Newspaper Page Text
THE NAVAJO TIMES
Page 4 Original Committee (Continued from Page 1 ) of $15,000 per year for General Counsel work, payable from and after the date upon which he is directed to enter on duty. b. To increase ti e compen sation payable to Roliert Wal ton for services in the legal staff at Window Rock, Arizona, to $9,000 per year, effective ‘rom and after the date of ap pro. al of thi resolution by the Council, and 5. Instead of amending the con tract as above provided, said Nor man M. Litteli, in preparing his own amendment did, without the apparent knowledge or approval of the Navajo Tribal Council, further amended the second paragraph of Section 4(b) by feleting the phrase, “C. j. Ale ander and other associ ate attorneys retained by the said Litteli at his own expense,” and 6. hurt her more it i. the opin ion of the Advisory Committee that the said Norman M. Litteli, m apparent secrecy and without the knowledge or approval of tne Nava jo Tribal Council, did further amend said contract b> adding to the second paragraph of Section 4(b) as Claims cases, Healing v. Jones (liopi-Navajo Boundary Dis pute) and The Navajo Tribe of Indians v. The State of Utah, and 7. Being that the land involved in the Healing v. Jones case is, by all present geological reports, one of the richest oil ana coal potentials in the United States worth untold millions of dollars, and 8. The said Norman M. Litteli by designating and including the Healing v. Jones case in his con tract as a Claims case, stands to receive ten per cent of any sum or sums of money or ten per c nt of the value of the property recovered, saved, or obtained by L formulation or prosecution of eh claims, and 9. The purpose of the Healing . Jones case is not to acquire property or compensation from the United States or its officers with in the meaning of Paragraph 2b of the Tribal Attorney Contract, and 10. Being that the said Norman M. Litteli, as General Counsel, received a more than adequate salary of $35,000 per annum to represent the Navajo Tribe in General Counsel work, and further received ample and sufficient funds for expenses and to employ other attorneys to assist him in prose cuting the Healing v. Jones case, and 11. Oilier Navajo Tribal asso ciate General Counsel attorvneys while being thus compensated by the Navajo Tribe, assisted in the preparation and trial of said Heal ing v. Jones case, and 12. The said Norman M. Litteli did by deleting the words, "at his own expense,” in effect, charge the Navajo Tribe for the employment of associate counsel to work on the Claims case, and at the same time, receive compensation from the Navajo Tribe as General Coun sel; which apparently has resulted in Norman M. Litteli receiving indirectly a retainer lee under an apparently unauthorized ICPo con tingent claims attorney contract; all at the expense of the Navajo Tribe without the apparent know ledge and or approval of the Nava jo Tribal Council, and in violation of the Department of the Interior Zia Trading Post & SHIPROCK-FRU'TLAND fa L j q||orS Your one stop Location for Groceries, Gas & Oil, Navajo Rugs & Silver A Complete Selection of Wines & Liquors i .Ci c.m December 5, 1963 Indian claims attorneys regula tions. 13. The said Norman M Litteli has claimed in the Healing v. Jones vase that tne Navajo 7’ribe was entitled to approximately two (2) million acres of the lands involved in the boundary dispute, and 14. In actuality, the Navajo Tribe f as realized less than hai' of this claimed entitlement or only approximately Nine Hundred Vwenty-five Thousand (925,000) a cres of the disputed lands, and 15. Yet, the said Norman M. Litteli has been informing the Navajo people that he won for them the Healing v. Jones case, but has neglected to inform them of the estimated value of i.;s un authorized interest, which amounts lo the value o f 92,000 a re of this vast oil-and-mineral-ri. h; area and 16. He has taken credit for winning other cases such as the Arizona-(.fall form a water suit in which he apparently took little or no active part, and 17. It is the opinion of the Ad visory Committee of the Navajo Tribal Council that he also has attempted to sway the Navajo Tri bal Council into rejecting a badly needed public housing program for the Navajo Reservation solely for the purpose of embarrasssmg the new Navajo administration, and 18. He has been engaged in Tri bal political activity in order to further disrupt the progress of the Navajo people, and 19. In his capacity as General (Counsel and Claims Attorney, if he is to be further employed by the Navajo Tribe, tie will seriously impede the administration of Tri bal government, and 20. The Advisory Committee is of the further opinion that the above charges are of such a serious na ture to warrant the Secretary of the Interior, in his fiduciary capa city, to terminate immediately the contract of saia Norman M. Lit tell with the Navajo Tribe, and 21. The said Norman M. Litteli, on at least one occasion, offered to negotiate the termination of his General Counsel contract. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED THAT: 1. The Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council is hereby autho rized and directed to request the linmediwte termination of the Claims Attorney and General Counsel contract of Norman M. Litteli with the Navajo Tribe. 2. The Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council is further directed to request the Secretary of the Interior to order an immediate investigation into all phases of the Navajo Tribe—Norman M. Lit teli contract and all amendments thereto in order to ascertain if there were any irregularities practiced by the said Norman M. Litteli or any other party or par ties. 3. The Chairman is directed to request the Secretary of the In terior to conduct an immediate investigation into all facets of the decision of Theodore F. Stevens, former Solicitor with the Depart ment of the Interior, including but without limitation, the opinions of the said T. F. Stevens dated No vember 15, 1960, and the reversal thereof dated January 19, 1961, regarding the claims status of the Healing v. Jones and the Navajo Tribe of Indians v. The State of Utah cases. 4. The Chairman is further directed to request that the Se cretary of Interior investigate the use by Norman M. Litteli of as sistant general counsel or asso ciate attorneys in the preparation and prosecution of Claims work when said attorneys were paid by the Tribe as assistant or associate general counsel in apparent viola tion of the Attorney Contract and Department of Interior regula tions. 5. 7 Chairman be further di rected to request the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an immedi ate audit of all expenses allegedly incurred by the said Norman M. Lirtell as General Counsel anti Claims Attorney and to take ap propriate action including full re imbursement to the Tribe of any expenses paid the said Norman M. Litteli in violation of his contract provision and or government re gulations. CERTIFICATION ! hereby certify that the lore going resolution was duly consi dered by the Advisory Committee of tiie Navajo Tribal Council at a duly called meeting at Window Rock, Arizona, at which a quorum was present and that same was passed by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed this 25th day of June, 1963. s Nelson Damon Vice Chairman Navajo Tribal Council PERSONAL MENTION Corporal 1-rank F. Wilson of Tcec-Nos-Pos, Arizona (brother of Ada Bluehouse) is on leave dur ing the month of November and December. He is servingasan.MF in the Marine Corps anti this is his third year. * * * * Bob J. King and his family visit ed with his sister Angelina- Bow man during the Thanksgiving holi days here in Window Rock. The Kings reside in Albuquerque, New Mexico. * * * * Louise B. Siaw celebrated her 70th Birthday November 24 at the home of her daughter and son-in law Mr. and Mrs. Norman Wad doups in Farmington, New Mexico. All of Mrs. Siaw’s children,grand children, and 3 great grand children were present. Want Christmas Fun Without “Bill Blues” fTJ| Later? Slip' The easiest way 4 to do it is with __ , Jfe^ Christmas Club / ;Cr3aß«t»^ Small weekly payments i mow \ mean big dividends to help you Mwi | il make your next Christmas the .- yours ii at the S MERCHANTS BANK Second at Aztec Uptown Plaza \ • Federal Judge (Continued from Fage 1 ) all the changes in Littell's c ontract appeared to intrigue Judge Mc- Garraghy. Barry’s memorandum set out that Litteli had influenced the tribe to raise his salary to $35,000 a year and to treat as a claims case on contingent fee, rather than as general counsel work, the Hopi boundary case. T1 IF. NAVA J () tri be ha s SSO nu 1- lion on deposit with the government, resource - worth hundreds cf mil lions of dollars and income of SBOO,OOO to $1 million a month, Weiner said It would thus appear trial $35,000 was not an exorbitant retainer for the tribe’s attorney. Wiener said the administrative remedy offered Litteli in protect ing his contract was an “ad hoc adrninistrative action and not a remedy.” He said Litteli was ob liged to submit to Barry, who made the charges against mm,any evidence supporting his cause. Pittle argued that Littell's sus pemion was made cn the basis of “substantial allegations” and Mechanic Wanted? Try Us! FRONT END TUNE UPS REAR END Body and Glass Work A Good Job at a Fair Price V SPEEDWAY MOTORS (Formerly L&M Garage) ALL WORK GUARANTEED C 302 W. 6 6 th UN 3-6261 • Genuine Navajo Hugs # Authentic Indian Curios • General Merchandise # Hand Made Indian Jewelry • Old Pawn ~ W. A. Palmer Owner WHOLESALE AND RETAIL Ft. Defiance was, therefore, an administrative act of Udall’s'and not an effort to judge the case. The government lawyer said that the court should not prejudge how Udall might rule on the Lit teli matter ultimately. He said three primary charges had been lodged by Barry against the Nava jo’s attorney: 1. That he used general counsel attorneys on claim work. 2. That he caused the tribe to accept tfie Hopi boundary case as a claims matter, for which he would receive a percentage payment upon settlement, instead of as a routine general counsel job. 3 That he sought to have his retainer increased and misrepre sented to the tribal counsel justi fication for the increase. WIENER, at one point, rejected the argument over the Hopi bound ary case as a matter for present discussion. "To argue if it is a claim case or a general counsel case is like arguing over the recipe for Bruns wick stew before the rabbit lias been caught,” he told Judge Mc- Garraghy.