 (emphasis supplied). 
-16-
2. The Land Sales Plaintiffs Seek to Enjoin Do Not Affect the Right to an 
Accounting of IIM Accounts 
Plaintiffs' right to an accounting of funds under the 1994 Act is unaffected by the land 
sales they seek to enjoin, and Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendants have previously contended 
otherwise is pure fiction. Neither Interior's historical accounting plan nor this Court's structural 
injunction conditions an IIM accounting on current or former ownership of an interest in trust 
lands.17
Interior's historical accounting plan provides, in part, as follows: 
The historical accounting described in the Plan covers all IIM accounts that were 
open as of December 31, 2000, and all IIM accounts that were open as of October 
25, 1994, or opened thereafter, but closed as of December 31, 2000. 
Interior's Historical Accounting Plan For Individual Indian Money Accounts at 2 (Jan. 6, 2003). 
Thus, even if the seller of a land interest also happened to be an IIM account holder, and even if 
that seller's IIM account was closed due to inactivity after sale of the land, the sale would not 
affect entitlement to an accounting under Interior's plan. Nor does the Court's structural 
injunction limit the plan's scope in that regard.18 
17 During the hearing on August 31, 2004, it was noted that land acquisitions under the 
Indian Land Consolidation Project ("ILCP") are regularly reported in Interior's quarterly status 
reports filed pursuant to this Court's Order of December 21, 1999, whereas sales transactions 
under 25 C.F.R. Part 152 are not reported. Tr. at 43:7-43:20, 52:24-53:8 (Aug. 31, 2004). 
Interior reports on ILCP because it is directed at alleviating fractionation, which has a pervasive 
impact on individual Indian trust administration. Sales pursuant to Part 152 are not part of ILCP 
and are not aimed at alleviating fractionation, although some sales might indirectly affect 
fractionated ownership in particular cases. 
18 Plaintiffs' focus on Part 152 sales makes no sense - legal, common or otherwise. Part 
152 sales are not the only land transactions that Interior administers by federal statute or 
regulation, yet Plaintiffs have expressed no complaint about other types of transactions. For 
example, Part 152 not only authorizes the sale of trust lands by bid solicitation and, in certain 
circumstances, negotiated sale, but it also allows trust land to be "exchanged, and conveyed by 
-17-
3. Plaintiffs Erroneously Contend That Class Membership Is Based 
Upon Land Interests Rather Than on Being an IIM Account Holder 
Straining to find some nexus between the land sales at issue and the subject matter of this 
litigation, Plaintiffs erroneously contend that the class includes all "trust beneficiaries," that is, 
anyone who has an interest in allotted land. Indeed, as Plaintiffs well know, the land owners who 
are being prevented from selling their land may not even be class members whom Plaintiffs can 
purport to represent. But Plaintiffs misstate the scope of the class that Plaintiffs proposed when 
they filed for class certification in 1996 and that this Court certified in February 1997. Plaintiffs 
defined the class as "consisting of present and former beneficiaries of Individual Indian Money 
('IIM') accounts (exclusive of those who prior to the filing of the Complaint herein had filed 
actions on their own behalf alleging claims included in the Complaint)." Plaintiffs' Motion for 
Class Certification (Sept. 6, 1996) (emphasis added). The Court granted class certification on 
the Indian owner with the approval of the Secretary . . . ." 25 C.F.R. § 152.17. Such other 
conveyances may be by gift as well as by exchange. Id. at § 152.23. Part 152 also permits an 
individual Indian to request that his trust land interest be converted to a fee patent, 25 C.F.R. § 
152.4, which the owner can then keep or sell as he or she sees fit. Likewise, pursuant to the 
Indian Land Consolidation Act of 2000, codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2219, and ILCP, 
individual Indians are voluntarily selling thousands of allotted land interests in various states. 
The goal of the ILCP "is to acquire small fractional interests in trust and restricted lands owned 
by Individual Indians . . . in order to lessen the number of owners." Status Report to the Court 
Number 13, at 79 (May 1, 2003). As of June 30, 2004, allotted land interest holders had sold 
93,184 interests through ILCP. Status Report to the Court Number 18, at 53 (Aug. 2, 2004). In 
addition, specific statutory authority governs the sale and disposition of land owned by individual 
members of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma. 25 U.S.C. § 355; see also 25 C.F.R. § 16 
(providing legal representation to Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma state courts 
on certain estate matters). Tellingly, Plaintiffs have not complained about these other land 
transactions, nor have they contended that they would somehow extinguish a class member's 
rights in this litigation. 
-18-
February 4, 1997, signing Plaintiffs' proposed form of order and adopting Plaintiffs' own 
language. Order Granting Class Certification (Feb. 4, 1997). 
Plaintiffs now insist, however, that the class includes "all past and current trust 
beneficiaries." Tr., at 20:22-23 (Aug. 31, 2004). Their assertion patently misstates the scope of 
the class, and Plaintiffs have known this assertion to be false since they first made it, to no effect, 
more than five years ago. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum Concerning Scope Of Class And Related 
Matters (Exhibit 5). Plaintiffs never sought to amend the class definition, and the scope of the 
class remains just as Plaintiffs defined it in 1996: "present and former beneficiaries of Individual 
Indian Money ('IIM') accounts (exclusive of those who prior to the filing of the Complaint herein 
had filed actions on their own behalf alleging claims included in the Complaint)." Order 
Granting Class Certification at 3 (Feb. 4, 1997). 
Almost two years after class certification, Plaintiffs contended that the definition 
"consisting of present and former beneficiaries of Individual Indian Money ('IIM') accounts" 
includes "[e]very individual Indian (or, in appropriate cases, his heirs, estate, or personal 
representative) on whose behalf, as trust beneficiary, a trust account is, has been, should be, or 
should have been maintained by the United States or its agent." Exhibit 5 at 1-2. Plaintiffs, 
however, never justified their expanded interpretation. At the behest of Special Master Balaran, 
Defendants briefed the definition issue and demonstrated that Plaintiffs were attempting to 
expand the class without moving to amend the class certification order. See United States' 
Memorandum Addressing Plaintiffs' Scope of Class Memorandum at 2 (Mar. 26, 1999) (Exhibit 
6). Defendants established that "the class does not include individuals who never held IIM 
accounts," such as those who have "direct pay" arrangements. Id. at 2-3 ("'Direct pays' are 
-19-
individual Indians who receive allotment income, such as mineral royalties, directly from a lessee 
or permittee rather than through an IIM account."). 
Defendants demonstrated that a "trust beneficiary" is not necessarily an "IIM account 
holder"; the terms are neither coextensive nor interchangeable. Some Indians, for example, have 
an interest in allotted lands that generate no revenue and, therefore, have no IIM account. Such 
individuals may be "trust" beneficiaries due to their land interests, but they are not members of 
the class. Id. at 2. Therefore, Indians who never had an IIM account as of February 4, 1997 are 
not members of the class, and it is simply wrong for Plaintiffs to contend otherwise. The ban on 
land sales applies to class members and non-class members alike, resulting in hardships for 
people whom class counsel may not even represent. 
Account Information Is Not Destroyed When an Account Is Closed 4. 
Plaintiffs have attempted to connect Part 152 sales to concern about the preservation and 
availability of accounting records, but this argument is without merit. During the TRO hearing, 
class counsel twice asserted that closure of an IIM account on Interior's computer system would 
result in the loss of all data related to that individual's account. In doing so, class counsel 
misstated Deputy Special Trustee Donna Erwin's testimony during the Phase 1 trial. Class 
counsel said: 
This Court engaged in a dialogue with Donna Irwin [sic] during trial one 
concerning what happens when an account is closed. And, for example, the 
history on file is then deleted. And Donna Irwin [sic] responded to this Court by 
saying the information is gone. And this Court said gone forever, lost? She 
confirmed yes, lost. It's deleted. It's gone. Not recoverable. 
Tr. at 7:3-9 (Aug. 31, 2004) (emphasis added). Then, in rebuttal argument, class counsel again 
misstated Ms. Erwin's Trial 1 testimony: 
-20-
What we have learned, and again as I pointed out with regard to the Donna Irwin 
[sic] testimony, accounts had been closed. That means they're entitled to 
accounting because they've been taken out [sic] the system. That hardly is 
consistent with trust law. That is totally in conflict with the Trust Reform Act of 
1994. 
Id. at 49:12-17. Contrary to class counsel's statements, Ms. Erwin testified during the Phase 1 
trial that when accounts are closed Interior retains all transaction and account number data on its 
computer system. 
Ms. Erwin testified in pertinent parts as follows: 
1266 
10 Q. [W]hat's a closed account? 
11 A. A closed account would still -- it would have been 
12 coded as closed, but it's still on the actual database. 
* * * 
17 Q. When was the last time files were designated inactive? 
18 A. In December 31, 1995. 
19 Q. And what happens to an inactive file? 
20 A. An inactive file is boxed, inventoried, and sent to 
21 Ken Rossman's records center. 
22 Q. And in the process of inactivating a file, is any 
23 information lost? 
24 A. On the prior system, when an account was closed and 
25 they referred to them as purging that account, you would 
1267 
1 lose the master record information, but you did not lose the 
2 transactional history. 
3 Q. I'm sorry, and what's the master file information? 
4 A. It would be things such as the account holder's 
5 address, account holder's management code, which tells how 
6 you would administer an account, and birth date, and date of 
7 death if it existed within there. 
8 Q. And if there was suddenly activity in an inactive 
9 account, what would you do? 
10 A. We would locate the file folder that we had, and we 
11 would set up a new account. We would have to set up a new 
12 account. 
13 Q. And what happens with a transaction -- what happened 
-21-
14 with the transaction data for inactive accounts? 
15 A. The transaction data still exists within the BIA 
16 database. 
17 Q. Okay. 
18 THE COURT: But what happened to the purged data? 
19 THE WITNESS: The actual master, that information 
20 is lost. 
21 THE COURT: Lost how, destroyed? 
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was -- it was on the prior 
23 system, and if those tapes were not retained, then it was 
24 lost. 
25 THE COURT: Until 1995? 
1268 
1 THE WITNESS: December the 31st of '95. If you 
2 could locate a file, then you're able to -- with the account 
3 number, you'll be able to still get the transactional 
4 history. 
5 THE COURT: But not the other data? 
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 
7 THE COURT: So it's lost forever? 
8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 
9 BY MR. EICHNER: 
10 Q. And just so the record is clear, that kind of purging 
11 hasn't happened since -- since 1-1-96, I think you said? 
12 A. Records as of December 31st of 95, and I believe I 
13 said that if it was closed prior to 1-1 of '96. 
14 Q. Are files currently being closed? 
15 A. Files are -- accounts are coded as closed. 
* * * 
1269 
7 Q. And in closing the account, is any information lost? 
8 A. No. 
9 THE COURT: Today? 
10 THE WITNESS: Today. 
Tr., Phase 1 Trial Day 8, at 1266:10-1269:10 (June 21, 1999) (direct examination) (emphasis 
added). Thus, according to Ms. Erwin's testimony, Interior revised its procedures prior to this 
lawsuit so that when an account is closed, no information is lost. Class counsel's assertions to 
the contrary during the TRO hearing were, therefore, demonstrably false. With the record now 
-22-
corrected, it is obvious that Plaintiffs' attempt to connect these land sales to some accounting 
concern is unavailing. 
5. Contrary to Their Assertions in Court, Plaintiffs Have Had Notice of 
Land Sales 
As Plaintiffs must well know, Interior has conducted sales of allotment interests 
throughout the course of this litigation. During the Phase 1.5 trial last year, numerous witnesses 
testified concerning land sales, and the testimony was often elicited by Plaintiffs' counsel. See 
Tr., Phase 1.5 Trial Day 1 PM, at 23:24-24:4 (May 1, 2003) (direct examination of Homan); Tr., 
Phase 1.5 Trial Day 21 AM, at 53:3-12 (June 4, 2003) (cross-examination of Cason); Tr., Phase 
1.5 Trial Day 39 PM, at 15:3-23 (June 30, 2003) (cross-examination of Swimmer, testifying that 
draft Accounting Standards Manual sought "timely and complete information regarding the gains 
and losses associated with the sale of allotment assets"); Tr., Phase 1.5 Trial Day 40 PM, at 
32:12-18 (July 1, 2003) (cross-examination of Swimmer, discussing Arthur Andersen report 
concerning payments to Indians on land sales, including "whether or not presently all sales are 
recorded on the general ledger"); Tr., Phase 1.5 Trial Day 41 AM, at 8-9 (July 2, 2003) (re-direct 
examination of Mr. Swimmer concerning data cleanup of land sale information); Tr., Phase 1.5 
Trial Day 23 AM, at 19:2-25 (June 6, 2003) (direct examination of Herman regarding the 
collection of accounting documents "primarily focused on land sales").19 
Besides live testimony, Defendants offered and provided to Plaintiffs expert reports 
during the Phase 1.5 trial that openly discussed Indian land sales, such as those that have 
19 See also Tr., Phase 1 Trial Day 3, at 429:5-7 (June 14, 1999) (Plaintiffs' direct 
examination of Christie, testifying that "traditionally, we have viewed appraisals as for the sale or 
exchange of land, not necessarily for the leasing of land") 
-23-
occurred for decades under Part 152. See Expert Report of Ed Angel, Defs.' Ex. 60 at 35 
("Indian Land Sales and Individual Indian Monies, 1887-1934, Part I"); Defs.' Ex. 148, Indian 
Land Sales and Individual Indian Monies, 1887-1934, Part II.20 Plaintiffs' professed ignorance in 
the face of all this previous information makes their new arguments against Part 152 sales all the 
more puzzling. 
In addition, as already demonstrated above, Plaintiffs are on notice, and should be aware 
through their review of Interior's quarterly status reports to the Court, of the sale of thousands of 
allotment interests pursuant to the Indian Land Consolidation Act of 2000 and Interior's ongoing 
Indian Land Consolidation Program. In light of all this information available to Plaintiffs, their 
contention that Plaintiffs were not aware of ongoing land sales lacks credibility and undermines 
their assertions here that there is reason to be concerned about them. 
6. Plaintiffs' Allegations of Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation Are 
Wholly Lacking in Support 
Plaintiffs assert that the land sales need to be enjoined "until this Court has approved all 
relevant communications with class members so that the Trust beneficiaries are protected against 
all efforts of Norton and her counsel to further unduly influence members of the class and further 
disseminate false and misleading statements concerning their rights in this litigation." Pls.' Mot. 
at 1. In making these reckless assertions, Plaintiffs ignore the facts surrounding the land sales 
and the governing regulations. 
20 The Court ultimately did not admit these reports into evidence, but the documents were 
nonetheless furnished to Plaintiffs and testimony was elicited concerning their contents. 
-24-
a. Plaintiffs' Allegations Ignore the Regulatory 
Process and Safeguards for Land Sales 
Plaintiffs' insinuations imply some form of secretive, undisclosed recruitment by Interior 
directed to members of the class, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Part 152 sales 
process begins with a request from individual Indian land owners. See 25 C.F.R. § 152.23 
("Applications for sale, exchange or gift"). Plaintiffs' motion ignores the governing regulations 
that have been in force for more than thirty years and offers no evidence that these regulations 
have not been observed in conducting Part 152 sales. 
Nor do Plaintiffs offer proof of any misleading communication by Interior. Plaintiffs 
attached Anadarko Invitation No. 69 to their motion, but they do not contend that it contains any 
false or misleading communication. 
At most, Plaintiffs' real complaint is that the public bidding process goes forward before 
an appraisal is prepared for the land interest. Pls.' Mot. at 4-6. The governing regulations, 
however, provide that appraisals must be performed before any sale occurs, 25 C.F.R. § 152.24, 
and nothing in the record suggests that this procedure is improper. In Mr. Maytubby's 
experience, appraisals are typically performed after a bid has been received.21 Maytubby Decl. ¶ 
7. The regulations also contemplate that the appraisal report will be shared with the seller. See 
25 C.F.R. § 152.28. Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to support their claims of fraud, 
deceit, and misrepresentation. 
21 This is a sensible approach. No justification exists to expend limited resources for an 
appraisal until the potential exists for sale of the land interest. See Maytubby Decl. ¶ 6 
("Sometimes no bids are made for a parcel . . . ."). 
-25-
b. Plaintiffs' Allegations Regarding Mr. Maytubby and His 
Declaration Are Without Basis in Fact or Law 
Having failed to come forward with well-grounded facts or law to support their 
assertions, Plaintiffs seek to shift the burden of proof to Defendants. This is most notable in their 
attacks upon Mr. Maytubby and his declaration.22 
Plaintiffs repeated at oral argument their assertion that Mr. Maytubby's declaration is 
supported by "an improper jurat" that fails to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or the 
Court's Local Rule 5.1(h). Tr. 2-4 (Aug. 31. 2004). While we recognize that this Court has, at 
times, accepted the validity of this argument, we continue to respectfully disagree and urge the 
Court to reconsider its legal analysis. Both the statute and the local rule provide that a 
certification meets applicable requirements if it is substantially in the form of the language set 
forth in those provisions, i.e., "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 
correct." Mr. Maytubby's declaration"that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of [his] 
knowledge and belief" is sufficient under the statute and the rule, as well as the requirements of 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See United States v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147, 1154-55 (11th 
22 It was suggested during oral argument that Mr. Maytubby had testified previously that 
he is a Cobell class member. Tr. at 44. His prior trial testimony, however, is to the contrary: 
-26-
Cir. 2002) (false statement attested to as "correct and true to the best of my knowledge and 
belief" was substantially in the form provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2232 
(2003); Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 872 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversing summary judgment 
against plaintiff because verified complaint "attesting under penalty of perjury that the statements 
in the complaint were true to the best of his knowledge" was sufficient under Rule 56). 
Plaintiffs also asserted that Mr. Maytubby's declaration "is defective because it doesn't 
attest or purport to attest to any factual information." Tr. at 3 (Aug. 31, 2004). This argument 
simply disregards the statements of fact contained in Mr. Maytubby's declaration. E.g., 
Maytubby Decl. ¶ 3 (discussing facts underlying Invitation No. 69), ¶ 4 (describing nature of land 
transactions such as Invitation No. 69), ¶ 6 (describing cases where owner withdraws property 
from bid process, where no bids received, and where "bids are too low to be found acceptable"), 
and ¶ 7 (describing his experience whereby "appraisals are usually performed after a property has 
received a bid but before the sale is approved"). 
The undeniable conclusion is that Plaintiffs cannot dispute the accuracy of Mr. 
Maytubby's factual statements, even though it is Plaintiffs' burden – and not Defendants' – to 
come forward with facts to support their request for a preliminary injunction. Mr. Maytubby's 
declaration provides facts regarding Anadarko Invitation No. 69, and nothing within that 
declaration supports Plaintiffs' groundless and reckless allegations of fraud, deceit, and 
misrepresentation.23 
23 Moreover, inasmuch as Plaintiffs adopted or relied upon the Maytubby declaration at 
the hearing, see Tr. at 9:16-18 (Aug. 31, 2004), the objections should be overruled. 
-27-
7. Plaintiffs Cannot Demonstrate Likelihood of Success on the Merits 
Through Reference to Past Trials 
Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, they must establish a substantial likelihood of success 
on the merits of this dispute concerning land sales requested by individual Indians. Plaintiffs 
cannot rely on past success in the Phase 1 trial, or the Phase 1.5 trial that is presently on appeal.24 
Instead, their burden is to show a substantial likelihood of success on whether Interior should 
continue to conduct Part 152 land sales. Previous success on unrelated issues is irrelevant to the 
likelihood of success at a later stage of litigation involving different issues. In deciding whether 
to grant an injunction, a court will evaluate the subject matter addressed in the requested 
injunction, not other unrelated matters. See Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 303 (D.C. Cir. 
2001) (in evaluating request for injunction ordering expedited processing of Freedom Of 
Information Act request, court focused primarily on likelihood of eventual success under act's 
"compelling need" for expedition provision); Davenport v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 
166 F.3d 356, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (on motion for injunction preventing implementation of 
temporary labor agreement, court denied injunction after finding plaintiffs not likely to succeed 
in voiding said agreement); Serono Labs., Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1316-17 (D.C. Cir. 
1998) (in deciding whether to enjoin government approval of drug, court weighed plaintiff's 
likelihood of proving that government erred in its analysis of the drug's danger.) 
No Proof of Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs Exists B. 
Plaintiffs complain about the sale procedure but have offered no proof that any member 
of the class is, in fact, injured or threatened with imminent harm by these sales. Absent proof of 
24 Furthermore, the Court did not adopt Plaintiffs' Phase 1.5 plan for determining IIM 
account balances. 
-28-
harm, Plaintiffs have no standing to seek relief. Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 892- 
93 (1990). First, Plaintiffs have presented no evidence whatsoever that any one of the named 
Plaintiffs, as a representative of the class, has a land sale pending. The Supreme Court has 
unequivocally held that "named plaintiffs who represent a class 'must allege and show that they 
personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of 
the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent.'" Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 
343, 357 (1996) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organiz., 426 U.S. 26, 40 n.20 
(1976)) Harm allegedly risked by absent class members will not suffice. This requirement is 
founded on the longstanding principle that the "remedy must of course be limited to the 
inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established." Id. (emphasis 
added). Not one of the named representative plaintiffs here, however, has even asserted that they 
have a Part 152 sale pending for which they are at risk of irreparable harm. Thus, there has been 
no showing of harm, much less irreparable harm, to Plaintiffs' interests. 
Even if the named Plaintiffs had pending land sales and those lands were sold, those sales 
would not extinguish the named Plaintiffs' right to an accounting. As demonstrated below, 
however, rather than addressing any irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, injunctive relief could itself 
cause irreparable harm to individual Indians who wish to sell their land under Part 152. 
C. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Address Whether the Preliminary 
Injunction Will Substantially Injure the Other Party and 
Whether the Public Interest Will Be Served If It Is Granted 
The Secretary of the Interior has a statutory mandate to serve individual Indian 
beneficiaries, and any injunction that restrains the Secretary or her Department from discharging 
those statutory responsibilities necessarily adversely affects the public interest. In this case, at 
-29-
Plaintiffs' request, the Court has halted a well-established and legally sound process whereby 
individual Indians – class members and Indians who are not class members – have the 
opportunity to sell their land interests with the assistance of Interior. This process, which has 
been ongoing for decades, includes regulatory safeguards to protect the interests of the land 
owners. E.g., 25 C.F.R. § 152.23. 
Unlike the speculative and imagined harm put forth by Plaintiffs, the harm to the public 
wrought by Plaintiffs' requested relief is real. The record already contains statements asserting 
that the TRO has prevented sales by those who want to sell their interests for important and 
personal reasons, including medical and housing expenses. Notice of Filing (Sept. 2, 2004) (Dkt. 
No. 2672); Notices of Filing (Sept. 8, 2004) (Dkt. Nos. 2677 & 2678). There is also evidence 
that the TRO may adversely affect a fish and wildlife habitat project funded by the Department of 
Energy. See Delwiche Decl. ¶ 6. Simply put, Plaintiffs have come forward with nothing to 
justify the halting of this process. Yet, as a result of the TRO entered on August 31, 2004, 
another Interior program designed to benefit Indians has been stopped, with no discernable 
benefit to anyone and to the detriment of individual Indians, including absent class members and 
Indians who have no interest in this litigation but who wish to dispose of their land interests. The 
record already demonstrates the harm to the public and Defendants resulting from the issuance of 
the TRO. This harm will continue if the Court grants the preliminary injunction. 
-30-
III. THE TRO AND REQUESTED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FAIL TO 
COMPLY WITH PROCEDURAL REQUISITES FOR SUCH RELIEF 
The TRO issued by the Court and the preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiffs suffer 
from procedural defects that warrant dissolution of the TRO and denial of preliminary injunctive 
relief. The TRO fails to provide specific details defining its parameters and explaining the bases 
for its issuance, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), and also lacks any 
provision requiring Plaintiffs to post security, as mandated by Federal Rule 65(c). The 
preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs seek would mirror the TRO and, therefore, would suffer 
from the same defects. In any event, Plaintiffs' motion fails to provide a proper legal basis for an 
injunction. 
Under Rule 65, "[n]o restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon 
the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of 
such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been 
wrongfully enjoined or restrained." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The rule further requires that "[e]very 
order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its 
issuance; shall be specific in terms; [and] shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference 
to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained." Fed. R. Civ. P. 
65(d). 
The TRO issued by the Court does not comply with these requirements. Instead, the 
operative language of the order consists solely of the following: 
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED; and it is 
FURTHER ORDERED that the Interior Defendants and their counsel 
immediately shall halt the auction under 25 C.F.R. Part 152 of Individual Indian 
Trust land. 
-31-
The reasons for the issuance of the order are not provided. It does not describe "in reasonable 
detail" what conduct it restrains.25 The order fails to specify the fundamental term of its duration. 
There is no provision imposing the mandatory security requirement on Plaintiffs. Indeed, the 
order dispenses with virtually all of the fundamental protections provided by Rule 65. 
The Supreme Court has made plain that more is required: 
As we have emphasized in the past, the specificity provisions of Rule 65(d) are no 
mere technical requirements. The Rule was designed to prevent uncertainty and 
confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid the 
possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood. . 
. . The requirement of specificity in injunction orders performs a second 
important function. Unless the trial court carefully frames its orders of injunctive 
relief, it is impossible for an appellate tribunal to know precisely what it is 
reviewing. 
Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476-77 (1974) (citations omitted). In Schmidt, the court 
vacated an injunction order that, like the TRO issued here and the injunction that is now sought, 
enjoined conduct without explanation, because it was not "specific in outlining the terms of the 
injunctive relief granted; nor can it be said that the order describes in reasonable detail . . . the act 
or acts sought to be restrained. Rather, the defendants are simply told not to enforce the present 
Wisconsin scheme against those in the appellee's class." Id. at 476. As a result, the order fell 
"far short of satisfying the second and third clauses of Rule 65(d)." Id.; accord Northern 
California Power Agency v. Grace Geothermal Corp., 469 U.S. 1306, 1307 (1984) (district 
court's failure to provide "the benefit of its views as to the nature of the irreparable injury that 
25 The absence of a sufficiently detailed description of the scope of the Court's order has 
resulted precisely in the problem that Rule 65 seeks to prevent. As mentioned supra, the written 
order restrains only "auctions" under 25 C.F.R. Part 152 but, during the August 31, 2004 hearing, 
the Court indicated that the scope of the order is broader than that, and includes all sales under 
that regulation. 
-32-
respondent might suffer or the inadequacy of the remedy at law, or any other requirement for an 
injunction, . . . wholly fail[ed] to satisfy Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(d)"); Atiyeh v. Capps, 449 U.S. 
1312, 1316 (1981) (staying injunction, pending relevant upcoming decision by Supreme Court, 
that ordered Oregon to reduce population at prison facilities but failed to comply with the 
specificity requirements of Rule 65(d), and noting "I think it best, in the exercise of my function 
as Circuit Justice, that the District Court have the benefit of this Court's opinion in that case 
before it takes over the management of the Oregon prison system.") (Rehnquist, J., as Circuit 
Justice). 
The TRO, which restrains conduct that is defined only by reference to a regulation and 
without a sufficient description of its scope or any explanation of its bases, falls short of the 
requirements of Rule 65(d). The injunction requested by Plaintiffs, which presumably would 
mirror the TRO, would fare no better. 
Moreover, the TRO fails to require security to protect Defendants or individual Indians 
from damages they may sustain as a result of the order. No injunction should issue, but, in the 
event the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion, the court must require Plaintiffs to post appropriate 
security to protect Defendants from the harm resulting from being wrongfully enjoined, as 
mandated by Rule 65(c).26 See Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 649 (1982) ("Since a 
preliminary injunction may be granted on a mere probability of success on the merits, generally 
26 It is within the Court's discretion to determine the appropriate amount of security that 
should be required. Malcolm v. Reno, 129 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000) (amount of security lies 
within court's discretion, and relevant considerations include hardship posting security would 
impose, public interest of litigation, and likelihood of success on merits "at least where it is 
extraordinarily high"); DSE, Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21 (D.D.C. 1999) (court has broad 
discretion to determine the appropriate amount of the bond). 
-33-
the moving party must demonstrate confidence in his legal position by posting bond in an amount 
sufficient to protect his adversary from loss in the event that future proceedings prove that the 
injunction issued wrongfully.") (Stevens, J., concurring); Monzillo v. Biller, 735 F.2d 1456, 1461 
(D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The purpose of the security requirement is to protect a party from damages 
suffered if it is later determined that the preliminary relief was wrongfully granted."). Failure to 
address these matters in the TRO warrants its immediate dissolution and militates against the 
entry of a preliminary injunction. 
-34-
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Temporary Restraining Order should be promptly 
dissolved, and Plaintiffs' request for further relief in the form of a Preliminary Injunction should 
be denied in its entirety. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 8, 2004 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ John T. Stemplewicz 
SANDRA P. SPOONER (D.C. Bar No. 261495) 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
MICHAEL J. QUINN (D.C. Bar No. 401376) 
Trial Attorney 
JOHN R. KRESSE 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875, Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Telephone: (202) 514-7194 
-35-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on September 8, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Supplemental 
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and For 
Preliminary Injunction was served by Electronic Case Filing, and 
on the following, without a copy of the sealed bulky exhibit who is not registered for Electronic 
Case Filing, by facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
a copy of the sealed bulky exhibit was served upon: 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
____________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of 
the Interior, et al., 
) 
) 
)
)
)
)
) No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
NOTICE REGARDING SEALED EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 
Exhibit 1, an attachment to Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to 
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction, is in paper 
form only and is being maintained in the case file in the Clerk’s Office. This document is being 
filed Under Seal pursuant to the Court's Order of September 1, 2004 [Dkt. No. 2659]. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 8, 2004 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ Sandra P. Spooner 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
2
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et.al., 
D I V OF ADBIIN/SOL 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
1 
) Case No. 1 : 96CV01285 
1 
) 
09/08/2004 1 6 : 3 8 %;AX 202 219 6780 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL et.al., 
Plaintiffs, 
V. 
Defendants 
1. 
2. 
3. 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
DECLARATION OF JANET A. GOODWIN 
1, Janet A. Goodwin, am a Senior Attorney in the Office of the Solicitor, Division of 
Ind~an affairs, United States Department of the Interior. I have held this position for 
approximately 2 years. I have been employed by the Office of the Solicitor in various 
positions for the past 23 years. 
In response to the Temporary Restraining Order entered in this litigation on August 3 1 , 
2004, I provided the attached draft memorandum to the Bureau of h&an Affairs for 
distnbuhon to all employees of that bureau by electronic mail on September 1,2004. Also 
on September 1,2004 and at my request, one of the support staff of the Office of the 
Solicitor sent a copy of the draft memorandum with a slightly modified “addressee” h e , 
to all Regional and Field Offices of the Solicitor via facsimile. The fallowing morning, 
September 2,2004, the draft memorandum was sent via electronic mail to all employees of 
the Office of the Solicitor. 
In order to obtain a rough assessment of the impact of the Temporary Restraining Order on 
land sales under 25 CFR Part 152, and the approximate number of land sale transactions 
that had Po be postponed pursuant to that Order, I issued a “data call’’ on September 3, 
2004, to all twelve regons of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The “data call” was a request 
for two items of information: 
1) the number of applications under 25 CFR Part 152 whlch have been approved 
for an advertised sale where the deed has not yet been conveyed; and 
2) the number of applications under 25 CFR Part 152 wkich have been approved 
for a negotiated sale where the deed has not yet been conveyed. 
@ 002 
EXHIBIT 2 
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary 
Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction 09/08/2004 1 6 : 3 8 FAX 202 219 6780 D I V OF ADMIN/SOL @lo03 
The category of transactions which were characterized as “approved for an advertised 
sale” was to include all those for which an application under 25 CFR Part 452 for an 
advertised sale had been approved, including those for which an invitation for bids had 
already been issued as of August 3 1,2004 and those for which such an invitation had not 
yet been issued. The category of transactions which were characterized as “approved for a 
negotiated sale” was to include all those for which an application under 25 CFR Part 152 
for a negotiated sale had been approved, regardless of whether both buyer and seller had 
yet been identified and regardless of whether a sales price had been agreed upon. 
4. 
5 , I received replies to the “data call” from ail twelve of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
regions. 
The foIlowing statements are a summary of the responses which I received: 
Approximately 8 1 applications under 25 CFR Part 152 had been approved for advertised 
sales, and the deeds for these properties had not yet been conveyed. Approximately 1,582 
applications under 25 CFR Part 152 had been approved for negotiated sales, and the deeds 
for these properties had not yet been conveyed. 
The actual number of such applications is likely to be higher than these numbers reflect, 
because the absence of certain key personnel in one region hampered its collection of 
information, and because the relevant information could not be obtained from all 
compacting and contracting tribes quickly enough for it to be included in th~s declaration. 
Also, the number of applications does not necessarily reflect the number of parcels of land 
affected, since one application may include many parcels of land. Conversely, multiple 
applications may affect the same parcel. 
6. 
7. 
8. In addition, the Great Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs reported that the 
number of applications for negotiated sales pursuant to 25 CFR Part 152 pending in that 
Region total 5,258; and that of that total, all activity has ceased on approximately 3,943 in 
order to comply with the Temporary Restraining Order. Counting and reporting only 
approved applications in that region would be misleading as to the effect of the Order 
because in the Great Plains Regon approvals of applications for negotiated sales are not 
granted until a willing seller, a willing purchaser, and the h d s to complete the 
transaction, are identified. In approximately 3,943 cases, those elements are present and 
applications were being considered for approval. However, due to the Temporary 
Restraining Order, all activity to complete those transactions, including consideration of 
granting approval of the application, has ceased. 
2 09/08/2004 16:38 FAX 202 219 6780 DIV OF ADHIN/SOL 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge, infomation, and belief. 
t A. Goodwin, Sknior Attorney 
of Indian Affairs 
ffice of the Solicitor 
nited States Department of the Interior 
3 09/08/2004 1 6 ~ 3 8 FAX 202 219 6780 DIV OF ADMIN/SOL 5 0 0 5 
Memorandum 
To: Central Office Employees, Superintendents, 
Fr: Director of the Bureau of Indian Mairs 
Re: Land Sale Transactions Pursuant to 25 CFR Part 152; Temporary Restraining Order 
On August 3 1,2004, the Judge in Cobell v. Norton, Civ. I :96CV01285 (D.D.C.) issued a 
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) requiring the Department immediately to “halt the 
auction [sic] under 25 CFR Part 152 of Individual Indian Trust land.” Notwithstanding the 
language of the TROY the Judge indicated orally at hearing that the TRO includes all land sale 
transactions conducted pursuant to 25 CFR Part 152, but does not include any land sde 
transactions conducted pursuant to any other regulations. 
As a result of this TROY you must: 
Cease processing activities related to consummating any currently pending Part 152 Iand 
sales, where the bidding process has already been conducted; 
Out of an abundance of caution, cancel any currently active advertisements for Part 152 
land sales and postpone any future advertisements that would otherwise be made public 
during September 2004; and 
transactions that must be postponed as a result of t h s TRO, 
(I) 
(2) Cancel and reschedule for a date beyond October 1,2004, any pendmg Part 152 land sales 
scheduled to take place prior to September 30,2004; 
(3) 
(4) Notify Janet Goodwin in the Office of the Solicitor at (202) 208-3962, no later than the 
close of business on Friday. September 3.2004, of any pending or scheduled land sale 
You should continue to plan, process applications and otherwise prepare for Part 152 land sales. 
However, no land sale transactions conducted pursuant to 25 CFR 152 may be consmated 
until furfher notice. 
Please also contact Ms. Goodwin in the event you require clarification as to whether a particular 
Pramaction is subject to the TRO. I N V I T A T I O N F O R B I D S - S A L E O F I N D I A N L A N D S 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF I N D I A N AFFAIRS 
YSSUED B Y : ANADARKO AGENCY, P . O . DOX 309 INVITATION N O . 65-Bids w i l l be r e c e i v e d 
u n t i l a n d opened a t 1O:OO A.H.Loca1 Time ANADARKO, OKLAHOMA 73005 
James Dellaas, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Date: Hay 25, 1 9 9 4 , 
Anadarko Agency C o n f e r e n c e Room 
DATED: Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 A p r i l 1 9 , 1994 
SEALED BIDS, s u b j e c t t o t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h i s i n v i t a t i o n , will b e r e c e i v e d 
a t the above o f f i c e u n t i l t h e d e s i g n a t e d t i m e f o r p u b l i c o p e n i n g . A l l s e a l e d b i d s of 
I n d i a n l a n d o f f e r e d f o r s a l e m u s t b e accompanied by a c a s h i e r ' s c h e c k , c e r t i f i e d 
c h e c k , o r p o s t a l monev o r d e r , p a y a b l e t o t h e B u r e a u o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s , f o r n o t l e s s 
t h a n 10% of t h e t o t a l o f f e r made. Do n o t p r e s e n t p e r s o n a l c h e c k s u n l e s s c e r t i f i e d . 
A PARTICULAR TRACT. 
ORAL AUCTION PROVISIONS: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE OPENING AND EVALUATION OF ALL 
BIDS, THOSE ITEMS ATTRACTING 0 N E . O R HORE SEALED BIDS W I L L BE SUBJECT TO ORAL AUCTION 
-- B I D D I N G BY THOSE WHO H A V E MADE A SEALED B I D OFFER-$ 
Should t h e h i g h b i d a t t h e a u c t i o n o f s u c h i t e m s b e f o u n d t o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 
a p p r a i s a l , t h a t b i d w i l l be t a k e n u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t b y t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o r h i s 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . S u b j e c t t o t h e a c c e p t a n c e and a p p r o v a l b y t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h e 
h i g h b i d d e r w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f h i s d e p o s i t t o n o t less t h a n 
10% of t h e amount b i d a n d amend h i s s e a l e d b i d a c c o r d i n g l y . 
The r i g h t is r e s e r - e d t o r e j e c t any and a l l b i d s arid t o d i s a p p r o v e a n y t r a n s a c t i o n 
a t any t i m e p r i o r t o f i n a l a p p r o v a l and d e l i v e r y o f a deed o r i s s u a n c e o f a p a t e n t - 
i n - f e e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Code of F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s , T i t l e 2 5 , I n d i a n s , P a r t 152. 
G e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s t o b i d d e r s a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e 
I n s t r u c t i o n s t o B i d d e r s , T e r m s , and C o n d i t i o n o f t h e I n v i t a t i o n f o r B i d s , on t h e 
r e v e r s e h e r e o f . For d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n c a l l o r w r i t e : 
Ms. S h a r l e n e Round F a c e , R e a l t y O f f i c e r , T e l e p h o n e No. (405) 247-6673, Ext.387 
o r Hr. Don Ahshapanek o r H r . J e r r y Pau-Kune, a t Ext. 369 o r 396 r e s p e c t i v e l y , 
Branch o f Real P r o p e r t y Management, Anadarko Agency, A n a d a r k o , O k . 73005 
S C ti E D U L E - 0 F - D I D S 
N O . OF 
ACRES 
AMOUNT OF I ITEM 
D I D 
N O . OF 
ACRES 
ALLOTMENT 
NUMBER NUMBER 
ITEtl ALLOTMENT 
N O . I NO. 
I 
-- 
SIGNATURE OF BIDDER 
-__ 
AHOUKT OF 
B I D 
The u n d e r s i g n e d a g r e e s t h a t i f t h e amount o f f e r e d , f o r a n y i t e m o r items i n t h e above 
be a c c e p t e d , h e w i l l w i t h i n 30 c a l e n d a r d a y s from d a t e o f r e c e i p t of n o t i c e o f a w a r d , 
d e p o s i t w i t h i s s u i n g o f f i c e , Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s , t h e f u l l amount o f h i s o f f e r , 
w i t k s t i p u l a t o r 3 sa:es fee, and r h 3 ; f a i l u r e t o nake s u c h d p p o s i t u i t h i n t h e specific:! 
t i m e w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a f o r f e i t u r e o f 101 of t h e amount o f f e r e d on e a c h s u c h item. 
The u n d e r s i g n e d a l s o a g r e e s t h a t t h e Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s s h a l l h a v e a n 
i r r e v o c a b l e o p t i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f 120 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e s e t f o r b i d o p e n i n g t o 
a c c e p t a n v one o r more t h a n one o f t h e a b o v e b i d s . 
NAME OF BIDDER ( p r i n t o r t y p e ) 
ADDRESS ( p r i n t o r tppe12I.P CODE 
I N ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE 
LAND. THE PURCHASER WILL R E R E Q U I R E D TO 
DEPOSIT THE SUM OF ~ 2 2 . ~ 0 TO CO:VER THE 
COST O F CONVEYANCE AND SALES FEES FOR 
EACH SEPARATE ITEM WHEN HE I S NOTIFIED 
THAT HE I S THE SUCCESSFUL B I D D E R . 
TELEPHONE NUMBER 
NOTICE OF AWARD OF SUCCESSFUL B I D D E R 
I- _ _ - 
c/-/Ff- 7 y - 
__________________-_____________________-----------------------------------~------- 
You a r e h e r e b y n o t i f i e d t h a t you a r e the s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r 011 ftern(s1No. 
B a l a n c e of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e , by c a s h i e r ' s c h e c k , c e r t i f i e d c h e c k , o r p o s t a l money 
o r d e r i n t h e amount oE $ , which i n c l u d e s sales and conveyance f o e s , s h a l l 
be r e m i t t e d t o t h e above d e s i g n a t e d Agency o n o r b e f o r e 
EXHIBIT 3 
Defendants Supplemental Memorandum in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary 
Restrainmg Order and for Frelimmary Injunction 
D a t e W I A St'HU HbALII uguur 08/30/2004 t f i : t 8 FAX 405 247 2905 
1. WIRE;ING AND NAILING B I d o - B i d s , with t h e i r cjuai,antie:., n i u s t be s e c u r e l y s e a l e d i n 
s u i t a b l e e n v e l o p e s , addressed t o t h e Agency Office i s s u i n g t h i s i n v i t a t i o n and marked on 
t h e o u t s i d e w i t h t h e i n v i t a t i o n numbel- and d a t e of o p e n i n g , both o t which may be found i n 
the block o p p o s i t e t h e name of t h e i s s u i i i g o f f i c e on t h e f r o n t o f t h i s form. 
2 . PREFARATIOP OF B I D S - Forrns f u r n i s h e d , o r c o p i e s t h e r e o f , s h a l l be u s e d , and s t r i c t 
compliance with requirerneiits of t h e i n v i t a t i o n , aiid tlicse i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y . 
S p e c i a l c a r e s h o u l d be e x e r c i s e d in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and submission of b i d s t o a s s u r e f u l l 
compliance with t h e i n v i t a t i o n arid i n s t r u c t i o n s . A l l item iiuinbers and p r i c e s s h a l l be 
f u l l y and c l e a r l y s e t f o r t h . 
3 . SJG&):~~R-~.~TO BIDS - E d c h b i d must g i v e a d d r e s s of t h e b i d d e r and be signed by him w i t h 
h i s u s u a l s i q n a t u r e . The naiiie of each person s i y n i n g s h a l l a l s o he typed o r p r i n t e d belcw 
t h e s i g i i a t i i r e . 
4 . COf?KEClIOYS - Erasiires o r o t h e r changes i i i the b i d must bc e x p l a i n e d or noted over t h e 
s i g n a t u r e of t h e b i d d e r . 
5 . TIME FOR RECEIVING BIDS - Bids r e c e i v e d p r i o r t o tlie tiiiic of opening will be s e c u r e l y 
k e p t , unopened. The o f f i c e r vhose d u t y i t i s t o open theni v j . 1 1 d e c i d e when t h e s p e c i f i e d 
time has a r r i v e d , and 110 h i d r e c e i v e d t h e r e a f t e r w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . No r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 
w i l l be a t t a c h e d t o ail o f f i c e r f o r t h e premature opeiiiiig of a b i d not p r o p e r l y addressed 
and i d e n t i f i e d . T e l e g r a p h i c b i d s will riot be c o n s i d e r e d , b i i t i n o d i f i c a t i o n s b y t e l e g r a p h of 
b i d s alrt=ady subniitted will he c o n s i d e r e d i f recpived p r i o r t o t h e hour s e t f o r opening. 
6 . _WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS - Bids niay be ~ i t I i d r ~ k . i i 011 i i r j l t e i i o r l e l c g r a p l i i c r e q u e s t r e c e i v e d 
from b i d d e r s p r i o r t o t h e time f i x e d € o r o p e n i n g . Negliyence on t h e p a r t of t h e b i d d e r i n 
p r e p a r i n q t h e b i d c o n f e r s no r i g h t t o withdraw t h e b i d a f t e r t h e time f o r s u b m i t t i n g b i d s 
h a s expirerl. (See above S e c t i o n 5 ) . 
7 . eI-D!=)gH_- PRESENT - A t t h e time fixed f o r t h e opening of b i d s , t h e i r c0ntent.s w i l l be 
niatle p u b l i c f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n of b i d d e r s and o t h e r s i n l e r e s l e d , who may be p r e s e n t 
e i t h e r i i i person o r by r e p r e s c i i t a t i v e . 
8 . Rh'ARD OR KEJECTXN OF BIDS - The award v i l l be iciade t o t h e hiyhest b i d d e r complying 
Kith t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i n v i t a t i o n f o r b i d s , pruvirlerl l i j s b i d i s r e a s o n a b l e and i t is 
i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e I n d i a n owner and t h e United S t a t e s t o a c c e p t i t . l'lie b i d d e r t o whom 
t h e award i s t o be made will be n o t i f i e d a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e d a t e a f t e r t h e 
Superintendent approves t h e s a l e . The Superintendent a l s o r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t any 
9 . 
and a l l b i d s and t o waive a n y i n f o r m a l i t y i n b i d s received whenever such r e j e c t i o n or 
waiver i s i n t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e I n d i a n owiiers or t h e Uiiited S t a t e s . 
ERRORS IN B I D -- Bidders o r t h e i r a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s a r e expected to make a v i s u a l 
i n s p e c t i o n of t h e premises t o o b s e r v e a l l p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , appareiit encumbrance, 
a c c e s s , e t c . Access i s riot guaranteed or v a r r a n t e d . A b i d d e r cannot s e c u r e r e l i e f on t h e 
p l e a o f e r r o r i n t h e b i d o r i n h i s l a c k of understanding t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
1 0 . Government a p p r a i s a l s of t h e h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y w i l l NOT be made a v a i l a b l e t o 
t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . 
11. The l a n d h e r e i n a d v e r t i s e d f o r s a l e w i l l be s o l d s u b j e c t t o the terms and c o n d i t i o n s 
of e x i s t i n g o i l and g a s , mining or s u r f a c e l e a s e c o n t r a c t s , p e r m i t s , easements or r i g h t s - 
of-way of r e c o r d w i t h the Bureau of I i i d i a n A f f a i r s . Didders or t h e i r a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s , 
may examine e x i s t i n g l e a s e c o n t r a c t s and p e r m l t s a t t h e i s s u i n g o f f i c e . Tlic United S t a t e s 
does n o t regard a s a l e as having been corisiimmated u n t i l a p p r o v a l and a c i u a l d e l i v e r y of 
t h e deed o r i s s u a n c e o f a f e e p a t e n t t o t h e p u r c h a s e r ; hovever, RENTS (cash o r c r o p ) , f o r , 
t h e l e a s e c o n t r a c t year i n vhich t h c l a n d i s offered f o r s a l e , are r e s e r v e d t o the I n d i a n 
owners without r e y a r d t o t l i e d a t e the s a l e i s completed. Where advance r e n t a l payments a r e 
a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Agency O f f i c e arid have i n f a c t been c o l . l e c t e d by t h e I n d i a n owners 
beyond the l e a s e c o n t r a c t y e a r i n which t h e l a n d i s o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , such p r e p a i d r e i i t s 
will he refunded t o t h e p u r c h a s e r , a f t e r f u l l paymeiit of t h e purchase p r i c e arid formal 
approval o f t h e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n . 
1 2 . irlincrals, i n c l u d i n g o i l and g a s , a r e t o be s o i d w i i l i t h e land advertised irniers 
r e s e r v e d a s i n d i c a t e d on t h e a t t a c h e d S c h e d u l e . P u r c h a s e r s of m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t will be 
e n t i t l e d t o r o y a l l y t o r o i l a n d g a s produced on and a f t e r t h e f i r s t of the month f o l l o w i n g 
t h e month i n which t i t l e i s conveyed. 
1 3 . A l l t r a c t s l i s t e d Kith a s t a t e m e n t sliowjng t h a t a n o i l a n d g a s l e a s e i s "Pending" or 
"Pending Approval" a r e b e i n y o f f e r e d SUBJECT t o s a i d l e a s e . Upon a p p r o v a l of suc:li pending 
m i n e r a l l e a s e s , t h e cash bonus arid f i r s t y e a r advaiice r e n t a l s will be p a i d t o and r e t a i n e d 
by t h e r c s p e c t i v e I n d i a n owners; t h e p u r c h a s e r i s t o r e c e i v e a l l f u t u r e r e n t a l payments 
and m i n e r a l rignts conveyed w i c h t h e l a n d . 
1 4 . T i t l e t o land s o l d a s a r e s u l t of t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t x i 1 1 be conveyed i n a f e e simple 
s t a t u s by e i t h e r p a t e n t i n f e e o r approved d e e d . T l i c c o s t of r e q u i r e d documentary revenue 
stamps s h a l l I x borne by t h e p u r c h a s e r . 
1 5 . Evidence of t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s h e r e i n o f f e r e d t o r s d l e , s~icli as commercial a b s t r a c t s 
or t i t l e c e r t i f i c a t e s which may be d e s i r e d by the siiccessful b i d d e r , will be procured by 
l i i n i a L Iiis own c o s t and expense arid will not be f u r n i s h e d b y the Government o r I n d i a n 
owner. I n s p e c t i o n may be made, howe\fer, of a v a i l a b l e . d e e d s , p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , and o t h e r 
t i t l e documents of r e c o r d i n t h e l o c a l Agency O f f i c e o f t h e Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s . 
16. h'AHNINti TO ALL BIDDERS - A l l b i d d e r s a r e warned a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n of 1 8 U . S . C . 1860, 
p r o h i b i t i n g u n l a w f u l combination o r i n t i m i d a t i o n o f b i d d e r s . 
1 7 . T i t l e t o l a i i d s s o l d as a r e s u l t of t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t r i l l not be conveyed u n t i l such 
time as t h e requirements of t h e N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A t have been s a t i s f i e d . fi qqutra 08/30/2004 l 6 : 1 8 FAX 405 247 2805 
1. CADDO p207, 160.00 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - SEX o f S e c t i o n 3-TgN-RllW T.N., 
a p p r o x . 2 mi. S o u t h o f B i n g e r . O k . D a t e o f L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / N o n e . 
2. CADDO f 8 1 5 , 100 ACRES SURFACE - N%NEY & NXNXSXNEY o f S e c t i o n 35-TlON-RlOW 
I.M., a p p r o x . 7 m i . E a s t o f B i n g e r , Ok. Date o f L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n : 
S u r f a c e / 1 2 / 3 1 / 9 7 . 
3 . COMANCHE tr1526, 1 1 . 2 5 A C R E S SURFACE AND X MINERALS - NXSWXNWXNWY i 
SEXSWXNWXNWY h NXSWXSWYXWXNWX h SXS%NWYNWXNWY of S e c t i o n 32-T2N-R14W, I.H., 
a p p r o x . 2% m i . E a s t h 1 m i . S o u t h of I n d i a h o m a . O k . D a t e of L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n : 
S u r f a c e / ,12/31/94; H i n e r a l s / N o n e . 
4 . COMANCHE 8 2 6 4 8 , 1 0 . 0 0 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - NEXNEXSWY o f 
S e c t i o n 28-TZN-Rl4W I.M., t o g e t h e r w i t h an e a s e m e n t f o r i n g r e s s / e e r e s s 
p u r p o s e s d e s c r i b e d a s : t h e North 20 f e e t o f NXMWXSWX & NWXNEXSWX of s a i d 
S e c t i o n 20. Approx. 1% m i . West h x m i . S o u t h o f C a c h e , O k . D a t e of Lease 
E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / N o n e . 
5 . COHANCHE $1663, 160.00 ACRES SURFSCE ONLY - SEX o f S e c t i o n 7-TlN-Rl4W J , f l 
a p p r o x . 3% m i . S o u t h & 1 m i . E a s t of I n d i a h o m a , O k . Date of L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n : 
S u r f a c e / 1 2 / 3 1 / 9 5 . 
6 . COIIANCHE 81662, 59 21 ACRES SURFACE 0" - F r . SWX o f Section 7-TlN-Rl4W 
1.H , B e g i n n i n g on t h e s e c t i o n l i n e 9 8 9 . 5 ' S o u t h o f t h e NW/Corner of SKY of 
S e c t i o n 7 , t h e n c e E a s t 2 6 0 5 . 6 4 ' E a s t t o a p o i n t on t h e quarter s e c t i o n line 
9 8 9 . 5 ' S o u t h of t h e NE/Corner o f S i i Y , t h e n c e S o u t h a l o n g t h e q u a r t e r s e c t i o n 
line 9 8 9 . 5 2 ' , t h e n c e West 2 6 0 5 . 6 8 ' t o s e c t i o n l i n e , t h e n c e N o r t h 9 8 9 . 5 2 ' t o 
p l a c e o f b e g i r i n i n g . 3% mi. South & 1% m i . E a s t of I n d i a h o m a . O k . D a t e o f 
Lease E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / N o n e . 
T3S-RllW . I.M., a p p r o x . 7 m i West C 1% m i . S o u t h of Temple, Ok Date o f 
7 . COMANCHE lt1972, @ O . O O ACRES S U R F A K A K D x MINERALS - SEX o f S e c t i o n 32- 
Lease E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / l 2 / 3 1 / 9 5 , M i n e r a l s / N o n e . 
8 . COFIANCHE 83232, 160.00 ASEL SURFACE ONLY - NWY o f S e c t i o n 8-T4S-R13W, 
I.M , a p p r o \ - . 1% m i , X o r t h of D e v o i , Ok. 3 a r e of L e a s e E x p i r a r i o n . S u r f a c e ( 
H I A St'KO Kb;AI,I'Y 
COHANCHE COUNTY 
- COTTON COUNTY 
KIOWA COUNTY 
TlLLtlAN COUNTY 
None. 
9 , KIOWA # 3 1 7 9 , 8 0 . 0 0 A C R E s C j R U A N D EIINERALS - SXNWY o € S e c t i o n 23-T3S- 
R13W, I . H . , a p p r o x . X mi. E a s t and 3Y m i . S o u t h o f A h p e a ~ o n e , Ok. D a t e of 
Lease E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / N o n e ; H i n e r a l s / N o n e . 
1 0 . K I O W A 1 2 5 2 6 , 3 . 8 2 ACRSS SURF4CE AND ElINERALS - SXNWXSWXNN!LSUXNWY 6 
SWXNEXSWXNWXSWYNWY h UXSEXNEXSWXNHXSUYNVY b SUYSWXNWXSWYNNY h 
HXSEYSWXNWXSUYNWX h WXEXSEXSWXNHXSUXNWX a n d UXSWXSUXSWXSWYNWY and 
PXEXSWYSWXS~~YSWYNWX a n d ~?XEXEXSurSMXSWrSWXNWX of S e c t i o n l-TSN-Rl4W. I .tl , 
approx. 3Y m i . S o u t h and 1% m i . West o f C a r n e g i e , Ok. D a t e o f L e a s e 
E s p i r a t i o n : Stir f a c e / l 2 / 3 1 / 9 5 ; b l i n e r a l s / N o n e . 
11. KIOWA 1 2 1 1 6 , 120 ACRES SURFACE ONLY_ - SXNXNWX h SXNWY o f S e c t i o n 24-T5N- 
R15W, I . M . , a p p r o x . 2 mi. K o r t h and 1% m i . West of S a d d l e M o u n t a i n , Ok. D a t e 
of Lease E x p i r a t i o n : S u r f a c e / 1 2 / 3 1 / 9 5 . 
1 2 . COMANCHE 8312'3, 160.00 ACRES X EIINERALS ONLY - SEX of S e c t i o n 31-T4S- 
R14W, I . M . , a p p r o x . 4 m i . S o u t h o f G r a n d f i e l d , O k . D a t e o f L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n : 
SurEace/None; H i n e r a l s / N o n e . I N V I T A T I O N F O R B I D S - S A L E O F I N D I A N L A N D S 
UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
ISSUED BY: ANADARKO AGENCY, P.O. BOX 309 
ANADARXO, OKLAHOMA 73005 
James DeHaas, Superintendent 
DATED: 
INVITATION NO. 66-Bids will be received 
until and opened at 1O:OO A.M. Local Time 
Date: April 2 7 , 1995 
Anadarko Agency Conference Room 
Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 March 2 2 , 1995 
SEALED BIDS, subject to the terms and conditions of this invitation, will be received at 
the above office until the designated time for public opening. All sealed bide of Indian 
land offered for sale must be accompanied by a cashier's check, certified check, or postal 
money ordey, payable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for not less than 10% of the total 
offer made. Do not present personal checks unless certified. 
ORAL AUCTION PROVISIONS: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE OPENING AND EVALUATION OF ALL BIDS, 
THOSE ITEMS ATTRACTING ONE OR MORE SEALED BIDS WILL BE SUBJECT TO ORAL AUCTION BIDDING BY 
THOSE WHO HAVE UADE A SEALED BID OFFER ON THAT PARTICULAR TRACT. 
Should the high bid at the auction of such items be found to be consistent wlth the 
appraisal, that bid will be taken under advisement by the Superintendent or his 
representative. subject t o the acceptance and approval by the Superintendent, the high 
bidder will be requited to increase the amount of his deposit to not less than 10% of the 
amount bid and amend his sealed bid accordingly. 
The right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to disapprove any transaction at any 
time prior to final approval and delivery of a deed or issuance of a patent-in-fee in 
accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 2 5 , Indians, Part 152. 
General information and specific instructions to bidders are contained in the In~tructions 
to Bidders, Terms, and Condition of the Invltation f o r Bids, on the reverse hereof. For 
detailed information call or write: 
Ms. Freda Tate, Acting Realty Specialist, Telephone No. ( 4 0 5 ) 247-6673, Ex. 397 
Branch of Real Property Management, Anadarko Agency, Anadarko, Ok. 73005 
S C H E D U L E - O F - B I D S 
ALLOTNENT NO. OF MOUNT OF ; ITEM ITEM 
NO. BID NUMBER 
ALLOTMENT NO. OF RMDUWT OF 
NUHBER BID ACRES 1 NO. 
I 
I 
of the above bids. 
SIGNATURE OF BIDDER 
NAME OF BIDDER--(print or type) 
ACRES 
The undersigned agrees that if the amount offered, for any item or items in the above be 
accepted, he will within 30 calendar days from date of receipt of notice of award, deposit 
with issuing office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the full amount of his offer, with 
stipulated sales fee, and that failure tn make such deposit within the specified time will 
constitute a forfeiture of 10% of the amount offered on each such item. The undersigned 
also agrees that the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall have an irrevocable option for a 
period of 120 days after the date set for bid opening to accept any one or more than one 
IN ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE 
LAND, THE PURCHASER WILL BE REQUIRED TO 
DEPOSIT THE SUM OF 522.50 TO COVER THE 
COST OF CONVEYANCE AND SALES FEES FOR 
EACH SEPARATE ITEM WHEN HE IS NOTIFIED 
THAT HE IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER. ADDRESS (print or type)ZIP CODE 
__ 
TELEPHONE NUMBER 1. HARKING AND MILING BIDS - B i d s , w i t h t h e i r g u a r a n t i e s , must b e s e c u r e l y s e c u r e d i n 
s u i t a b l e envelopem, a d d r e s s e d t o t h e Agency O f f i c e i s s u i n g t h i s i n v i t a t i o n and marked o n 
t h e o u t s i d e w i t h t h e i n v i t a t i o n number and d a t e of o p e n i n g , b o t h o f which may b e found i n 
t h e b l a c k a p p o s i t e t h e name of t h e i s s u i n g o f f i c e on t h e f r o n t o f t h i s form. 
2. PREPARATION OF BIDS - 'Forms f u r n i s h e d , or copies t h e r e o f , s h a l l be u s e d , and strict 
compliance w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e i n v i t a t i o n , and t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y . 
S p e c i a l c a r e s h o u l d b e e x e r c i s e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and submission o f b i d s t o a a a u r e f u l l 
compliance w i t h t h e i n v i t a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n s . A l l item numbers and p r i c e s s h a l l be 
f u l l y and c l e a r l y set f o r t h . 
3. SIGNATURE TO BIDS - Each b i d must g i v e t h e a d d r e s s o f t h e b i d d e r and b e s i g n e d by him 
w i t h h i s U E U a l s i g n a t u r e . The name o f e a c h p e r s o n s i g n i n g s h a l l be t y p e d o r p r i n t e d below 
t h e s i g n a t u r e . 
4 . CORRECTIONS - E r a s u r e s o r o t h e r changes i n t h e b i d must b e e x p l a i n e d or n o t e d o v e r 
t h e s i g n a t u r e of t h e b i d d e r . 
5. TIME FOR RECEIVING BIDS - B i d s r e c e i v e d prior t o t h e t i m e of o p e n i n g w i l l be s e c u r e l y 
k e p t , unopened. The o f f i c e r whose d u t y it is t o open them w i l l d e c i d e when t h e s p e c i f i e d 
t i m e h a s a r r i v e d , and no b i d r e c e i v e d t h e r e a f t e r w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d . N o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 
w i l l b e a t t a c h e d t o a n o f f i c e r for t h e premature opening o f a b i d n o t p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d 
and i d e n t i f i e d . T e l e g r a p h i c b i d s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d , b u t m o d i f i c a t i o n s by t e l e g r a p h 
of b i d s a l r e a d y s u b m i t t e d w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d if r e c e i v e d p r i o r t o t h e h o u r s e t for 
o p e n i n g . 
6 . WITHDRAWAL OF BIDS - B i d s may b e withdrawn on w r i t t e n or t e l e g r a p h i c r e q u e s t r e c e i v e d 
from b i d d e r s prior t o t h e time f i x e d for o p e n i n g . Negligence on t h e p a r t o f t h e b i d d e r i n 
p r e p a r i n g t h e b i d c o n f e r s no r i g h t t o withdraw t h e b i d a f t e r t h e time f o r s u b m i t t i n g b i d s 
h a s e x p i r e d . (see above SectLon 5). 
7. BIDDER PRESENT - A t t h e t i m e f i x e d f o r t h e opening of b i d s , t h e i r c o n t e n t s w i l l b e 
made p u b l i c f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f b i d d e r s and o t h e r s i n t e r e s t e d , who may b e p r e s e n t 
e i t h e r i n p e r s o n or by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . 
8. AWARD OR REJECTION OF BIDS - The award w i l l b e made t o t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r complying 
w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i n v i t a t i o n f o r b i d s , provided h i s b i d is r e a s o n a b l e and it is 
i n the i n t e r e s t o f t h e I n d i a n owner and t h e United S t a t e s t o a c c e p t i t , The b i d d e r t o 
whom t h e award i s t o b e made w i l l b e n o t i f i e d a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e d a t e a f t e r t h e 
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a p p r o v e s t h e s a l e . The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a l s o r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o roject 
any and a l l b i d s and t o waive any i n f o r m a l i t y i n b i d s r e c e i v e d whenever s u c h r e j e c t i o n or 
waiver i s i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e I n d i a n owners or t h e United States. 
9. _ERRORS I N BID - B i d d e r s or t h e i r a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s are e x p e c t e d t o make a v i s u a l 
i n s p e c t i o n of the premises t o o b s e r v e a l l p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , a p p a r e n t encumbrance, 
access, e t c . Access is n o t g u a r a n t e e d or w a r r a n t e d . A b i d d e r c a n n o t s e c u r e r e l i e f on t h e 
p l e a o f error i n t h e b i d or i n h i s l a c k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
10. Government a p p r a i s a l s of t h e h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y w i l l n o t b e made a v a i l a b l e t o 
t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . 
11. The land h e r e i n a d v e r t i s e d f o r sale w i l l be s o i d s u b j e c t t o t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s 
o f e x i s t i n g o i l and g a s , mining or s u r f a c e l e a s e c o n t r a c t s , p e r m i t s , easements or r i g h t s - 
of-way of r e c o r d w i t h t h e Bureau o f I n d i a n Affairs o r i n b e i n g . B i d d e r s or t h e i r 
a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s , may examine e x i s t i n g lease c o n t r a c t s and permits a t t h e i s s u i n g o f f i c e , 
The United S t a t e s d o e s n o t r e g a r d a sale a s having been consummated u n t i l a p p r o v a l and 
a c t u a l d e l i v e r y of t h e deed o r i s s u a n c e of a fee p a t e n t t o t h e p u r c h a s e r ; however, RENTS 
( c a s h or crop), f o r t h e lease c o n t r a c t y e a r i n which t h e l a n d is o f f e r e d f o r sale, a r e 
r e s e r v e d t o t h e I n d i a n owners w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e d a t e t h e sale i s completed. Where 
advance r e n t a l payments are a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Agency O f f l c e and have i n f a c t been 
c o l l e c t e d b y t h e I n d i a n owners beyond t h e lease c o n t r a c t y e a r i n which t h e l a n d i s o f f e r e d 
for s a l e , s u c h p r e p a i d r e n t s w i l l b e refunded t o t h e p u r c h a s e r , a f t e r f u l l payment of t h e 
purchase p r i c e and f o r m a l a p p r o v a l o f t h e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n . 
1 2 . M i n e r a l s , i n c l u d i n g o i l and gas, a r e t o b e s o l d w i t h t h e l a n d a d v e r t i s e d u n l e s s 
r e s e r v e d a s i n d i c a t e d on t h e a t t a c h e d S c h e d u l e . P u r c h a s e r s o f m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t w i l l b e 
e n t i t l e d t o r o y a l t y f o r o i l and gas produced on and a f t e r t h e f i r s t o f t h e month f o l l o w i n g 
t h e month i n which t i t l e is conveyed. 
1 3 . All tracts l i s t e d w i t h a s t a t e m e n t showing t h a t a n o i l and g a s lease is "Pending" ot 
"Pending Approval" are b e i n g o f f e r e d SUBJECT t o s a i d lease. Upon a p p r o v a l o f s u c h pending 
m i n e r a l leases, t h e c a s h bonus and f i r s t y e a r advance r e n t a l s w i l l be p a i d t o and r e t a i n e d 
by t h e respective I n d i a n owners; t h e p u r c h a s e r t o receive a l l f u t u r e r e n t a l payments and 
m i n e r a l r i g h t s conveyed w i t h t h e l a n d . 
14. T i t l e t o l a n d s o l d a s a r e s u l t o f t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t w i l l b e conveyed i n a f e e s i m p l e 
s t a t u s by e i t h e r p a t e n t i n f e e or approved d e e d . The cost o f r e q u i r e d documentary revenue 
stamps s h a l l b e b o r n e by t h e p u r c h a s e r . 
15. Evidence of t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s h e r e i n o f f e r e d f o r sale, s u c h as commercial abstracts 
or t i t l e c e r t i f i c a t e s which may b e d e s i r e d by t h e s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r , w i l l b e p r o c u r e d by 
3-22- 5 J r- 
him a t h i s own cant and expanse and will not be furnished by t h e Government or Indian 
owner. inspection may made; however, o f a v a i l a b l e d e e d s , probate p r o c e e d i n g s , and o t h e r 
t i t l e documents o f r e c o r d i n t h e local Agency o f f i c e of t h e Bureau of I n d i a n A f f a i r s . 
16. WARNING TO ALL BIDDERS - A l l b i d d e r s a r e warned a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U.S.C. 1860, 
p r o h i b i t i n g u n l a w f u l combination o r i n t i m i d a t i o n of b i d d e r s . 
1 7 . T i t l e t o l a n d s s o l d a s a r e s u l t of t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t w i l l n o t b e conveyed u n t i l s u c h 
t i m e as t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t have been s a t i s f i e d . 
Date UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . - 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
I . , I . /: 
*********************************h**********~********h*****.***********i****** 
SCHEDULE OF LAND TO, BE SOLD . 
. . . , . . . . . . . . . ! 
: I 
. . 
, i 
I . 
Section 12-T7N-RllW, I.M., approx. 1 mi. East of Waehita, Ok. , Date of . . . . 
4. WICHITA 1865, 10.00 ACRES 'SURFACE ONLY '- S%N+NWkNW%-Of. ' . 
Lease expiration - Surface: None. 
* + * * * + r r + * + i * * * * r * i * * * * * * x * * * * + * * * * * r * * * * * . * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ * h * ~ * ~ ~ * * ~ ~ * * * n * * ~ 
. ' CADDO COUNTY 
7 . . 
. I, 
1. CADDO,#9Q,,l60.00 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - SWb Of Section 24-TsN-Rl2W. 
I . H . , approx. % mi. East 'and 3limi. North 'Ff. Cobb. Ok. Date of Lease, .,;-. .. 
Expiration - Surface: 12/31/98.. 1 :., 
None. . . 
I 
;, ., I. ' , 
. . . 
. - . . . . . : .. ? ! . . , . , . , . . . . , . . 
, . . : . . . .'. , 
5.. APACHE #2816, 160.00 ACRES, AN UNDIVIDED b INTEREST IN ~ 1 N g - w ~ ' ONLY - 
NWf of3Section lS-TSN-RlOW, I . H . , approx. 1% mi, West and 1 mi. North,of 
Cyril, Ok. Date of Lease expiration - Minerals: None. 
Minerals2 None. 
I : 
Minerals: None. 
. _ 
. . , 
. . . . . 
. . . . 
. .: 
< . 
. 
. . 
. . 
2. CRDDO 6207, 160.00 ACRES SUR$ACE ONLY' - SEk of Section 3-T9N-RllW, . . 
I . M . , approx. 1% mi. south of Binger; Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: 
, . ' . .. 
, . 
. . 
3. WICHITA 6416; 160.00' ACRAEcSURFACE" ONLY' - E%NE$ and E4SSk oaf Section.., ' . 
Date 
26-T9N-RllW, 
of Lease 
I.U., 
Expiration. 
approx. - Surface:, 
2 mi. South 
12/31/96. 
and 4% mi. East of Albert, ,Ok. 
. . .. ... 
. , . j,. _ . .. 
. . 
~12/31/95 Minerals: None. 
Expiration - Surface: 12/31/95. 
8 . 
.. 
, . 
. , .~ . . 
COMANCHE COUNTY 
COTTON COUNTY 
KIOWA COUNTY 
. . 
I . 
MINERALS - EgNEkSWk and E$E$l?$NEkSWf and NEkSE-fSWk and E%E%NWkSEkSWf and 
6 . COMANCHE 62456, 4 5 . 0 0 ACRES SURFACE AND' AN UNDIVIDED k INTEREST IN 
East of Fletcher, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: 12/31/98 ..; . 
E+SE&SEfSW+ and E+W%SEkSEfSWk of section 12-T4N-R9W, I.M., approx. 74 mi. 
. . . . 
and E4E4W%W4W%E$SW% and E~W~E$W+W+W%E%SW% of Section .12-T4N-R9W, I . H . . , approx. 
7. COMANCHE 12456, 18.75 ACRES SURFACE AND AN UNDIVXDED 5 INTEREST i~ 
. 
MINERALS - W+LIE$NW$SE$SW$ and E$W+NWfSEkSW+ and W%E+W$NE%SWk and E+W+W$NE%SWk, 
74 mi. East of Fletcher, Ok. Date of Lease'Expiratioa - Surface: ' None .. . . 
. . a. COMANCHE 12648, 10.00' ACRES SURFACE O ~ L Y -' N E ~ N E ~ S W ~ . of'sectlon 28-T2N- . 
R14W, I.H., together with an easement for ingressfegress purposes descrlhed 
3% 
as: 
mi. 
the 
West 
north 
and 
20 
% m i . 
feet 
South 
of N$NW%SW% 
of Cache, 
and 
Ok. 
NWkNEbSWk 
Date of 
of 
L e a s e 
said 
Expiration 
Section 28. - Approx. 
Surface: 
None. 
9. COMANCHE #292S, 160.00 ACRES - SW% of Section 36-TlS-R13W, I.H., approx. 
24 mi. South and 3 mi. East of Faxon, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: 
. . 
10. COMANCHE 11972, 160.00 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - SEf of Section 32-T3S-RllW, 
I.M., approx. 14 mi. South and 7 mi. West of Temple, Ok. Date of Lease 
11. KIOWA 63179, 80.00 ACRES - SqNWk of Section 23-T3S-R13W, I . H . , approx. + mi. East and 3 mi. South of Ahpeatone, Ok. Date of 1,easn Expiration - 
Surface: None Minerals: None. 
12. COMANCHE 83232, 160.00 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - NWir of Section 8-T4S-R13W, 
I . M . , approx. 44 mi. East of Grandfield, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - 
Surface: None. 
13. KIOWA #3361, 64.27 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - W%E+NW% and a tract o f land in 
Lot 2 (E%SWk) described a5 beginning at the N/4 corner of Section 33-TSS-R12W, 
I . M . , thence South 00'22'44" West 2640 feet, thence North 89"37'16" West 
661.67 feet to the point of beginning, thence South 00'22'44" West 1630.20 
feet, thence North 89O37'16" West 661.66 feet, thence North OO"22'44" East 
1630.20 feet, thence South 89°37'16" Eaat 661.66 feet to the p i n t of 
Expiration - Surface: 12/31/97. 
beginning, approx. 5 mi. South and 4 m i . West of Randlett, Ok. Date o€ Lease 
A 
IN INTEREST % KIOWA 14. 
3-BEDROOM 
61026, 
HOUSE - 30 
W%NE%SW+ 
ACRES SURFACE 
and SE%NEbSWf 
AND AN UNDIVIDED 
of Section 7, together with 
MINERALS 
a 
AND 
right-of-way for ingress and egress purposes, described as beginning at the 
NW/Corner of the NE%SW% of Section 7, thence North 42 feet to the South right- 
of-way line o f State Highway 9 , thence Northeasterly along said right-of-way 
approximately 28 feet, thence South approximately 45 feet, thence West 25 feet 
to the point of beginning, all located in T7N-R13W, I.M., approx. 4 mi. 
Southwest of Carnegie, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None 
Minerals: None. 
15. KIOWA t1339, 80.00 ACPEX - N4NEt of Section B-T6N-RlSW, I.M., approx. 
5% mi. South and 2 mi. West of Mountain View, Ok. Date of Leasa Expiration - 
Surface: 12/31/95 Minerals: None. 16. KIOWA #1350, 29.15 ACRES - N4 of Lot 3 (NW+SWt) Of Section 31-T6N-R14W, 
Expiration 
1 X.M., approx. - Surface: 
mi. East 
12/31/97 
and 9% mL. 
Hinerals: 
South of 
None. 
Mountain View, Ok. Date of Lease 
17. COMANCHE f 1 4 5 6 , 72.69 ACRES MINERALS QNLY - Lot 1 (NWkNWt) and NE&NW% Of 
Section 19-T3N-R16W, I.M., approx. 1 mi. East and 2 mi. North of Mountain 
Park, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Minerals: None. 
18. KIOWA #2526, 2.734375 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - W%E%NWkNWkSWkNW% and 
W%NWCNwhSW%NW% and N+NW%.SW~NW+SW+NW% and WfE+E%NW%NW+SWhNW+ and 
W$NEkNEJlSW4NWCSW%NWk and NWCNEfSW+NW%SWkNW% Of SectLon l-TSN-R14W, I.M., 
approx. 4 m i . South and 1% m i . West of Carnegie, Ok. 
Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None. 
19. KIOWA #2526, 3.827125 ACRES SURFACE ONLY - S+NWkSW%NW%SW%NWc and 
SW%NE$SWtNWkSWkNWk and WQSE4NE+SWhNWkSWkNW& and SW$SW!rNWkSW$NWk and 
W%SE%SW+NW%SWkNW& and W~E+SE+SW~NW+SWJlNW% and WhSW+SW$SWbNw& and 
W%E%SW+SW%SW+NW+ and W%EbE%SWkSLi%sW&NWk of Section 1-T6N-R14W, I.M., (This 
Carnegie, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None. 
legal describes two separate tracts) approx. 4 mi South and 1% mi. West of 
20. KIOWA #2526,- 71.25 ACRES - E%SW%NWk and E$W%SW&NW% and EhE%E$W%W+SW%NWk 
and SEfNWh of Section l-ThN-R14W, I.H., together with a perpetual r / w for 
ingress and egress purposes described as the South 20 feet of the WQW%W%SWhNW+ 
and W!YE$W+W+SW+NW+ and W+EhE+W%WqSW%NWk of Section l-T6N-R14W, I.M., approx. 
4 mi. South and 14 mi. West of Carnegie, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - 
Surface: 12/31/95. Minerals: None. 
21. KIOWA 12116, 50 x 150 FEET CITY LOT & 3 BEDROOM HOUSE - Lot 8, Block 50 
Townsite of Hobart, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None. Minerals: 
located at 829 South Lincoln, in SE%SWk of Section 3-T6N-R18W, I.M., original 
None. 
TILLMAN COUNTY 
22. KIOWA #2983, 80.00 ACRES-SURFACE ONLY - W%SW& of Section ll-T4S-R16W, 
I.M., approx. 2 mi. South and 3/4 mi. West of Quanah, Ok. Date of Lease 
Expiration - Surface: 12/31/91. 
23. KIOWA 13073, 80.00 ACRES - NqNE$ of Section 29-T2S-R14W, I.H., approx. 
4 mi. South and 1 mi. West of Chattanooga, ok. Date of Lease Expiration - 
Surface: 12/31/96 Mineral: None. 
24. COHANCHE #3129* J60.00 ACRES, AN UNDIVIDED U J T E R E S T IN MINERALS ONLY - 
of 
of SEk 
Lease 
Section 
Expiration 
31-T4S-R14W, - Minerals: 
I.M., 
None. 
approx. 4 mi. S o u t h of Grandfield, 01;. D a t e I \ L , , I L , I 1 “ , I > >, 1,” U . 3 / I l I I / L U ~ 1 9 I O . L I I rnn Y U J L 4 , L a ” $ 
I N V I T A T I O N F O R B I D S - S A L E O F I N D I A N L A N D S 
UNITED STATES 
DEPARTKENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
INVITATION NO. 67-Bids wlll be received 
until and opened at 1O:BO A.H. Local T h e 
Anadarko Agency Conference Room 
Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 May 20, 1998 
’ 
-- 
ISSUED BY: ANADARKO AGENCY, P . O . BOX 309 
ANADAPXO, OKLAHOKA 73005 
Betty Tippeconnie, Superintendent Date: June 18, 1998 
DATED: 
SEALED BIDS, subject to the terms and condition6 of this invitation, will be received at 
the above office until the deeignated time for public opening. All sealed bids of Indian 
land offered for sale must be accompanied by a c a s h i P r ‘ s chELEkL_TeT+ified chock. or 
, for not less than 10% of the total w, payable to the Byreau of 
offer made. Do not present personal checks unless certified. 
P R B L X E X ~ S : 
ITEM 
NO. 
ONE OR HORESEALEDBIDS 
E A S A U Q l U QFFE-FiKT. 
Should‘.the high bid at the auction of such items be found to be consistent with the 
appraisal, that b i d w i l l be taken under advisement by the Superintendent or his 
representative. Subject to the acceptance and approval by the Superintendent, the high 
bidder will be required to increase the amount of his deposit to not less than 101 of the 
amount bid and amend hie sealed bid accordingly. 
The right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to disapprove any transaction at any 
time pqior to final approval and delivery of a deed or issuance of a patent-in-fee in 
accordance with the code of Federal Regulations, Title 25, Indians, Part 152. 
General information and specific instructions to bidders are contained in the Inatructions 
to Bidders, Terms, and Condition of the Invitation for Bids, on the reverse hereof. For 
detailed information call or write: 
Xs. Freda Tate, Realty Specialist, Telephone No. (405) 247-3709, Ex. 226 
Branch of Real Property Hanagement, Anadarko Agency, Anadarko, Ok. 73005 
S C H E D U L E - O F - B I D S 
RnQUNT OF ALLOTHENT NO. OF 
NUHBER ACRES BID 
IN ADDITION TO THE CONSIDEMTIOH FOR THE 
LAND, THE PURCHASER WILL BE REQUIRED TO 
DEPOSIT THE SVn OF 522.50 TO COVER THE 
COST OF CONVEYANCE AND SALES FEES FOR 
EACH SEPARATE ITEH WHEN HE IS NOTIFIED 
THAT HE IS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER. 
THE OPE IUBG AND EYBWLATIQN OF A L L EIQL 
W I L L B E T TO 
1 NO. 
ITEM ALLOTKENT NO. OF AMOUNT OF 
NUHEIER ACRES BID 
SIGNATURE OF BrDDER 
NAKE OF BIDDER (print or type) 
ADDRESS (print or type)ZIP CODE 
TELEPHONE N W 0 E R 
I 
The undersigned agreea that if the amount offered, for any item or items in the above ba 
accepted, he will within 30 calendar daya from date of receipt of notice of award, deposit 
with issuing office, Bureau of Indian hffaire, the full amount of his offer, with 
stipulated sales fee, and that failure to make such deposit within the specified time will 
constitute a forfeiture of 10% of the amount offered on each auch i t e m . The undersiyned 
also agrees that the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall have an irrevocable option for a 
period of 120 days after the date set for bid opening to accept any one or more than one 
of the above bids. 
You are hereby notified that you are the nucceeeful bidder on Item(s) NO. 
Balance of the purchase price, by cashier’a check, certified check, or pontal money order 
in the amount of S , which includes sales And conveyance fees, shall be 
remitted to the above designated Agency on or before - Bide, w i t h t h e i r g u a r a n t i e s , m u s t be s e c u r e l y e e c u r e d i n 
a u i t a b l e e n v e l o p e s , a d d r e s s e d to t h e Agency O f f i c e i e s u i n g t h i s i n v i t a t i o n and marked on 
t h e o u t s i d e w i t h t h e i n v i t a t i o n number and d a t e o f o p e n i n g , b o t h o f which may b e found i n 
t h e b l o c k o p p o e i t e t h e name of t h e i66Uing o f f i c e o n t h e f r o n t o f t h i s form. 
2 . W O N OF auLs - Forms f u r n i s h e d , or copiee t h e r e o f , s h a l l b e uoed, a n d strict 
- E r a s u r e s or o t h e r changes i n t h e bid muot be e x p l a i n e d or n o t e d over 
1. -AND- 
compliance w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e i n v i t a t i o n , and t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e n e c e s s a r y . 
S p e c i a l c a r e s h o u l d be e x e r c i e e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and s u b m i s s i o n o f b i d s to a s s u r e f u l l 
compliance w i t h t h e i n v i t a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n s . A l l item numbers and prices s h a l l b e 
f u l l y and c l e a r l y set f o r t h . 
3. - Each b i d m u s t g i v e t h e a d d r e s s of t h e b i d d e r a n d b e s i g n e d by him 
w i t h h i s u s u a l s i g n a t u r e . The name of e a c h p e r s o n s i g n i n g s h a l l be t y p e d or p r i n t e d below 
t h e s i g n a t u r e . 
4 . 
t h e s i g n a t u r e o f t h e b i d d e r . 
5 . ZUlE FOB BeCEIYyJG BIDS - B i d s r e c e i v e d prior t o t h e t i m e o f o p e n i n g w i l l be s e c u r e l y 
kept, unopened. The o f f i c e r whose d u t y i t i s t o open them w i l l d e c i d e when t h e s p e c i f i e d 
t i m e h a s a r r i v e d , and no b i d r e c e i v e d t h e r e a f t e r w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d . NO r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 
w i l l be a t t a c h e d t o an o f f i c e r f o r t h e p r e m a t u r e o p e n i n g o f a b i d n o t p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d 
and i d e n t i f i e d . T e l e g r a p h i c b i d s w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d , b u t m o d i f i c a t i o n s by t e l e g r a p h 
opening . o f b i d s a l r e a d y s u b m i t t e d w l l l b e c o n s i d e r e d if r e c e i v e d prior t o t h e hour set f o r 
QF RLLS - B i d s may b e withdrawn o n w r i t t e n or t e l e g r a p h i c r e q u e e t r e c e i v e d 
from b i d d e r s p r l o r t o t h e t i m e f i x e d f o r o p e n i n g . N e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e b i d d e r i n 
p r e p a r i n g t h e b i d c o n f e r s no r i g h t t o withdraw t h e b i d a f t e r t h e t i m e f o r s u b m i t t i n g b i d s 
h a s e x p i r e d . ( s e e above S e c t i o n 5 ) . 
6 . 
7 . - A t t h e t i m e f i x e d for t h e o p e n i n g o f b i d s , t h e i r c o n t e n t s w i l l be 
made p u b l i c for t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o f b i d d e r s and o t h e r 6 i n t e r e s t e d , who may b e p r e s e n t 
e i t h e r i n p e r s o n or by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . 
-N 8 . OF &uTs - The award w i l l be made t o t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r complying 
w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n 0 o f t h e i n v i t a t i o n for b i d s , p r o v i d e d h i s b i d is r e a s o n a b l e and it i s 
i n t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e I n d i a n owner and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o accept i t . The b i d d e r t o 
whom t h e award i s t o be made w i l l be n o t i f i e d at t h e e a r l i e s t p o s 5 i b l e d a t e a f t e r t h e 
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a p p r o v e s t h e s a l e . The S u p e r i n t e n d e n t also r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o r e j e c t 
any and a l l b i d s and t o wai.ve any i n f o r m a l i t y i n b i d s r e c e i v e d whenever s u c h r e j e c t i o n o r 
waiver i s i n t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e I n d i a n owners or t h e United S t a t e s . 
9 . - B i d d e r s or t h e i r a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s are e x p e c t e d t o make a v i s u a l 
i n s p e c t i o n of t h e premises t o o b s e r v e a l l p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , a p p a r e n t encumbrance, 
a c c e s s , e t c . Access i s n o t g u a r a n t e e d or w a r r a n t e d . A b i d d e r c a n n o t s e c u r e r e l i e f on t h e 
p l e a of error i n t h e b i d or i n his l a c k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
10. Government a p p r a i e a l s of t h e h e r e i n d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y w i l l n o t b e made a v a i l a b l e t o 
t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . 
11. The l u n d h e r e i n a d v e r t i s e d for sale w i l l be s o l d s u b j e c t t o t h e t e r m = and c o n d i t i o n c 
o f e x i s t i n g o i l and g a s , m i n i n g or s u r f a c e lease c o n t r a c t s , permits, e a s e m e n t s o r r i g h t s - 
of-way =f record w i t h t h e Pureax c f Indian A f f a i r a 0: i n b e i n g . Bidde:s =r t h e i r 
a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t s , may examine e x i s t i n g lease c o n t r a c t s and permits a t t h e i s s u i n g o f f i c e . 
The United Stetem d o e s n o t r e g a r d a s a l e as h a v i n g b e e n consummated u n t i l a p p r o v a l and 
a c t u a l d e l i v e r y o f t h e deed or i s e u a n c e of a f e e p a t e n t t o t h e p u r c h a s e r ; however, FSNTS 
( c a s h or crop), for t h e leaee c o n t r a c t y e a r i n which t h e l a n d i s o f f e r e d f o r e a l e , a r e 
r e s e r v e d t o t h e I n d i a n o u n e r s w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e d a t e t h e sale i s completed. Where 
advance r e n t a l payments are a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Agency O f f i c e and have i n f a c t been 
c o l l e c t e d by t h e I n d i a n owners beyond t h e l e a s e c o n t r a c t y e a r i n which t h e l a n d is o f f e r e d 
for sale, s u c h p r e p a i d r e n t s w i l l b e r e f u n d e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e r , a f t e r f u l l payment of t h e 
p u r c h a s e p r i c e and formal a p p r o v a l of t h e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n . 
12. H i , l r r a l s , including oil and g a s , are t o be s o l d w i t h t h e l a n d a d v e r t i s e d u n l e s s 
r e s e r v e d as i n d i c a t e d on t h e a t t a c h e d S c h e d u l e . P u r c h a s e r s o f m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t will be 
e n t i t l e d t o r o y a l t y for 011 and gas produced on and a f t e r t h e f i r s t of t h e month f o l l o w i n g 
t h e month i n which t i t l e i 5 conveyed. 
13. A l l r r a c t s lisred w i t h a s t a t e n i e n t showing t h a t ail o i l and g a s lease is "Panding" Or 
"Pending Approval" are b e i n g o f f e r e d SVBJECT t o s a i d l e a s e . Upon a p p r o v a l o f s u c h pending 
m i n e r a l l e a s e s , t h e c a s h bonus and f i r s t year advance r e n t a l s w i l l be paid t o a n d r e t a i n e d 
by t h e r e a p e c t i v e I n d i a n owners; t h e p u r c h a s e r t o r e c e i v e a l l f u t u r e r e n t a l payment. and 
m i n e r a l r i g h t s conveyed w i t h t h e l a n d . 
14. T i t l s t o l a n d sold a s a result of t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t w i l l b e conveyed i n a fee S h p l e 
s t a t u s b y e i t h e r patent Ln f e e o r approved d e e d . The cost o f r e q u i r e d documentary revenue 
16. 
stamps s h a l l b e b o r n e by t h e p u r c h a s e r . 
15. Evidence o f t i t l e t o t h e l a n d s h e r e i n o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , s u c h a s commercial abstracts 
or t i t l e c e r t i f i c a t e 6 which may be d e s i r e d by t h e s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r , w i l l b e p r o c u r e d b y 
him at h i s own cost and e x p e n s e a n d ' w i l l n o t be f u r n i a h e d by t h e Government or I n d i a n 
owner. I n s p e c t i o n may made; however, of a v a i l a b l e d e e d s , p r o b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , and o t h e r 
t i t l e documents off r e c o r d i n t h e local Agency o f f i c e o f t h e Bureau o f IndFan A f f a i r s . - A l l b i d d e r s are warned a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n o f 18 U.S.C. 1860, TO 
p r o h i b i t i n g u n l a w f u l combination or i n t i m i d a t i o n o f b i d d e r s . 
17. T i t l e t o l a n d s s o l d ae a r e s u l t o f t h i s a d v e r t i s e m e n t will not be conveyed u n t i l euch 
time as t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e N a t i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y A c t have b e e n s a t i s f i e d . "l'. 6.1' L.7V.J U O I J U / L O " . 1 , " . L I PA* *".J "'.I" ... 41.1-1. 
UNITED STATE DEPARTUENT OF THE INTERIOR 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
C , 4 * * * ~ 4 . t ~ * t 4 . 4 4 I I 4 4 I ~ * 4 R 4 ~ + * * * * . * & ~ ~ . * * * * * * 4 * * ~ . ~ ~ * ~ 4 . * ~ * 6 * ~ + t ~ * ~ t ~ , I + * ~ * b * 
SCHEDULE OF LAND TO RE SOLD 
t t ~ * * t * * C * C * * ~ . , t * t t b 4 * * * . ~ * & ~ ~ * * * * ~ * . . 4 ~ + 4 * * * * , + ~ , * . * * * ~ * 4 * + I 4 * ~ * ~ * * ~ b * ~ b * ~ * 
CAOOOCDWTY 
5 . WICHITA f 8 6 5 , lQ.00 
approx. 1 m i . East of Waahita, OIL. 
.... 
1. APACHE f554, F- 50 X 140 - Lot 7, Block 4 , 
Bath Additlon, located at 814 Weet Kentucky, Anadarko, Ok. Date of Leaae Expiration - 
Surface: None 
- Nw% of 1/2 IN HlNERAL 5- 
d 2 
2. CADDO 1 2 0 7 , 260.00 &3lS WWhGE3N.Y - SE% of Section 3-T9N-RllW, 
I.H., approx. 1 1/2 ml. South of Binger, Ok. Date of Lease Expiratiqn - Surface: None 
3. APACHE f554, 5 l L Q Q - A w W X E l X L X - NkN+SW% 6 N$NkSkN+SW4 of Section 29-T6N-R12W, 
I.U., Approx. B mi. West 6 114 m i . North of Stecker, ok. turnoff on Hwy 62. 
Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: 12-31-99 
- SEk of Section Z-TSN-RllW, I . H . , approx. 2 
mi. South C 1/2 mi. Eaat of Ringer, Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Minerals: None 
4. CADDO if209, 
- SkNfNWfNWk of Section 12-T7N-RllW, I.X., 
Date of Leaee Expiration - Surfbce: None. 
6. APACHE C2816, 
Section IS-TSN-RlOW, I.H., apptox. 1b mi. West and 1 mi. North of Cyril, Ok. Date of 
Lease Expiration - Xineralu: None. 
& 3 EEDROOH_HOVSE - W+NE%SW%, 7. KIOWA C1026 6 KIOWA 2533, 3 2 . 3 a . m S S- 
SEfNE%SWf & a tract of land described a6: Bey. At a point 900' West of the Center of 
Section 7-T7N-R13W, I.X., thence North 4 5 0 ' , thence in a Southwesterly direction along the 
center line of Hyt. # 9 (1 distance of SOO', thence South 125', thence East 350' to the 
P.O.B., Approx. 1/2 m i . West of Carnegie, Ok. on Hwy # 9 . Date of Lease Expiration: 
Surface: None 
8 . ET. SILL APACXE C500, 5,00&3E- 
I.H., Approx. 2 mi. North of Apache, Ok. Date of Leaee Expiration - Hinerals: None 
- N$NW%NW%SEk of Section 4-TSN-RllW, 
- E#EhNWlrNS4NW& & ufW$NEfNE+Nwf Of 9. FT. SILL APACKE C67, 5 . 0 0 -s 
Section 9-T5N-RllW, I.H.. Approx. 1 112 mi. North of Apache, Ok. Date of Leaee 
Expiration: Hineralr: None 
& a L & . & u , . - ? + ! a & E ~ ~ , Il%iiEk, S4NEhSX&XE~SE4, XU$SE%NCkisEk, 10. CRDDO 304, - . ' i s 
S$SE+NE~SE~, SWkNE4SEk C N~NEtSEf of Section 7-TeN-RgW. I.H., Approx 3 mi. East of 
Gracemont, Ok- Date Of Lease Expiration - Surface: 12/31/98 
v 
11. COHANCHE C719, U-00 Gm, AN U-BT IN 
N#NfNWfNWh t N)IS4N$NW&NW'f of Section lO-T5N-R11W, I . H . , approx. 1 3/4 mi. Horth of Apache, 
Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Hineralu: None 
SURF- 12. COMANCHE #2648, lD.00 
- 
- NEkNEhSWb of Ssction 28-T2N-R14W, I.H., 
together with an easement for ingresslegrems purposes deecribed as: the north 20 feet of 
NkNWSSWk and NWSNEfSWf of said Section 28. Approx. 3 mi. West and 1/2 mi. South of Cache, 
Ok. Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None. 
Approx. 
13. COKANCKE # 9 5 , 160.00 5 1/ Section 
3 mi. South of Sterling, Ok. Date of Leaae Expiration 
- NEf of - Surface: 
32-T3N-R9W, 
12-31-99 
I . W . , 
Hinerals: None 
Date of Lease Expiration - Surface: None 
OF B L p C G 54, 67 & 73 COKANCHE 52032, LOT 8. BLpCK J- 67 
AT 1716 & 14. 
Hineralr! None 
15. COMANCHE 1 7 8 3 . U.00 m v - XCB REG. PT 1466.65' SOUTH NW/CORNER SWq OF 
SECTION 24-TON-R11W, I.X.. THENCE 1485' Eamt, thence 293.33' South, thence 1485' West, 
thence 293.33' North to the P . O . B . Approx. 4 mi. West h 2 mi. South of Fletcher, Ok. 
Data of Lease Expiration - Surfacer None 
- NfSWkSWlr. SEfSWf 6r NkSWk of Section 17- 
TlS-RlZW, 
16. COXANCHE 
I.H., 
12910, 
Approx. 
140.00 
5 mi. Eset of Paxon, Ok. Date of,Leaee Expiration - Surface: 12- 
31-2000 17. COWCHE f 7 4 6 , - A t r a c t o f l a n d i n t h e NWk o f S e c t i o n 5-T3N-RllW, I . H . , 
d e s c r i b e d a 6 Beg. a t t h e NW/Corner of S e c t i o n 5-T3N-RllW t h e n c e S89O39'31" E a 6 t 1314.56', 
t h e n c e SOO014'56"W 425.80', t h e n c e N89.39'31" Weat 1314.63', t h e n c e N00'15'31" E a s t 
425.80' t o t h e FOB, Approx. 2 1 1 2 m i . South 6, 1 / 2 m i . West o f Apache, Ok. Date of L e a s e 
E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : 12-31-98 M i n e r a l e : None 
18. COUANCHE #2557, I T K 3 t i E - W%W%NELSEf, NW%SE%, 
W+NW+SE+SEf, NWksW%SE+sEk, N\SWkSE+ 6 E+SEkSWkSE& of S e c t i o n 15-T3N-R12Wy I . H . , Approx. 
314 m i . E a s t of Lake Lawtonka, Lawton, Ok. Date of Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None 
39. COWCHE 1456, 7 2 . 6 9 - L o t 1 (NWhWg) and NE+Nh'JI of S e c t i o n 19- 
T3N-R16WI I . H . , Approx. 1 m i . E a s t and 1 112 mi. North of Hountain Park, Qk. Date of 
Lease E x p i r a t i o n - M i n e r a l s : None 
CQPTTQB COUNTY 
2 0 . conmctw $1972, - SEf- o f S e c t i o n 32-T3S-RllW, I . H . , approx. 
14 m i . S o u t h and 7 m i . W e s t o f T e m p l e , Ok. D a t e of Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : 
AN WRIYLRE D 1 / 2 tLIuE;BBLs_atlLy - NW% of S e c t i o n 
121 3112000 
2 1 . COHANCHE #1498, 
E x p i r a t i o n 
22-T2S-R12W, - S u r f a c e : 
I.H., Approx. 
12-31-98 
7 m i . 
H i n e r a l s : 
West 6 112 
None. 
m i . North of W a l t e r s , Ok. D a t e o f Lease 
22. COMANCHE f3232, m . 0 0 ACREJRF2LCGmY - NWf o f S e c t i o n 8-T4S-R13W, I.H., Approx. 
4% m i . E a s t o f G r a n d f i e l d , Ok. Date of Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None. 
- NEkSEk o f S e c t i o n 24-T3S-RllW, 1 . M . 
t o g e t h e r w i t h a n ea6ement a l o n g t h e W e s t 2 0 ' of t h e SEkSEJI of s a i d S e c t i o n 24. Approx. 3 
m i . E a s t 6 1 / 2 m i . South of Temple, Ok. Date o f Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None 
2 3 . COHANCHE #1521, 
24. KIOWA $1350, 1 9 . 1 5 
1 m i . E a s t and 104 m i . South of Mountain V i e w , Ok. Date of Lease E x p i r a t i o n - 
S u r f a c e : None H i n e r a l s : None. 
2 5 . KIOWA f 2 5 2 6 , 2.734775 - wk~+t~+tiW+swftW and W k t i ~ h ~ ~ l r ~ W 4 t M and 
N%NWkSWkNW%SWkNWk and W%E4E+NWkNW)ISW%NWk and W4NE+NEkSWkNWbSWkNWk and NW%NE%SWkNWkSWkN'W$ 
o f S e c t i o n l-T6N-R14W, I.H., approx. 4 m i . S o u t h and 1% m i . West of C a r n e g i e , Ok. 
Date of Leame E x p i r a t i o n - s u r f a c e : None. 
26. KIOWA #2526, 71.25 A m - EfSWfNWk a n d E4W4SWJINWf and E$E$E4W+W4SWkNW& and SEJrNWh of 
Section 1-TbN-R14U, I . H . , t o g e t h e r w i t h P p e r p e t u a l r/w for m g r e s s and e g r e s s p u r p o s e s 
d e e c r i b e d aa t h e South 2 0 f e e t of t h e W%W$W?ySWkNWf and WbE4W$W4SW4NW+ and W~EbE%U%W+SWkNWk 
of S e c t i o n l-TbN-R14W, I . H . , approx. 
4 m i . S o u t h and 1% m i . Weet of C a r n e g i e , Ok. Date of Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e r None 
M i n e r a l e : None. 
27. KIOWA t 2 1 1 6 , 3 x 150 EWI CITY LOT k 3 
Date 
South 
of 
L i n c o l n , 
L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n 
in SEfSWf of - S u r f n c e : 
S e c t i o n 
None. 
3-T6N-R18W, 
H i n e r a l r j : 
I.H., 
None 
o r i g i n a l Towncite of H o b a r t , Ok. 
28. KIOWA 11238, 1 9 . 7 5 BCBES SURFUELXU 
F.%NW%NWJfNEkNWk of S e c t i o n 13-TSN-R14W, I . H . , Approx. 13 m i . South 6 1 / 4 m i West of 
C a r n e g i e , Ok. Date o f Leaae E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None 
29. KIOW?. 63278, m m m s y - N E ~ N S ~ N W J ~ 6 N + S E ~ N E ~ N W % of S e c t i o n 13-TSN- 
R14W, I.H., Approx. 13 mr South C 1 1 / 4 m i West of C a r n e g i e , Ok. D a t e of L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n 
- S u r f a c e 12-31-2000 
30. KIOWA #669-A, BO.00 
1/2 m i . West o f C a r n e g i e , Ok. Data o f L e a s e E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None 
31. KIOWA 1669-8, A- BO.00 
1/2 m i . W e s t o f C a r n e g i e , Ok. N o L e g a l ACCe6S. Date o f Lease Z x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : None - - E+SE+ of S e c t i o n 5-T7N-R14W, I . M . , Approx. 4 
KIOWA c o m r 
- N)I of L o t 3 (NW+SW$) of S e c t i o n 3:-T6N-R14W, I.H., a p p r o x . 
- Lot 8 , Block 50 l o c a t e d a t 829 
- SW+NE%NW%, EIJNWSNE+NWI(, SWCNW~NE+NWL, 
- WkSEk of S e c t i o n S-T7N-R14W, I.M., Approx. 4 
- WbSW+ of S e c t i o n ll-TdS-RlbW, I . H . , approx. 9 
m i . W e s t & 1 / 2 S o u t h of G r a n d f i e l d , Ok. Date o f Leaee E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : 12-31-2000 
1/2 Ib ' T E R E S T w m - SEk of AN U- 
32. KIOWA #2983, 30.00 
3 3 . KIOWA / 3 0 7 3 , BO.00 A C m - NfNE+ of S e c t i o n 29-T2S-R14W, I.H., a p p r o x . 
5 m i . S o u t h and 1 / 2 m i . West of C h a t t a n o o g a , Ok. Date o f Lease E x p i r a t i o n - S u r f a c e : 
12/31/98 M i n e r a l : None. 
34. COMANCHE 13129, 
E x p i r a t i o n - H i n e r a l s : None 
S e c t i o n 31-T4S-R14W. I . H . , a p p r o x . 4 mi. S o u t h of G r a n d f i e l d , Ok. Date o f Lease INVIHATION NO. 67 
SALE OF INDIAN LANDS HAS 
BEEN WITHDRAWN. 
SEALED BIDS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR 
HAS BEEN WITHDRAW. 
ACCEPTANCE ON 6/18/98 AT 1O:OO AM AT 
THE ANADARKO AGENCY, ANADARKO, OK 
HOWEVER, A NEW INVITATION FOR BIDS 
STANDARD TIME, DST, AT THE ANADARKO 
NO. 68 IS HEREBY ISSUED. THE DATE AND 
TIME IS : 8/21/98 AT 10~00 AM CENTRAL 
AGENCY, ANADARKO, OK. 
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU MAY 
CONTACT MS. FREDA TATE AT 
405/24713709, EXT 226, 
08/30/2004 MON 16:lO [TX/Rx NO 68211 @ l O O 2 B 1 A bYKU KhALLl 
' ~ n r r . r a r k o n r O R 8 1 0 9 - S s A L B O F I N D I R K L A N D 5 
INVLTATXON NO. La-Rids r i b 1 be eeecived ISSDFD BYs AlJADARUO AGENCYl P . 0 . BOX 309 
08/30/2UO4 1 6 : 2 2 k i \ h 4U5 2 4 / 2YUS 
A ~ g . 3 0 ~ 2004 3:IOPM 
UHITBD STATER 
DEPlrRTMRNT OP THX INTlGRKOR 
BURIAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 
DATED: 
8-D 
u n t i l and opcncd a t lot00 k.N. Local Flme 
D ) a t e r A u g u u t 21, 1998 
AnaclArkn Agency Conference mom 
Anaerrkn, oklahclrm 73005 
at 
-, 
WAIUa, OILWDUA 73005 
E N t y Tippcaannic, fupbtiptandcnt 
sum 6 , 1998 
8108, subject t o tho t- 
payable t o the -, 
and conditions of t h t e i n v i t a t i o n . w i l l be rn-i-d 
the &err offico u n t i l th- deaignatrd tim for public OpRning. A 1 1 sealed bida'of Indlan 
land offered for aalc awst be acCCImpded by B Ilaahler'e chec;L. CPr- 
for not l e e s than 10% of t h u total 
o f f e r made. Do not present porronal checks unleee c o r t t f i a d . 
CUM.UG W lWUAl!" OF ALL BLPLL P E U - 
appraisal, that bid wlll be taken under edvlsmmnt by the Superintendant or his 
Should the high b i d a t the auction of much ltems be found to be coneistent wlth tho 
Gubject t o rhe aceepcance and approval by the Superintendent, tho high 
bidder w i l l be requbed to lncreaee the anrount of U s deposit to not l e e s than l a b of tho 
rapreeentarLve. 
amount bid end amend his sealed h i d accardhgly. 
rhe right is reserved to rejecs any pnd dl blde and co disapprove any transaction a t any 
time prior t o final Bpproval and delivery of n doud or Fesuance of a patent-in-fee l n 
accordance with the Code of Federal Regulatiaua, T i t l e 25, Indime, Part 152. 
General information and specific Lnutructiona to bidders iwa contained i n tho Inmtructhns 
t o Biddrrw, Turn., and Condition of t h e Invitation for R i d s , en Che reverac hereof. lar 
OIT ucitei detailed infornltian c.11 
He. rroda Tate, ~ e a l t y 8pecialiet. Telephone NO. ( Q 0 5 ) 247-3709, r x - 226 
@ranch of Real Prqmrty Hanaqpaont, Anedrrka Ag-nry, Anadarko, Ot. 73001 
S c H k b U L I - O F - B I D 8 
- __ 
I 
I 
The undersigned agreea that i f the mount offered, for any item or itome i n the u b p v bc 
accepted. he w L l l within 30 ca1end.v days from date of receipt of notice of award) d c p o a i t 
with issuing offlce, Bureau of Indlan Affaira, the full amount ot him o f f ~ r , vith 
e t i p l l a t a d mcllou faa. and that faLLuru t o makm muoh d i p a m i t u i t h h the upeoi€ied C h w i l l 
EalUtitUtC a forfmituri Bf 10% o f t h m amunt offered on e&cll ouch item. Fhs undersigned 
a i a o agreee t h a t the BUTeEll of Indlan ArZIalre shall have an Frrevocable option for a 
period of 120 deye a f t e r the date m t for bid opening t o accppt any one or mom than one 
of t h e above bide. 
IN ADDITIDA TO TKB CONBIURRATION IKIR TLtE 
SXQNhTURE OF BIDDER 
NAHE OF B I D O W ( p r i n t ur type) 
LAND, THB PWRCiiaBER WILL 811 REQUITIRED r0 
DEPOEIT 1M. BVH aF S%5Q TO COWR lKLI 
WST OF WNWMQ AND BALICEB nm FOR 
EACH SBPARATB ITBH WHXN HE IS NOTIFIED 
ADDR16B (print ol typu)ZIP WDE THAT HI I8 TKE BUCCEBLIIVt BIDDER. 
c 
! 
I . B I A SPRO REALTY 08/30/2004 1 6 : 2 2 FAX 405 247 2905 
A ~ g . 3 0 ~ 2 0 0 4 3:lOPM N o . 1 9 9 2 2. 4 rn." - ELds, wLc5 t h e i r guarantits, mudk be e e c u r e l y mawruB i n 1. 
o u l t a b h anrmlwpp.e, addredltd co the Agency offico ir-uinq t h i n I n v i t a t i o n and marked on 
t h u o u t s i d e with t h o i n v i t a t i o n number end d a t e of oponing, both of which may be f o m d I n 
the block oppaeite t h e name ol t h e i e s u h g office on the front of thiE farm. 
2 . - Fama fbrniahed, or copies t h o r o o f , r h a l l be used. and d t s i o t 
mmpllanco wlth reqwircmanti of t h e I n v i t a t i o n . and t h o s o i n a t r u c t l o n s are necos=a*y. 
Opecial care should bo saxorcisad in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and oubmiaaion of bids to doout* fbll 
coraplianco wLth t h o i n v i t a t h n and i n e t r u c t i o n s , A l l itard nWnbere and pricca n h z l l l be 
fully and c l r a r l y det f o r t h . 
3 . - Each bid muat give t h e address of t h o bidder and be eigned b y him 
The name OK each person o i q n i n q dhali he typed or printcd behw 
4. 
the slgnaturo of th= bidder. 
FOR REc- 
wich his ueual signrturo. 
t h e s i g n a t u r e . 
COflRECTIOm - Prapuraa olt o t h e r changes In tho b i d muat be e x p l a h e d or potcd over 
- Bide r e c e i n d prinr t o the tlma of openingr will be securely 
The ofricer whoso duty it i o t o open them will docidm whrn t h e e p e c l f i c d 
5 . 
kopt, unopmnd. 
t i m a ham u t i v c d , and no h l d rocoived t h r r a a f t e r will be conuidormd. No r e s p a n a i b i l i t y 
will bt sttscbed to an officer for the yrcmsture opening of a bid noC p r o p e r l y addromo=d 
afid IdeneLlied. "elugraphic bids v i l l not be ooneidorod, b u t r a o d i f i c a t b n u by tolograph 
of bide a l r e a d y auhmittod will be conaldered i f roceivocl prior Lo tha hour set f o C 
open-. - Bida may be ulthdrnwn a n writton ar t e l e g r a p h i c requeet rmcaivcd 6. 
from biddqtia prlw to the t h e f1x.d for openlng. 
preparing t h o h i d c o n f e r s no r i g h t t o withdt-w the bld after tho timo f o r a u b m i t t h g b i d s 
Negligence on the part of t h e b i d d e r in 
- A t t h e t h e fixed f o r t h r opening of b i d e , t h e i r content6 r i l l be 
has expirod. (DOI move section 5 ) . 
7 . 
made public for t h h information aE biddors and athere l n t e r e e t e d , who may be preEenC 
e, 
o i t h o r In pmrmon of by repreeentativm. 
- TQm award will be made t o thm highcdt b i a d e r complying 
w i t h b k a t h n foe bids. providod him bid i s KeAOOnable and it is 
La t h e ' i n t e r e e t of t h o tndirn o.mer and t h e m i t o d d t a t c s to acoepr it. The b i d d r r to 
whom the award i e t o bi made 4 1 1 be notlfied a t t h o earliest poseible d a t o a f t e r the 
Euperhtondont approves t h e s a l e . The Bupcrink8ndant 6100 r 0 B B I v B B t h o right CO reject 
any a n d , a I l bid= and to weive any infonnrlity i n b i d s recalved whunmvmr much rejection OK 
wdvor Is in tlm l n t e r e s t of t h o Indiqn ovnere o r the u n i t e d B t a t s m . 
9 . '-,- 
inapection o t t h e preniaem t o obacrva a l l phyaical m n d i t t c n h , apparent ancumbranc-, 
Bidder. or t h r i r authorized agente a n expmctcd t o rbake a v i s u a l 
bidder oannnt aecure relief: on the LCUCEE, ekc. Acceea is not guaranteed or *-ranted. 
plea of error in t h o b i d or in h i s l a c k of undermtmding the facts and circumstances. 
10. Government apprrimals of Che herein described property w i l l n o t be mado available to 
, t h e pflneral p u b l i c . 
of e x i e t l n g oil and gan, mlnfng or surface loaso contracte, permits, masomwks or righte- 
. 
11. The land herein advcrtieed for ealo w i l l b m n s l d s a j e c t to the tom# mnd oonditionw 
RENT5 
of-way of record w i t h t h o Bureau of Indian A f f a i r 0 or in beLng. 
authorlted bgents, may examine c r i s t i n g leaas c o n t r a c t s 4 4 perdre at the i P U U i n Q office. 
Thc Unltea States doos n o t rcqhrd P eale as havinq bmrn cur\sllmmeced u n t i l approval and 
a a t u a l d e l i v e r y of t h o ' d u d PL. incrunnce of a i e o pattnt t o t h e purchaasr; hov--r, 
(cash or crop), for Ch- l e a e e c o n t r a c t yoar in rhioh t h e land is otforsd for .Pled Are 
Bidders or thrit 
advanco r e n t a l payment6 6 . r ~ authoriced by t h e Agency O f f i c e and have in fact been 
reeerved to t h o Indian ounero without roqad ta the date t h e salo i o compleked. khero 
collsCtmd by the Indisn ownera beyond tb@ lease contract year $n which the l a n d i o offered 
for sale, #uch prepaid r e n t n w i l l be refunded to t h e purchanmr, efter f u l l payment of the 
purchaac p t i a c and Pormal approval of the 681.2 craneaction. 
12. Nincr%lm, i n c l u d h g oil and gad, ar@ t o be eold with t h r land a d v e r t i e e d unlws 
roocrvcd as i n d i c a t e d on tho attschml Schedule. Purchaeorr of mlneral lntarcirt will be 
e n t i t l e d t o royalty for 011 and gr# pcaduced on and a f t o r t h o f i r e t of the month following 
the manth Ln which title is conveyed. 
13- A 1 1 tract6 listod with a etatemedt ahowlng t h a t an o i l &nd gas leaoe in "Pending" or 
"Pending Approral" ara belrrg oitered BUBJECl ' t o a8id leaee. Upon approval of such pendinp 
mineral lo4-r-, the uadh bonus and fir& year rdvance rentaie r l l l bc paid Co end r e t a i n e d 
by t h a r m m p r c t i v e 'Indian awnersj t h o purchammr to r e c e i v e all future renral payments and 
*Slnt?&I r i g h t 8 canweyed with th. land. 
14. T l C l e to land aold au a rmault of t h i e sdvertieomont rill be convoyed i n a fw uirnple 
8tatUE by e i t h e r p a t e n t i n far, or apfiroved deed. The c u r t of required documentary revenue 
atampa s h a l l be borne by tho purchasmr* 
15. Evidence OC tLtle t o t h e lands h e r e i n offe:ed f o r sale. such a# colamercial a b e t r a c t r 
him & him own c o d t and expense and will n o t ba furnlehecl by t h e Covsrnmcnk or Indian 
c 
01 t i t l o cortifieatecl whlch may be deeirod by tha s~cceeaful biddsr. wi,ll be procured by 
m u r . InapmctLan may made: h m v a r , of r r a i l a l l e deede. probate prWeedLnga, and o t h o r 
t i t l e documonfa a f rcoord In t h e local b p n c y d f i a e of the Bureau o f Indian Affaire. - A l l bidder. a r e vsrried a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n of 10 U.S.C. 1860, 16. 
p r o h i b i t i n g snlrwful aoabinatlan or intimidation of bldders. 
17. T i t l o t o landu sold as P r e s u l t af t h i u sdvertleement w i l l n o t he coneeysd u n t i l suck 
t h o aa tho rrqqifudentd of t h e National Ehvirortmental Policy A c t huvo been satisfied. 
08/30/2004 MON 1 ' 6 : l O "I'X/RX NO 68211 @I004 0 8 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 4 1 6 : 2 3 FAX 405 247 2905 
- s+q+w+rruf of scation 1Z-T7N-R11Wr ran., 
A u g . 3 0 . 2 0 0 4 3 . 1 IPM 
Dati of- imam Exgiritian - Burfacma 12-31-99 
mi. 
4 , 
South 
fADDO 
& 
C209, 
1/2 m i . 
uO.00 
Bart of Bingrc, bk, n s t r 
- 
of 
SE!g 
LCB~IC 
o€ Section 
ExpiratLon 
2-l'9N-RllUl - Nlner8l.e: 
I.H., 
Aone 
ApproX. 2 
awprm. 1 m a . Caet of Washit., Ok. Dat. of C8Aaa Prpiratlon - surfacer None. 
5 - WICHITA #865, 10.00 
h C t i 0 n 15-T5N-R10Ml 1.H.. appran, 1% mi. W-at mnd 1 mF. North of C y r i l , OX. Date O f 
Leama Pxpiration - M i n o r a l a r None. 
I 
6 . & P A W $2616. 2 IN HIP&- - Nwk of 
Bmg. A t I poirlt 900' West of the Centsr Of 9t4NBkBVk 6 a t r a c t of land doscrib-4 .at 
7. KIOWA #lo26 h KIOWA 2533, 5 - W'INECSW~, 
Section 7-T7N-R13WI I . Y . , thanac North 1 5 0 ' , thenoa i n a Southweatsrly dimction along tho 
c e n t e r line of m y . # Y a dietance of 5 0 0 ' . thence 6outh l a g ' , thonoe Saak 3SO' t o the 
of Crmegie, Ok. on tryr 89. Uato of Loass Explretilmr P.O.E., Appror. 112 mi. We- 
EUfaCe: None 
8 . FT. SILL APACBE #SOa, 
I . X . , Appmx. 1 ml. Rortb at Apache. ok. Pate of Lea68 Expirrticm - ninoriloi )Jon* 
9 . IT. BILL A P M g e #67. 
section 9-TSN-IUlW, 1.n.. A p x . 1 112 mi. north of AvChm, Ok- Date of L a m e 
Expiration: niaerale: None 
10. C M D O 307, - NhNEk, EEkNBk, 84NE4SE!$K&%SEkr #wkSE.kw%SE%r 
B$SEfNEfSK&, mHgfSEf & N%KE&SXf of Bection 7-TBti-R9#, I . H . , Appror 3 mi. Pbat Of 
6racemat, ok. nate oi Lease axpiration - Burfaom: 11/31/90 
. . 
- nJm"wmisE4 of Boctian 4-T5N-R11Wr 
- EbEhNWkNEkNWk ti W$W4NEtNEkNWk Of 
z 
11. c o m c m #a6413. 
Ilinaralgi WOQC 
-N. aT 
1 4 . COHANCRR C2032, - - l E 
ADDITKIN LO- 
Xinoralmr Nan. 
1.n.. THENCS 1485' E a s t , than- 193.33' South, thenoe 1486' ?met, 
15. COMANWR! #783, J0.00 - - W e 
BDCTXON 24-f4N-hZlW. 
thence 293.33' North t o the P.O.B. Agprcx. 4 mi. Womt f 1 mi. South of Fletcher, Ok. 
Data of Lcaee Xxpiration - surfacer Nono 
TlIL-RlZC, 
is. COMRNCHE 
I . H . , 
m i o . 
kppmx. 5 m i . h o t of JI.axor(, Ok. 
- H+SWfCWk, 
Date of Leam 
SE$SU$ 
ExpiratLon 
C NkSW% of - surface: 
EectiOn 17- 
12- 
31-3000 
v 
N%IP%NW+NW~ f t i 5 @ @ + ~ r r w % of SectLon 10-TSN-RllW, 1.24.. approx. 1 3 / 4 m i . North of ApsOhe, 
11. EMNWHlS 1719, / - 
ak. Date of Learn WlpLration - Hherals: None 
together w i t h an eaaement for ingreeo/egrmms purponmo dmecrihd ear the north 20 f e e t of 
Y 
Ok. 
N S R U k B ~ 
Date 
and 
of Lease 
WWLNSfSW!, 
Expixation 
of maid - e e c t i o n 
surface: 
28. 
None. 
Approx. 3 m i . WCdt hnd 112 m i . South of cache. 
c 112 nrrlsaui - NE4 o f section 3 2 - ~ 3 n - ~ 9 ~ , r , n . , 
Apgron. 
13. COMANCHE 
3 mi, 
#95, 
Suuth of Sterling, Dk, Pat- Of L c 4 l C hxph?fiCiOn - Burface: 12-31-99 
o h Date of Leeee Lwplration 
54. - 67 
5urface: 
6i 7 3 4 
None 
- IpELN&SWk of B n c t i o n ~ ~ - ! L Y ? N - R ~ A w , I . W . , 
E M . PT 1466.65' SOWTX NW/CORNER 8W% O? 
08/30/2004 MON 16:lO [TX/RX NO 68211 @lo05 
'. . 
( 1 1 I 
N o - 1 9 9 2 P . 5 UJu1n U I A S P R O REALTY 
N o . 1 9 9 2 P . 6 
thence 500.ld'56-W d25.85', chence 189'59-31- Went 1 3 1 4 . 6 3 ' . thcnae NOOd15'31" Eaet 
425.80' to the W B , Approx. 2 112 m l . Bouth C 1/2 ml. Weeat of Apache, ok. Date of Lea613 
W3W&EWX - W%R%N-&SEh. kd$EIBk# 
- Nwt 02 sectlan 
Euphation - Surfsoel 12-31-98 
18. COtlXNiXW t 2 5 5 7 , 
19. UJXRNCHE 1456. - Lot 1 (NWhNWt) and NEbNkb of B m r t i a j l 19- 
T3N-RlCW. I.H., npprux. 1 m i . rant and 1 112 mi. north of Mountain Park, Ok. Date Of 
Lea#* Expirrtion - )tlne~raler None - 314 
WWiW~BXtSXf, 
m l . ESOP of 
NW%SVJ%S&kSEb, 
Lake Lewtonlca, 
NbsFfkBEk 
Lawton, 
6 Sh6EkBI448Bk 
Ok. Data of 
at 
Leama 
Saction 
Expiration 
15-TJN-R1PW, - Surface: 
I.H.. 
RDnO 
Approxi 
14 
2 0 . 
m i - 
WNANCRs. 
swtb and 
f 1 9 7 2 , 
7 mi. west of Temple, ok. D a t e of teaso Expactation - Surface: 
12/31/2000 
BrpFraCion - Burfacot 12-31-98 Mineralax Naae. 
08/30/2004 1 6 : 2 3 FAX 405 247 2905 
A u L ~ U . 2 U U 4 3 : l iPM 
17, m c ~ g s746, - A t r a c t of land i n the mir of B e c t i O n 5-T3t?-R11Wl I.N., 
dcsarhaa ns Bag. at the NW/Cozaer of Sectlon 5-T3R-~llW thancr 889"39'31" Eeet 1314.56'. 
~ n e r a l e : Nana 
- a& of loctinn 3 2 4 3 S - R i l W , I.H., apprax. 
- AAc of Boctlon 6-TdB-R13U, I . M . , Approx. 
P 
22-T28-R12W, I.L., Approx. 7 m i . Beat L 112 al. North of Waltere, bk. Datr of Leame 
21. c o w a m #149e, -- 
27.. COHANCRB CJ232. 
6% mi. B a r t of Orandfield, Ok. Date of L a a m Expiration - Burfacer None. 
2 3 . cmmRcHB t l 5 2 1 , - YP%SEL Of SeatLon 24-T3E-RlIW, I . H . 
- C4SW&NWb and S ~ W ~ S U k N W ~ and E%E%sCW%W~BW~NW~ and SE&W# Of 
together with an Basement along tho Hrwt 2 0 ' Of the SE%SEt of eaid 8ection 24. & p p C O x . 3 
ml, East ti 112 mi. eouth of fomplo, Ok. D a t e of Lease Expirstion - autf.cel Nofie 
'.20. 
1 ~d. 
Urn 
EEEt 
11350, 
md lo+ mt. south of Hountain View, Ok. Date of Leame EwpLrecion - 
flurfica: ncno Minoralo: Nonu. 
lll0warwEJ.m-x 
- U% of Lot 3 (NDikBm) of Section ll-P6M-RlbWl I.P.. appro%. 
- UhE#NWtm~sWfNWb and W$NHtNWtm;utmf and 
r ( ~ ~ u w ~ N U 4 S W ~ N W ~ and W$B$B4NW$NWfSWWWk and lW?SkNEfSW%NWkBWkNW~ and NU$NE$SW%W$SU%tW% 
35. KIOWA #7526, 2.234375 
of Bodion 1-16n-ll14W. I.H., appron. 4 ral. south and Ik ml.. Weet a t Crm.giR, Ok. 
Data of Loam EYpLratlon - Burfacr: Nvnr. 
26. KIOWA t2526, 
SectLon l-TtiA-R14if, I.w., togsther with a porpatuul r / w for lngress and eqresa purgolem 
daacrlbed sa the south 20 test of tho fiW~N$BN$NW~ mnd W$E~iifW4SWtNWS and W~a8&W$W$SUkNR& 
Of Sectlon 1-T61-R1dW. I . U . , approx. 
4 m i . Bourh and 1& mi, west of Camavir, Ok, Date or Lease axpixation - durfacmrdNone 
Minerals : None. 
27. luOrm 12116, 
south Lincoln, In BE&W~ of aoction 3-TsN-Rl853, I . W . , origlnal !Mwnsite of Hobart, Ok. 
- Lot 6 , Block 50 locatcd a t 029 
- SF#W+NWk, EhNWkNE%MJC, SWkNWIINEkNWk, 
D a t e of teanc I x p i n t i u n - Surfacct NMC. Minerale: Hone 
E!+WtNUtNE+N+& 
CAtficgic, Ok. Date 
of Scoklan 
af b a o c 
13-T5N-UldWl 
mpiratlon - I.H., 
surface: 
Approx. 
none 
13 m i . South C 1/P m i W e E t Of 
- &SEk of Bectian 5-T7N-R14Wr I . Y . , Approx. 4 
- w+%k o l Section 29-TZB-Rl4W. I . M - , a m a x . 
28. XJOWI #l238, 
- m+mSKWwt ti NJ$EtNE+NW?i of Seatlon 13-T51- 
R l d W , I . Y . , Apprax. 13 mi Sautn Ci 1 1/6 ml WaeC o f CarnegLQ, Ok. Date of Lease Expiracian 
29. xran ~ C L ~ E , 
- Surfma 11-31-21300 
11. X I ~ #66s-B, -Lr 
32. KIOWA J2943, - *SWk bf sockion ll-T48-R16W, I.M., epprox. 9 
m i . Wcot C 112 South of Orandfield, Ok. Date Of Loam Expiration - Suifaccr 32-31-2000 
30. KIOWA 66694, 
1/2 Id. West of Carsegie, Dk. D a t e of L@e.ae Ixpiraticn - Bqrfacri None - - WhSrC of Boction 5-T7N-RldW, I.W., Appraw. 4 
1/2 mi. Weat oI! Carnegle, ok. Ro Legal Acceso. Date of Loam- ExpiratLon - Surface: None 
121 31/98 nheral: None. 
33. 
5 aL. 
KIOWA 
South 
13073, 
~d l / a mi. West of cbatcanooga, Ok. Date of LRavm Erpiration - Surface: 
- SEk of 34. CUHA&CBE 13129. w. AN UrPbIVltil$ 1/2 
Section 31-T4s-R14w. I.H., appmm, 4 ml. e w t h ef Urnndficld, Dk. Date of Leema 
Bxgir+Aon - kllnozalrr Nonu 
- , 
08/30/2004 KON 16:lO [TX/RX NO 68211 @OOS MU18 B I A SPRO REALTY 08/30/2004 16:44 FAX 405 247 2905 
N o . 1 9 9 2 P . 5 A u g . 3 0 . 2 0 0 4 3:llPM 
aatn AaaLtIon, loaatmd at 816 wcot Kentuany, uaaakxo, on. Date of Learn Rrpiracion - 1- C P m 1654, 5 P 3 - Lot 7 , Block 4, 
BUrfaCBI Mom 
: 3- APACITW f554, 50.00 ACRES S- 
I . M . , Appro%. c1 mi. W u m t t 1/4 m i . North a€ Stacker, Ok. turnofr on Efwy 62. 
I.Y., 
2 . CADDO 
apptor. 
CZ07, 
11/1 mi. South of Binper, Ok. 
- 9Ek 
Date 
Of 
Of 
b a r t i o n 
Ledge Expiration 
3-TPW-RllW, - Surface: None - N+N+SW+ c N$M~&M+SW% of section 29-~6N-R12W, 
oat; of h r r r o Expiration - Surtacrr a2-31-PO 
mi. 
4 , 
Swth 
CADDO 
P 
#209, 
112 mi. Eaat of Btng+s, Ok, Dat.! 
- 
o f 
SB% 
Lciaae 
of Saetion 
ExpiratLon 
2-TBN-IU1W, - Minerah: 
I.X., 
none 
approx. 2 
- S)tN%NW*NW& of Seation 12-T7N-R1151, X . E L l 
appmr. 1 m i . Paat of WarhLtm, Ok, D a t i e€ ham8 &Expiration - Surfacex None. 
apprur, a& m i . W ~ # l r and 1 mr. North a€ C y r i l , Ok. Dace of 
& 3 7. KIOWA $1026 P KIOWA 2533, 
6- WICHITA 1865, W- 10.00 
6. APACIlll f2816, H T IN NINE- - Nwk of 
Laaih ~ x p i r u t b n - Minmralwr None. 
Section 15-TSN-R30#, X.W.. 
#ElrNE$8Wk 4 a traat of land deocrlhwl air B q , A t a point 900' Went ef the Center of 
Scutioa 7-T7#-R13WI I . Y . , thenac Nartb 160', thenas In d Sauthweeterly direction along tho 
. ' I ' 8. Fl'. 
10. WDO 307, mxum 
- Wqvekswkf 
P.0.5.. Approx. 112 m i . Rea% of Carneglo. ak. on HWy #9. Date of Lsavr Lxgirstinnr 
center lina of my. #9 a d i u t m e of 1 0 0 1 , thence Bauth 1 2 S r , thence Giant 1 5 0 ' to the 
SIkL l&m 1500, 
- EkEhNWkNE4NWk i5 W%W%NE%N&%H"?a Cf 
XWfraWt NO- - nllNU4msa?I of BBCtiOri 4-T5N-RllW, 
I.I.. nppox. 2 nl. Earth o f zipnobe, ok. Data of maae Expixation - ninoralmr Naaa 
' 9 . W. EILL ILP- 
Appmx. 1 1/2 d. north of Apmho, Ok. Dnte of Lenee 
- NWEQ'. BEkNdk, &NE%SB%NEkfEk, Nw%SEf"iWEkf . 
3 mi. Pndt Of 
f67, 
B8&iOn 9-TSlS-nllw, 1.n.. 
' BnpkabtLoni ,nFnoraluc NO- 
GraEOarJnt, 
S%!ZEfNEfSEh, 
ok. 
BW4kTB+6E+ 
Date of Leame 
0 N%UE%SEb 
Expiration 
Ol sootion - Burfacar 
7-T.8N-R9(ntr 
12/3L/P€t 
I.H., WlmX 
c 
NhNWCawk and m4m~sn& of said section 28. Approx. 3 m i . W e & 4nd 112 mi. South of Cache, 
Ayerox. 
13. CoklANCHB 
3 
-E 
ni. 
C95, 
l o u t h of $tor;ling, Ok, Dmtr af L C A S ~ Enpkneion - surfroe; 12-31-99 
Yin=ralsa Ncnm 
AT 
bc 111 NSNEJ3b;LG - tzet of section 32-13#-~9~, r.n., 
Date of Itearno Expiration - Burface: Nom 
v 
- NfikNEkSw4 of Suction !28-T3N-RldWl I . H . , 
11. C 0 M h N ~ ' # 7 1 g f 
Ok. 
NhN+NWkNWk 
Dhte O f 
f 
L R M O 
e@&R'U&HU% 
Expl*ncion 
QI? sectdon - H h r R l U ; 
~o-l'5IW-R1~WI 
None 
1-25., approx. 1 314 mi, Narth of Aprahe, 
12. CC)IGWCHE 11648, 
together wich au easement for tngrwea/egrvar purpaaea ddcribeU aer the north 20 feet of 
Ok. Date of Learns Expirabion - surfacer None. 
M V g - 
Y 
-. * 
ld. CmmNCHP C1032, > 54. 67 
Hinrralar Nonm 
1 5 . CDXANCWE $783, - HLP BEQ. PT 1466.65' SOUTH NW/WRNLR SWk OF 
I.&. THENCE 1485' Past, t h a n e 2 9 3 . 3 3 ' South, thenos 1466' weat, 
Approx. 4 mi. Womt 0 2 m i . South of Fletcher, ok. thenoo 193.33' Worth to the P.0.S. 
- NWkSWkr SE!$W$ 
SECTION 24-?4X-llllW, 
Date of qeaee Expirattion - Burfacmt None 
T18-n13Ci 
16. cdll\)rcn8 
I.R., 
#29lo. 
Approx. 
~ 0 . 0 0 
S mi. l a s t of Paxon, Ok. D a t e of Lanee Expirnclon 
0 WWr, Of - surface: 
Beotion 17- 
11- 
31-2000 
08/30/2004 MON 16:lO CTX/RX NO 68211 @OD5 9OOm I T Z 8 9 ON IM/XJ,I 0T:ST NOH tOOZ/OE/80 
W d W E PO02 ' O E ' W 
L L W E I H OHdS VI8 9 0 6 1 LPZ BOP XVd 9 P : 9 T POOZ/O&/80 .... 
The Bureau of Indian ),iffairs, Anadarko Agency, 
Advertised Land Sale, Invitation #69 scheduled for 
September I, 2004 at .\ 0:OO A.M. is hereby can- 
celled. Bidders may pick up their sealed bids. 
s- Betty f3. Tippeconniel Superintendent 
Date: 8-30-04 
EXHIBIT 4 
Defendants Supplemental Memorandum in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary 
Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction S e P . I I 2004 9:IOAM N o . 2 0 2 1 2 . 3 
i i 12/08/Q8 12:51 F.U 2 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 8 8 NARF DC @ OOJ 
IN THE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
on 
t h e i r own behalf and on behalf 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL eit-d-, 
of all persons similarly 
I 
i 
) Civil Action 
1 
) No. 96-1285 (RCL) 
1 
1 
1 
1 
situated, 
V. 
- 
included in the reporting system c u r r e n t l y being used, and in 
effect to define its t r u s t duties by the scope o f that reporting 
system- thus implying that the government: can relieve itself of 
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the 
I n t e r i o r , et, 
PLAINTIFFS ' MEMORANDUM 
CONCEIiNIN G S C O P E O L A N D m D MATIERS 
At the hearing on November 23 (Tr. 31), plaintiffs 
undertook to file w i t h the C o u r t a statement w i t h respect to the 
persons on whose behalf t h i s lawsuit was filed and whom they 
understand to be members of the c l a a g . 
Confusion has been injected by the government's effort to 
n a r r o w the class simply to those t r u s t beneficiaries that it has 
trust duties by f a i l i n g to s e t up an adequate system. 
Our understanding is as f o l l o w s . 
1. Every individual Indian (or, in appropriate cases, h i s 
heirs, estate, or personal representative) on whose behalf, as 
12/08/98 TUE 12:jl [TURX NO 88671 
EXHIBIT 5 
Defendants Supplemental Memorandum in 
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary 
Restrarmng Order and for Preliminary Injunction - . 
t r u s t beneficiary, a t r u s t account is, has been, should be, or 
should have been maintained w i t h the United States or its agent, 
is a m e m b e r of the plaintiff class. An "account holder" and a 
"trust beneficiary" are simply two term for the same person. 
Such accounts c e commonly referred to as "individual Indian 
money accounts" ("1124 accounts"), to dbtinguish t h e m from 
=tribal accounts, " which reflect trusts f o r the b e n e f i t of 
t r i b s rather than of individual Indians - 1 
2. Beginning in approximately 1985 and extending over 
several aubsequent y e a r s , the government established an 
electronic d-atabase and associated accounting programs for t h e 
management of some, U, IIM accounts. It is operated 
by the O f f i c e of Trust Fund Management ( "OTFM" ) , which u n t i l 
recently was part of t h e BIA but has been transferred to t h e 
O f f i c e of the Special Trustee. In this lawsuit, this database 
with its associated programs has sometimes been referred to a6 
"the System" (more f u l l y , 'the OTFM IIM System"). An account, 
or an aspect of an account, has been s a i d to be "on the S y s t e m " 
if it is included in t h i s database.* As is explained further 
1 There may be more than one account with respect to a claes 
m e m b e r . For example, a claes m e m b e r may have i n h e r i t e d an 
interest in a tract of timberland from her mother and an 
interest in a tract of grazing land from her father. 
the same trust asaet; f o r example, a l l t h e great-grandchildren 
similarly, many different class members may have an interest i n 
predecessors in interest. 
of an original allottee of a tract may have i n t e r e s t s in the 
t r a c t . A l l are m e m b e r s of the class. So are their 
2 We have frequently spoken of "fixing t h e system" as one of t h e 
goals of t h i s l a w s u i t . T h i s does not refer to merely repairing 
t h e existing "SyetemiI (it is beyond r e p a i r ) , but to ensuring 
-2- 
12/08/98 TUE 12:51 [TX/RX NO 88671 1 2 / 0 8 / 9 8 12:51 FAX 2 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 6 8 @I 0 0 5 NARF DC 
3. W i t h respect to an undetermined number of class 
members, account management ( or portions thereof) is performed 
not by an agency of the United States directly but by an Indian 
tribe, pursuant to a compact or contract between the United 
States and the tribe. For such an account, the tribe, in 
general, manages t h e money (and perhaps the underlying asset), 
holds it, and suppasedly pays it over to t h e account holder 
(beneficiary). All such a c t i v i t y is conducted, however, by the 
t r i b e as agent f o r the trustee, the United S t a t e s . It holds and 
pays the-money as agent f o r the United States. For purposes of 
this lawsuit, such accounts and their accountholders ( t r u s t 
beneficiaries ) , including the money relevant thereto, stand on 
exactly the same footing as do the accounts and money managed 
&ectly by the United S t a t e s and t h e i r accountholders (trust 
beneficiaries). Such an accountholder (trust beneficiary)-is a 
class member j u s t as is an individual whose account is managed 
directly by the defendants. 
4 . Contrazy t o the impression created by t h e government, 
we are aware of I l H account^ managed by tribes which are n o t ''on 
t h e System" as of this time. Accountholders (trust 
~ -~ 
across t h e boaxd that the management of individual Indian 
trusts is placed on a satisfactory basis. 
12/08/98 TUE 12:Sl [TXIRX NO 88671 
-3- 12/08/98 12:52 FAX 2028220088 NARF DC - @lo06 
beneficiaries) of accounts managed by tribes and not "on the 
System" are members of the class j u s t aB are accountholders 
(trUBt beneficiaries) with respect to whom the U n i t e d States has 
not contracted out t h e i r account management. Note t h a t when a 
beneficiary who is "on t h e System" has h i s account transferred 
to management by a tribe, prior transactions may remain "on the 
System" and h i s account may subsequently be automatically 
designated aa "inactive" after no new t r a n s a c t i o n s are reported 
on it for a period of time. 
5. Some account holders ( t r u s t beneficiuies) may have 
never been "on t h e System" becauee they ceased to be 
accountholders (trust beneficiaries) before the current "system1' 
was established. This does not affect the status of such 
persons as members of the class. 
6. -The foregoing are the two most important reasons now 
known to us that a class member's account(s) might be not "on 
" nwr d w s 
the system." There may be many other reasons ( i n c l u d i n g simple 
incompetence). We reiterate t h e basic point: The class is 
ts are 'on the d x- 
'Svs r-ent 
be on one s i n g l e SyBtem. 
an element of the relief sought in t h i a case. 
-4 - 
- 
3 The Special Trustee, Paul Homan, testified at his deposition 
that all accounts, including those managed by the tribos, 
be on the System; perhaps m o r e accurately, all accounts, 
whether managed by tribes or by t h e government directly, should 
Correction of t h i s situation w i l l be 
12/08/98 TUE 1 2 : 5 1 [TX/RX NO 88671 7 . Defendants can be expected to allege certain defenses 
against various class members or categories of class members. 
Examples are a claim t h a t the statute of limitations bars a 
class member's rights because she cannot show equitable t o l l i n g ; 
or a claim t h a t t h e class member's agreeing to direct payment of 
hi8 income d k e c t l y from the lessee or other person who exploits 
h i s trust assets constitutes a knowing and informed w a i v e r of 
certain r i g h t s against the trustee. The fact that theae 
defenses might be asserted does not affect the status of such 
persons as class members. 
r 
8 . W e note some features of defendants' management of the 
t r u s t s that can c o n t r i b u t e to confusion and that underscore t h e 
fact that t h e class cannot be defined by reference to t h e 
current ''System" : 
(a3 The defendants have seriously confused t h e situation by 
actually including some trust accounts f o r the benefit of tribes 
suppoaed to include only accounts for individuals . This 
on the current "System, " although the current "System1' is 
category includes (i) so-called "tribal 1124 accounts, I' which 
essentially reflect employment of t h e c u r r e n t "System" to manage 
t r i b a l accounts f o r which it waa not designed; and (ii) some 
accounts on the current "System" which reflect revenue derived 
f r o m tracts of land in vhich both individual8 and a tribe may 
hold beneficial interests. T r i b e s in the latter category will 
obviously benefit from the correction of accountsdn the present 
case just as will individualclaea members, although they are 
not in t h e s t r i c t sense members of the class. 
-5- 
12/08/98 TUE 12:51 [TX/RX NO 88671 
- -. 1 2 l 0 8 / 9 8 1.2; 5 2 F.UL 2028220068 NAR€ DC @ 0 0 8 
(b) In the c u r r e n t "System" there e x i s t accounts called 
qmspecial deposit accounts. " While these ehould only hold money 
of individual Indians, they reflect no class member (trust 
beneficiary) at all. Often carried i n the name of an oil 
company or other lessee of a trust asset, they are accounts 
through which trust Incone may be passed before being 
distributed to t h e beneficiary' B account. 
(Pricewaterhousdaoprs and Arthur Andersen disagree as to how 
these accounts should be treated in a sampling process, but that 
issue is not relevant here. 1 
( c ) When a minor beneficiary with an account on the current 
"System" reaches the age of 18, h i s account is commonly 
relabeled "deceased," and a new account may ba opened for him. 
The funds in t h e "deceased" account may or may not be 
transferred. A f t e r a stated period t h e current "System" 
automatically labels it as "inactive" and ceases to repart 
relevant credit and debit transactions. The current "system" 
thus contains multiple or successor accounts which in reality 
reflect n o t merely the s a m e class member but the same account. 
(d 1 Defendants have permitted agency superintendente -to 
declare persons "incompetent" on t h e i r own authority. When 
account management is transferred to a t r i b e by compact or 
contract, incompetents ' accounts are generally n o t transferred 
and relevant credit and debit transactions mny or may n o t appear 
"on the System." 
9. We take t h i s opportunity to p o i n t out a related 
misapprehension on the government's p a r t . At p. 11 of 
-6- 
12/08/98 TUE 1 2 : 5 1 [TX/RX NO 88671 12/08/98 12:53 FAX 2 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 6 8 NARF DC __ ----_--- Q 009 
"Defendants ' Proposed Case Hanagement Plan and S t a t u s Report" 
f i l e d November 17, 1998, t h e government said: "The accounting 
would be limited to determining whether t h e monies that w e r e 
actually collected w e r e properly accounted f o r j n the-stem 
and not w h e t h e r the proper amount of money was collected.' 
(Emphasis added. ) The underscored words improperly seek to 
limit t h e case to accounts and transactions which are "on the 
System" (as witness the proposition in the preceding sentence 
that "Defendants' accounting obligations are defined as 
accounting for money already existing in t h e system"). On t h e 
other hand, cle agree w i t h the government that "whether the 
proper amount of money w a s collected" is not an issue in the 
case - but not far the government's reasons. Under t r u s t law, a 
trustee is presumed to have discharged its duty to the 
and to have collected "the proper amount of money," benefic*- 
w h e t h e r or not t h e traneaction is recorded accurately. 
-7- 
12/08/98 TUE 12:51 [TX/RX NO 88671 NARF DC 12/08/98 12:53 FhX 2028220068 
~ . , . . , -. ... . ... 
~ 
of Coansel: 
JOHN ECHOBAWR 
Native American Rights mnd 
1506 Broadway 
Boulder, Colorado 80302 
( 303) -447-8760 
HENRY PAUL MOHAGHAN 
435 West 116th Street 
( 212) -854-2644 
New Yosk, New York 10027 
December + -, 1998 
@I 010 
.. . -. . _. . . . - . . 
n Respectfully 8 ul#xnltt ed 
D.C. Bar No. 417748 
P.O. Box 14464 
Washington, D.C. 2 
(2021-662-6775 
D.C. Bar No. 101998/ 
P.O. Box 14464 
WashFnqton, D.C. 20044-4464 
KEITH H m E R 
LORNA BABBY 
N a t i v e American R i g h t s Fund 
D . C . Bar No. 4 Qki 9 
1712 N Street N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202)-785-4166 
-8- 12/08/98 12:53 FAX 2 0 2 8 2 2 0 0 8 8 
Counsel of Record: 
Lewis S. Wiener, Esq. 
I hcrcby ce?tify that on this -z ICATE 
ay of December, 
OF SEXVICE 
1998 copies of the forgoing Plaintiffs’ 
Memorandum Cdnceming Scope of Class and Related Mattas was sent via facsimile and U.S. 
mail, first class, postage prepaid to defendants’ counsel of recard and of counsel as follows: 
3hRF DC 
Edith Blackwell 
Office of the Solicitor 
Division of Indian Affairs 
Department of Interfor 
Wadhiagton, D.C. 20240 
Andrew M. Eschen, Esq. 
E n v i t o n t e n t a l - 
Resources Division 
Department of Justice 
601 Penn. Avenue, N.W. 
Room 5616 
W‘~+hin@~n, D.C. 20044-0663 
Of Counsel: 
Connie Luudgmn 
Office of the Solicitor 
Division of Indian Affairs 
Department of Interior 
1849 C Street, N.W., MS-6456 
Washington, D.C- 20240 
1849 C Street, N.W., MS-6456 
Ingrid Falanga 
Daniel Mazella 
Office of General Counsel 
Department of Treasury 
401 14th Street, S.W. 
Room 531 
Washington, D.C. 20237 
12/08/98 TUE 12:51 [TX/RX NO 88671 
@lo11 c 
ELOUISE PEPION 
V. 
;i.S. i4!ii i I j i C (. CClliRT 
No. ~ : ~ ~ C V O ~ ~ B ~ J K L - ’ - ” \ 1: t \ l h 
(Hon. Alan Balaran, Special Master) 
) 
) 
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary of the 
Interior, et al., 
Defendants. ) 
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM-ADDRESSING PLAINTIFFS’ - 
SCOPE OF CLASS MEMORANDUM 
- . 
Introduction 
At the parties’ first conference with t,he Special Master on March 4, 1999, the Master 
directed defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Concerning Scope of Class and 
Related Matters (December, 8, 1998) (hereinafter cited as “Plts Mem”). Defendants submit this 
memorandum pursuant to those instructions. 
By order entered February 4, 1997, the Court certified the plaintiff class as “present and 
former beneficiaries of Individual Indian Money Accounts.” Plaifitiffs’ scope of class 
memorandum shows plaintiffs’ belief that the class is larger than those account beneficiaries. The 
belief is erroneous. Importantly, however, plaintiffs’ expanded vision of the class has no apparent 
bearing on existing discovery requests. 
- 1 - 
EXHIBIT 6 
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in 
Opposltlon to Plamtlffs’ Motlon for Temporary 
Restrannng Order and for Prellmlnary Inlunctlon - C 
I. The Certified Class Is “Preseot and Former Beneficiaries of Individual 
Iudian Money Acco~ints” Which Docs Not Include Individuals Who 
Allegedly Should Have IIad Accounts, Such as “Direct Pays” 
Plaintiffs filed their scope of class memorandum without an accompanying motion. The 
memorandum therefore does not purport to seek modification of the certified class and is at most 
a statement of views. 
The significant point of departure between the parties, as expressed in the memorandum, 
is plaintiffs’ belief that the certified class includes individual Indians for whom an account “should 
be, or should have been maintained”. Plts Mem, fi 1. They are similarly incorrect to propose 
As explained below, the class simply does not include individuals who have never held I M 
- 
now, two years since certification of the class, that “[aln ‘account holder’ [beneficiary] and a 
‘trust beneficiary’ are simply two terms for the same person”. Id. (emphasis added). The former 
does define the class, as the record shows, but ‘‘trust beneficiary” would extend far beyond 
account holders. For example, “trust beneficiary” includes the trust relationship that exists 
between the Bureau of Indian M a i n (“BIA”) and individuals for managing the land held in trust 
Not all land held in trust earns revenue; therefore, some trust beneficiaries are not IIM account 
holders. In addition, the trust relationship regarding the Secretary’s duty to manage the land is 
not at issue in this case.’ 
accounts. Plaintiffs’ example of such individuals is “direct pays.” Id., 7 7. “Direct pays” are 
individual Indians who receive allotment income, such as mineral royalties, directly from a lessee 
1 
money was collected’ IS not an issue in the case.. ..”); Plaintiffs Revised Memoran t; um Of Points 
See, e.g., Plts Mem, 1 9 (“.. we agree with the government that ‘whether the pro er amount of 
And Authorities 111 Support of Motion For Class Certification, p. 6 (Jan. 14, 1997) (“As of now, 
this action is not one to review the United States’ managemerit of the underlying tnist assets . ”) c c 
or permittee rather than through an IIM account. The BIA and the Minerals Management Service 
(“MMS”) allow direct payments pursuant to 25 C.F.R. 5 162.S(f), as do Tribes operating the real 
estate services program by contract or compact pursuant to 25 1J.S.C tj 450 et w.2 Those 
“direct pay” monies are not processed through an IIM account, nor are they handled in any 
fashion by the United States. Thus, individuals receiving direct payments are not members of the 
class unless they have or had IZM accounts to receive other income. 
Plaintiffs’ recent memorandum 011 scope of class is at odds with their complaint, their 
motion for class certification and the Court’s order certifying the class, all of which make clear 
that the class includes only IIM account beneficiaries. From the beginning of this action, 
plaintiffs unequivocally limited the scope of this action to IIM accounts. Their complaint states 
that: 
Involved in tlis action are accounts commonly referred to as 
Individual lndian Money (“IIM”) accounts. As is more fiilly set 
forth hereinbelow, IIM accounts includemoney which is the 
property of individual Indians, held by the United States as trustee 
on their behalf. 
Complaint, 112. They reiterated this limitation: “This action deals only with Individual Indian 
money accounts.” Id., 7 5 . And, in describing the named plaintiffs as representative of the class, 
they identified them as current or past account holders: 
All named plaintiffs are or have been beneficiaries of the trust 
a For example, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community has a Tribal Self-Governance 
e compact pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq., under which it assumed responsibility for 
individua 
of lease a provals, and collection of lease income. W en 
reparing ose allotment r real 
allottees, 
estate 
it 
services. 
pays that 
T 
money 
services 
direct1 
include 
to the individuals 
the Tribe 
and 
except 
col 
ne 
ects 
otiating 
that, 
the 
if they 
income 
leases, 
are 
exclusive 
for 
minors 
the 
or i 
B 
incompetents, the Tribe sends the money to t e IIM clerk at Salt River to be placeh IIM 
accounts for- those individuals 
- 3 - obligations herein involved, are or have been owners of IIM 
accounts, and like all owners of 1IM accounts are unablc to know 
whether their account balances are what they should have been in 
the absence of the breaches of trust herein complained of. 
This action involves certain accounts maintained on the books of 
the government in the names of individual Indians, known as 
Individual Indian Money (,XM“) accounts, reflecting cash assets 
held in trust for the account-holders by the-United States,. - . - 
As IIM account holders, the representative plaintiffs share with the 
absent class members the same interest in seeing the United States 
live up to its trust obligations and in having the correct amount of 
their accounts ascertained. None has any special features of his or 
her IIM account that renders him or her incapable of fairly 
representing other account beneficiaries. 
The beneficiary’s ILM account is in effect a “bank account” held 
and managed by the government as trustee, in which money derived 
from allotment management stands to the beneficiary’s credit and 
can b e withdrawn when the beneficiary wishes to do so - in 
accordance with the terms of the trust. 
- Id., 11 36. 
Later, in moving for certification of the class, plaintiffs continued to describe the action as 
involving current and past account holders: 
Plaintiffs Revised Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support of Motion For Class 
Certification, p. 2 (Jan. 14, 1997).3 In requesting certification, plaintiffs argued that “[tlhe class 
of all present and former account beneficiaries is thus self-evidently too numerous for all members 
to be joined,” id, p. S, but assured that the named plaintiffs are representative as account holders: 
Id., p. 20. Indeed, plaintiffs attached affidavits from each of the named plaintiffs testifying that 
they are account holders. Plaintiffs’ memorandum then continued by arguing the commonality of 
It described the accounts in some detail. For example: 
pp. 3-4 (footnote omittcd) Id,, c 
all IIM account holders: 
- Id., pp. 20-21. 
- 
Q 
Substantially all IIM accounts are held for the beneficiaries by the 
defendants on essentially the same basis and subject to the 
obligations and responsibilities of the United States and the 
defendants. Moreover, the funds in such accounts are held by 
defendants, and invested, in a common pool. Defendants’ 
inadequate recordkeeping and other incompetent systems 
management affect all ITM account holders alike. 
The Court ultimately entered the certification order proposed by plaintiffs, tying the class 
to the Irrvf accounts. Consistent with plaintiffs’ complaint and motion for certification, the order 
defines the class as “present and former beneficiaries of Individual Indian Money accounts” and 
finds that “[tlhe claims of the named plaintiffs herein (hereinafker ‘the Representative Plaintiffs’) 
are typical of the claims of the Class.” Order Certifying Class Action (Feb. 4, 1997), 71 1,3. 
hi sum, plaintiffs never sought to include, in either this action or the class, people who 
have never been IIM account holders, such as people who -receive income directly and have had 
no other allotment income, nor does the Court’s certification include them. None of the named 
plaintiffs allege that they should have had an account or that they are “direct pays”. Rather, as the 
“Representative Plaintiffs,” the five named plaintiffs testified that they are all account holders and 
the Court certified the class on the premise that their claims are “typical” of the‘class. 
Other parts of plaintiffs’ scope of class memorandum suggest controversy where none 
appears to exist. Plaintiffs suggest that there may be an issue as to whether the class is defined by 
individuals who have accounts “on the system” (i.e., accounts on the Office of Trust Fund 
Management (“OTFM”) IIM electronic accounting system begun in 1985). Plts Mem, 77 3, 4, 6. 
This is not an issue. No one equates the class with accounts “on the system”. Indeed, plaintiffs 
- 5 - c- 
provide one exarnplc where the holder of an account not “on the system” would be part of the 
class, i e , where an account was closed before the OTFM 1IM system was implemented. Id., fl 5 . 
In fact, named plaintiEMaulson alleges that he holds an account that was established for a 
judgment distribution, and BIA believes that it was closed before 1985 Similarly, plaintiffs’ 
statements that “the system” includes sorne tribal funds, as opposed to those attributable to 
individual Indians, or special deposit accounts, which exist for the purpose of collecting allotment 
revenues before depositing them in ILMs, should not implicate issues. Id, 1 8(a), (b). Tribal 
moneys do not form the corpus of IIMs and arcnot part of this a ~ t i o n ; ~ revenues in special 
deposit accounts derived from allotments are attributable to IIMs ’ Nor does the existence of 
inactive accounts, any multiple accounts for the same individual, or accounts for incompetents 
raise a scope of class issue. Id., 7 8(c), (d). Holders of these ITM accounts are part of the 
certified class ‘ 
Finally, the statute of limitations defense does not, as plaintiffs seem to suggest, bear on 
the scope of the Id., class. 1 7. Instead, the defense will simply determine whether claims of 
some class members are barred as stale. 
4 3 money States Complaint, 
tribes 
See, 
an 
e. ., 
has committe 1 5 
breaches 
(“The United 
of those trusts 
holds 
as well; however, 
and pro 
p P aintiffs 
erty in trust 
do not 
for 
in 
Indian 
this action 
claim standing to seek redress of those breaches and such breaches are not covered by this 
action.”). 
Though not relevant to this motion, it should be noted that not all special deposit accounts hold 
monies for immediate disbursement to individuals. For example, some special deposit accounts 
hold bonds or escrow payments for timber sales and other activities requiring a bond. 
6 Whether the class includes deceased account holders or their estates or whether those are 
members of a subclass whose rights or interests may differ materially from those of living account 
holders is not addressed in this memorandum. Defendants expect to address this issue in the 
future 
- h - 11. Plaintiffs’ Belief that the Certified Class Includes Individuals Who Allegedly 
Should Have Had Accounts, Such as “Direct Pays,” Does Not Raise a 
Discovery Issrre 
Plaintiffs have propounded five sets of requests for production of documents, two sets of 
interrogatories and one set of requests for admissions. Defendants have propounded two sets of 
requests for production of documents and four sets of interrogatories. The Court directed 
defendants to produce documents in its Order of November 27, 1996, and it issued hrther 
discovery instructions - to both parties on May-5,-1.998,- PlaiRtiEs’ .scope-oE-e~ass-memorandum;-_-----’---~ 
claiming that the certified class includes individuals who allegedly should have had IIM accounts, 
does not raise any apparent issues affecting these discovery obligations. Accordingly, the 
meinorandum does not warrant action by the Master as discovery overseer. Should a concrete 
issue arise as a result of a party’s particular discovery request, it can be addressed at that time 
Con cl us io t i 
Plaintiffs’ memorandum expresses a belief that the certified class includes individuals who 
should have had ID4 accounts, such as “direct pays”. There is no support in the Court’s Order 
Certifjing Class Action, or elsewhere in the case record, for this belief. In any event, plaintiffs’ 
memorandum raises no apparent issue affecting existing discovery obligations. However, if 
plaintiffs believe that “direct pays” or any other individuals should be members of the class, it is 
incumbent on them to seek modification of the class under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, and explain why the five named plaintiffs raise questions of law or fact in common 
- 7 - 
- with, and have claims typical of, this very different group of individuals who take allotment 
revenues directly and have no 11M accounts. 
Dated: March 26, 1999 
Respectfblly submitted, 
LOlS J. SCHIFFER 
Assistant Attorney General 
PHILLIP A. BROOKS 
Senior Counsel 
U. S. Department of Justice 
Environment and Natural Resources-Division 
P. 0. Box7611 
Washington, D.C. 20044-761 1 
Of Counsel: 
Edith R. Blackwell 
Connie Lundgren 
mchael S. Carr 
(202) 5 14-3637 
TOM C. CLARK 11, Calif Bar No, 109098 
Senior Counsel 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Environment & Natural Resources Division 
P.O. Box 761 1 
Washipgton, D.C. -20044-76 1 1 
Assistant Chief 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Environment & Natural Resources Division 
P. 0. Box 663 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 
(202) 305-0447 
Ingrid Falanga 
Daniel Mazella 
United States Department of the Treasury 
Oftice of General Counsel United States Departnient of the Interior 
Office of the Solicitor 
- 8 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
The undersigned certifies that on this 26''' day of March 1999, a copy of the above 
Merriorandurn Addressing PlaintifTs' Scope of Class Memorandum was served on Plaintiffs by hand 
01- by placing a copy in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to Plaintiffs' 
counsel at the following addresses: 
By Hand: 
Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
9th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Fax: (202) 637-0497 
Keith HarpecEsq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
Fax: (202) 822-0068 
- By Reeular Mail: 
Thaddeus Holt, Esq. 
P.O. Box 440 
Point Clear, AL 36564 
_- 
1712 N Street NW 
Washington, D. C. 20036-2976 
Elliott H. Levitas 
1100 Peachtree St, Ste. 2800, 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Courtesy copy sent by facsimile to Dennis Gingold and Keith Harper 
- 
.- . 
Paula C. Clinedinst 
- 10- 
e IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining 
Order and for Preliminary Injunction. [2646] Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion, 
Defendants’ Opposition, the parties' supplemental briefing as ordered by the Court, and the entire 
record of this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Temporary Restraining Order entered on August, 31, 2004 [2657] 
and extended on September 1, 2004 [2659] is, on this date, DISSOLVED; and 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion, in all other respects, is DENIED. 
SO ORDERED. 
Date:______________, 2004 
cc: 
Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
ORDER
___________________________________ 
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia Sandra P. Spooner, Esq 
John T. Stemplewicz, Esq 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 
Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 
Mark K. Brown, Esq. 
607 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530