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. 
)
) 
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S MAY 28, 2004 
ORDER REGARDING HISTORICAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT 
Plaintiffs' Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court's May 28, 2004 Order Regarding 
Historical Statements Of Account ("Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration"), filed August 27, 
2004, seeks an order prohibiting the Department of the Interior ("Interior") from providing 
completed historical statements of account to Individual Indian Money ("IIM") account 
holders.1 Inasmuch as Plaintiffs offer no reasonable justification for withholding completed 
historical statements of account from IIM account holders, Plaintiffs' Motion for 
Reconsideration should be denied. 
BACKGROUND 
In its Order of May 28, 2004, the Court ruled that Defendants are permitted to send 
historical statements of account to IIM account holders, provided such statements are 
accompanied by a transmittal letter that includes text prescribed by the Court and provided that 
Defendants first submit to the Court "(1) a sample of the actual letter to be mailed with the 
1/ If the account holder is a minor, regulations provide that information about the account is to be 
provided to the parent or legal guardian. 25 C.F.R. § 115.403. [prescribed] language inserted; (2) a sample of one of the historical statements of account; and 
(3) the exact number of historical statements of account and transmittal letters [Defendants] 
plan to send out."2 Order of May 28, 2004, at 4. In their First Submission In Compliance With 
May 28, 2004 Memorandum And Order Regarding Historical Statements Of Account 
("Defendants' First Submission"), filed June 22, 2004, Defendants submitted the requisite 
sample documents to the Court for approval, and informed the Court that Defendants planned 
to send 17,096 historical statements of account. In accordance with the Court's Order, the 
transmittal letter to be mailed to each IIM account holders with the historical statement of 
account contains the following text: 
Cobell v. Norton Litigation: Please be aware that the account 
holder for whom this historical statement of account was 
prepared may be a member of a class action lawsuit, Cobell v. 
Norton, No. 1:96CV01285 (D.D.C.) (Judge Lamberth). Nothing 
in this notice should be interpreted as eliminating any rights that 
the account holder may have if they are a class member in this 
litigation. If the account holder is a class member and fails to 
challenge this historical statement of account they do not lose any 
rights that they have as a class member. For further information 
you may contact the lawyers for the class members: Dennis M. 
Gingold, Esq., 607 14th Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 
20005, phone: (202) 824-1448, fax: (202) 318-2372, email: 
dennismgingold@aol.com, or Keith Harper, Esq., Native 
American Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, N.W., Washington, DC 
20036-2976, phone: (202) 785-4166, fax: (202) 822-0068, 
email: harper@narf.org. You may also access further 
information at the plaintiffs' website, www.indiantrust.com. 
2/ The Court also required Defendants to submit for approval a supplemental notice with 
prescribed text to be sent to the 1,208 IIM account holders who have already received historical 
statements of account. Defendants' Second Submission In Compliance With May 28, 2004 
Memorandum And Order Regarding Historical Statements Of Account, filed August 18, 2004, 
provided the supplemental notice to the Court. 
2
Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 2004 Order, three months 
after its entry, and ask the Court to prohibit Interior from providing completed historical 
statements of account to IIM account holders. 
ARGUMENT 
Plaintiffs have failed to direct the Court to any relevant change in law since May 28, 
2004, proffer any new evidence, or demonstrate that reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 
2004 Order is necessary to correct a clear error or manifest injustice. See Cobell v. Norton, 
226 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2002) ("The court may invoke its discretion and deny [a 
motion for reconsideration] unless it finds an intervening change in controlling law, the 
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice."). Indeed, 
Plaintiffs have offered no reasonable justification for withholding completed historical 
statements of account from IIM account holders. Their Motion for Reconsideration should be 
denied.
To the extent that any coherent argument can be discerned in the stream of invective 
and baseless accusations of misconduct in Plaintiffs' motion,3 they appear to contend yet again 
that the Court should prevent IIM account holders from receiving historical statements of 
account because Plaintiffs' counsel believe the statements are "false" and "misleading" and 
"interfere" with the rights of class members in this litigation. E.g., Pls.' Mot. for 
3/ Defendants deny each and every allegation of misconduct in Plaintiffs' Motion for 
Reconsideration. In addition, Defendants have filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs' motion for 
reconsideration in its entirety because of its abusive and scandalous content. See Defendants' 
Motion To Strike Plaintiffs' Motion For Reconsideration Of The Court's May 28, 2004 Order 
Regarding Historical Statements Of Account And To Admonish Plaintiffs' Counsel To Comply 
With The D.C. Bar's Voluntary Standards For Civility In Professional Conduct (Dkt. No. 2647) 
(filed Sept. 10, 2004). 
3
Reconsideration at 1 ("The goal of these deceptive communications is to sow confusion and 
thereby interfere with their rights of [sic] beneficiaries as members of the plaintiff class."); id. 
at 2 ("[Interior] seeks to transmit over 25,000 'historical statements of account' . . . to individual 
Indian trust beneficiaries each of which is false, misleading and designed to interfere with the 
rights of the members of the plaintiff class."). Plaintiffs apparently continue to believe that IIM 
account holders – alone among the participants in this litigation – should be denied access to 
information regarding their IIM accounts. 
Plaintiffs' motion is full of contentions that the historical statements of account are 
inadequate to fulfill Defendants' accounting obligations under the American Indian Trust Fund 
Management Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239 ("1994 Act"), but that 
question is not before the Court at this time.4 Rather, as Plaintiffs concede late in their brief, 
the question before the Court is "whether the draft statements of account 'present[] a significant 
risk of serious interference with the rights of the class members.'" Pls.' Mot. for 
Reconsideration at 21-22 (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 212 F.R.D. 14, 19 (D.D.C. 2002)). 
If it was not otherwise clear that the statements of account that Interior is seeking to 
provide to account holders do not interfere with the rights of class members in this litigation, 
the language prescribed by the Court in its May 28, 2004 Order, which is included verbatim in 
4/ Indeed, in light of the pending appeal of the structural injunction entered after the Phase 1.5 
proceeding, it would be improper for the Court to assess Defendants' compliance with the 1994 
Act at this time. Moreover, even if this issue were properly before the Court, it would be 
difficult to imagine a legitimate justification for denying the account holders an opportunity to 
review their historical statements of account and provide input as to what arguments, if any, 
should be made in any proceeding in which the adequacy of the statements is at issue. In any 
event, Defendants dispute all of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the adequacy of their accounting 
efforts. 
4
both the transmittal letter (Attachment 1 to Defendants' First Submission) and the brochure 
(Attachment 2 to Defendants' First Submission) that will accompany each historical statement 
of account, leaves no doubt. That language (quoted in full on page 2, supra) states that the 
account holder may be a member of this class, that "[n]othing in this notice should be 
interpreted as eliminating any rights that the account holder may have if they are a class 
member in [this] litigation," that "[i]f the account holder is a class member and fails to 
challenge this historical statement of account they do not lose any rights that they have as a 
class member," and that the account holder may contact class counsel for further information. 
It includes the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of plaintiffs' counsel, as 
well as the address of Plaintiffs' website. Accordingly, the historical statements of account and 
accompanying materials could not possibly be construed to interfere with the rights of class 
members in this litigation. Plaintiffs' reckless allegations that Defendants are somehow 
attempting to "exploit[] and interfer[e] with the rights of the Cobell class, including Indian 
children," Pls.' Mot. for Reconsideration at 5, "rob the individual Indian trust beneficiaries of 
their vested property rights," id. at 6, or "dupe this Court," id., are absurd and demonstrably 
false.5 
Nor are the historical statements of account or accompanying materials "false" or 
"misleading" in any sense. As the sample documents attached to Defendants' First Submission 
demonstrate, each historical statement of account clearly identifies the beginning balance of the 
5/ Plaintiffs appear to argue that an agency superintendent who is the legal guardian of an account 
holder will ignore the best interests of the account holder because he or she is employed by 
Interior. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence whatsoever to support such an accusation, and it 
therefore should be summarily rejected. 
5
IIM account, and all receipts, interest and other activity in the account from the opening deposit 
through December 31, 2000. The transmittal letter explains the source and amount of the 
judgment award credited to the account. See Sample Transmittal Letter at 1 (Attachment 1 to 
Defendants' First Submission). The letter explains that the balance shown on the statement as 
of December 31, 2000, agrees with the balance maintained by Interior's Office of Trust Funds 
Management ("OTFM"), and notes that information about account activity and balances after 
that date may be found in the statements of account sent quarterly by OTFM. Id. The letter 
explains that "[i]n performing the accounting, the [Office of Historical Trust Accounting 
("OHTA")] reviewed documents verifying the award, the approved tribal resolution distributing 
the award to tribal members, and the plan governing the use and distribution of the award." Id. 
at 2. It further states that OHTA "verified the monthly interest based on the interest rate 
distribution factor determined by OTFM" and that "[a]n independent accounting firm reviewed 
the historical accounting work to ensure correctness." Id. The transmittal letter urges the 
account holder to compare the historical statement of account to his or her files and records, 
and invites the account holder to provide any information indicating the statement is incorrect 
to OHTA. Id. 
Also included in the documents to be transmitted to account holders is a "Statement of 
Accounting Limitations." This statement explains that IIM funds have, by statute and policy, 
typically been invested in securities issued by the United States Treasury and United States 
government sponsored entities, and describes the range of investment maturities. Statement of 
Accounting Limitations at 1 (Attachment 4 to Defendants' First Transmission). The statement 
further explains how OTFM determines the monthly interest factor used to credit interest to 
6
each IIM account, and encloses a table containing a comparative summary of OTFM interest 
factors and investment pools similar to the IIM Trust Fund. Id. In addition, the statement 
discloses that Interior has identified potential discrepancies that may affect invested funds 
accruing interest, and explains that, while Interior believes the discrepancies are minimal, they 
may have a small impact on the amount of interest credited to an account. Id. The statement 
explains that when this issue is resolved as the historical accounting project progresses, Interior 
will request an appropriation from Congress to address the issue, and the account holder's IIM 
account may be credited with additional interest. Id. Finally, the statement advises that Interior 
has determined that the initial deposit into the IIM account was correct, that no improper 
disbursements were made from the account through December 31, 2000, and that the interest 
calculated by OTFM, based on the monthly interest distribution factor, was properly applied to 
the account. Id. It states that, as the historical accounting project progresses, Interior will 
confirm the amount of interest the account holder is entitled to receive, and will explain to the 
account holder how any such interest was determined. Id. 
A brochure entitled "Information On Historical Accounting of Judgment and Per Capita 
IIM Accounts" (Attachment 3 to Defendants' First Submission) will also accompany each 
historical statement of account. The brochure contains additional explanatory information 
about the historical statement of account, and, like the transmittal letter, contains the verbatim 
language about this litigation required by the Court. 
Thus, the historical statements of account and accompanying material Interior seeks to 
send to the IIM account holders are neither "false" nor "misleading." The accompanying 
materials explain in a straightforward manner the accounting work Interior performed to 
7
prepare the statement, including the method utilized to verify interest postings, and invite the 
account holder to bring any errors to the attention of OHTA. 
Plaintiffs offer no reasonable justification for withholding this information from the 
account holders. In accordance with the Court's November 1, 2002 Order permitting Interior 
"to provide [p]laintiffs' counsel with a copy of any historical statements of account provided to 
any Individual Indian Money account holder," Order of Nov. 1, 2002, at 1, Plaintiffs' counsel 
will receive copies of all historical statement of account provided to IIM account holders, and 
are free to contact the recipients who are class members with whatever additional information 
they may wish to provide. The Court should reject Plaintiffs' attempt to prevent IIM account 
holders from receiving information to which they are entitled. 
8
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration should be denied, and the 
Court should permit Interior to provide the historical statements of account and accompanying 
materials described in Defendants' First Submission to IIM account holders. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 10, 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/ Cynthia L. Alexander 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Counsel 
CYNTHIA L. ALEXANDER 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-7194 
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on September 10, 2004 the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to 
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 2004 Order Regarding Historical 
Statements of Account was served by Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not 
registered for Electronic Case Filing, by facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 
28, 2004 Order Regarding Historical Statements of Account, Dkt # 2647. Upon consideration of 
Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants’ Opposition, any Reply thereto, the applicable law and the entire record 
of this case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. 
SO ORDERED this ________ day of _____________, 2004. 
___________________________________ 
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
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 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