Re: Info needed

[art@acc.com (Art Berggreen)]

>                                               
>BH>On Sat, 6 May 1995, Stuart Milliken wrote:
>BH>> I 'm curious and hope that perhaps someone out there knows :What is the
>BH>> Cheyenne river Sioux Tribe doing with or plan to do with BHI 2033 (Sue).
>
>BH>Last I heard the tribe had nothing to do with it. It is being held in
>BH>trust for the land owner whose land it was collected from, until he
>BH>decides what to do with it.
>
>Bill, is that perhaps because BHIGR has some legal action outstanding or
>imminent related to the payment they made to 'land owner' prior to
>extracting Sue?  Also, how was it that the Feds got involved in the
>first place if the individual actually 'owned' the land?  As much as I
>hate to say it here, this whole action seems like more fodder for the
>'militia' movement.

The "owner", Maurice Williams, is a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux
tribe.  His ranch is part of the tribal lands.  The Feds got involved,
because the tribe has their lands held in trust by the Federal
government.  Since governmental authorization is needed for selling
these tribal lands, the government used this as a basis to step on the
BHIGR purchase of Sue.  This was in response to other tribal members
wanting to get control of Sue, once they became aware of the potential
value of the fossil.  It's never been clear to me if Pete Larson had
any idea of how complete Sue was when he offered the $5000 for the
fossil.  The interesting thing was that the court ruled that the
fossil was real estate and was then dealt with as tribal land.  If
I understand the result, if Sue had been ruled to be a mineral of
some kind (apatite?), then the sale would have been perfectly legal
and binding between the owner and BHIGR.

Art

Art