IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
)  No. 1:96CV01285  
Plaintiffs,  )  (Judge Robertson) 
 v.  )  
)  

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of ) 
the Interior, et al., ) 
)
 Defendants. ) 
) 

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF RECORD CITATION IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS 
NOTICE OF JUNE 19, 2007, REGARDING DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE 
INDIVIDUAL INDIAN MONEY TRUST 

During the June 18, 2007 hearing and in Plaintiffs Notice of Record Citations in Connection with Hearing on June 18, 2007" (Plaintiffs Notice) (Docket No. 3343, filed June 19, 2007), Plaintiffs counsel referred to two documents, Study of Check Negotiation Practices for Office of Trust Fund Management-Issued Checks - Financial Management Service, May 31, 2000 (the Check Study) and Report to Congress on Historical Account of Individual Indian Money Accounts, Department of the Interior, July 2, 2002" (the 2002 Report), as support for the proposition that there are material differences in what Interior and Treasury defendants report has been withdrawn from the primary account at Treasury that holds Individual Indian Trust funds. Plaintiffs Notice at 1; June 18, 2007 Hearing Transcript at 61-64. Plaintiffs continued comparison of the Check Study amount disbursed through 325,731 paper checks between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 1999, namely $177,481,567.91, and the Disbursements from the Trust Funds between October 1, 1998 and September 30, 1999, namely $336.6 million, is inappropriate and flawed. 
The scope of the two reports is different by design. The 2002 Report includes all disbursements from the trust fund which includes, among other modes of payment, paper checks, electronic fund transfers and automated clearing house transactions (ACH).  The Check Study is limited to a study of disbursements by paper checks only.  Check Study at 1. 
Plaintiffs are aware of the flawed nature of their comparison because their own expert, Mr. Fasold, acknowledged during the 2003 Phase 1.5" trial that non-check transactions might account for some or all of the difference.  During cross-examination, Mr. Fasold was asked about the $336.6 million figure in the 2002 Report.  Transcript of May 16, 2003 AM at 6-7 (referring to Defendants Exhibit 56) (attached as Exhibit A). Mr. Fasold was then asked about an explanation for the difference between the $336.6 million figure in the 2002 Report and the $177 million figure in the Check Study.1 Id. at 9. Mr. Fasold replied that I have no  I dont know the [reason for the] difference between those two amounts.  I mean, hypothetically, ACH would account from some, all? I dont know.  Id. Mr. Fasold acknowledged that disbursements from the trust funds could include ACH transactions or payments [t]hat wouldnt be checks. Id. at 8.2 
1/ Plaintiffs raised this issue in their Plan for Determining Accurate Balances in the Individual Indian Trust (Plaintiffs Plan), filed on January 6, 2003.  Docket No. 1714. In a discussion of Disbursements, Plaintiffs contended that gross disbursement data is contradictory and inconsistent. The footnote to this comment referred to the same difference highlighted in the current Plaintiffs Notice. Plaintiffs Plan at 51 n.99 (attached as Exhibit B). 
2/ Although the Check Study is limited to disbursements by paper checks, the study contains valuable information concerning the negotiation rate of the checks issued.  The study selected a sample of 3,255 checks from the 325,731 Office of Trust Funds Management (OTFM) checks issued between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 1999.  From this sample, 555 checks were removed after further examination because OTFM had either voided the checks, the checks were not cashed by the payee or no online Federal Reserve Board electronic record was available. Check Study at 10. Only 27 checks were removed because the payee did not cash the check, a non-cash rate of 1% of the adjusted sample of 2700 checks.  The 2,700 
2 

Dated: June 29 , 2007 Respectfully submitted, 
PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN Director
  /s/ Robert E. Kirschman. Jr.     ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR. 
D.C. Bar No. 406635 Deputy Director GLENN D. GILLETT Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 616-0328 
checks examined totaled $1.227 million and the checks not cashed by the payee totaled only $2,119.20, or 0.17% of the dollar value of the adjusted sample. Id. at 13-14. 
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on June 29, 2007 the foregoing Defendants Notice of Record Citation in Response to Plaintiffs Notice of June 19, 2007, Regarding Disbursements from the Individual Indian Money Trust 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 
Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al v. CA 96-1285 May 16, 2003 
Department of the Interior, et al AM Volume 12 

Page 1
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., : Civil Action 96-1285 
 : 
 Plaintiffs,  : 
 : 
 v.  :  Washington, D.C. 
:  Friday, May 16, 2003 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,  :  10:06 a.m. 
 et al.,  : 
 : 
 Defendants.  : 
 : 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
 DAY 12 - A.M. SESSION BENCH TRIAL BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROYCE C. LAMBERTH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 APPEARANCES:
 For the Plaintiffs: 	DENNIS GINGOLD, ESQUIRELAW OFFICES OF DENNIS GINGOLD 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 662-6775
 MARK K. BROWN, ESQUIRELAW OFFICES OF MARK K. BROWN 607 14th Street, N.W.Box 6 Washington, D.C. 20005
 ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, ESQUIRE1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530
 (404) 815-6450
 KEITH HARPER, ESQUIRENATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND 2025 I Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006
 (202) 785-4166
 Pages 1 through 81
 THERESA M. SORENSEN,OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 
United States District Court 	theresams@erols.com Theresa M. Sorensen, CVR-CM
EXHIBIT A
For The District of Columbia 202-273-0745 	Official Court Reporter
Defendants Notice of Record Citation in Response to 
Plaintiffs Notice of June 19, 2007, Regarding 
Disbursements from the Individual Indian Money Trust 

Page 1 of 2 

Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al v. CA 96-1285 May 16, 2003 
Department of the Interior, et al AM Volume 12 

Page 6  Page 8  
1  A. Yes.  1  study that, as I recall, was quite scientific, statistical,  
2  Q. Okay. And did you examine the FMS Study referenced  2  and it described primarily the length of time it took from a  
3  in footnote 99?  3  check to be issued -- from at the time it was issued to the  
4  A. Yes, I have.  4  time it was negotiated for payment.  
5  Q. Okay. And first of all, footnote 99 stated that the  5  Q. Looking specifically at footnote 99 in plaintiffs'  
6  historical accounting plan for Interior reported $336.6  6  accounting plan, this report is described as being, quote,  
7  million of disbursements for the calendar year of 1999; do  7  as studying, quote, "all IIM U.S. Treasury checks issued for  
8  you see that?  8  payment by OTFM from 9/1/1998 to 8/31/1999."  
9  A. Yes.  9  It was a study of Treasury checks, right?  
10  Q. Do you know if that's an accurate statement?  10  A. Yes. I think it was commissioned by the Treasury  
11  A. That may not be because it may be the fiscal year  11  Department. I'm not sure who originally - 
12  1999, which I would imagine commences October 1st.  12  Q. And do you have an understanding as to whether  
13  Q. In fact, I believe - 13  disbursements can encompass payment forms broader than  
14  MR. WARSHAWSKY: If I may approach the witness,  14  simply Treasury checks?  
15  Your Honor?  15  A. I don't know for an absolute fact, but I understand  
16  (Whereupon, Defendants' Exhibit Number 56 was marked  16  some disbursements would be reflected as, for example, ACH  
17  for identification.)  17  transactions. I - 
18  MR. WARSHAWSKY: Your Honor, I have handed the  18  Q. Those are electronic payments?  
19  witness what has been marked Defendants' Exhibit 56. I will  19  A. Yes. That wouldn't be checks.  
20  ask Mr. Fasold to review this and tell me if you have seen  20  Q. And aside from the fact that there is apparently - 
21  it before.  21  footnote 99 refers to somewhat different periods, doesn't  
22  THE WITNESS: It appears to be the same document  22  it?  
23  that I have seen before.  23  A. Yes. Even if it were -- the report -- I will call it  
24  BY MR. WARSHAWSKY:  24  the report to Congress, if I may, shorthand, I don't -- I  
25  Q. Specifically what are you referring to when you say  25  suspect that you're correct or the inference is correct that  
Page 7  Page 9  
1  the same document?  1  these may be fiscal years and not calendar years. The two  
2  A. The report to Congress on the historical accounting  2  reports would be a month off, so they are not of identical  
3  of individual Indian money accounts prepared for the United  3  periods.  
4  States Congress pursuant to H.R. Conference Report 107-234,  4  Q. Okay. You haven't made any attempt to determine  
5  Department of Interior, July 2, 2002.  5  whether the explanation for the difference between $177  
6  Q. So this would be the July 2002 report that was  6  million and $336.6 million is related to, for example,  
7  referenced in footnote 99?  7  electronic payments, have you?  
8  A. Yes.  8  A. I have no -- I don't know the difference between  
9  Q. Okay. And can you find the $336.6 million figure  9  those two amounts. I mean, hypothetically, ACH would  
10  that's referenced in the report? Do you know where that  10  account for some, all? I don't know.  
11  was?  11  Q. I would like to also ask you, Mr. Gingold walked you  
12  A. Yes. I believe it's on the page labelled A5, which I  12  through a number of GAO reports. Do you remember that? In  
13  think is towards the back. I think it's one of the  13  Plaintiffs' Exhibit 51?  
14  appendices labelled A5. It's entitled Trust Fund History  14  A. Yes, I recall.  
15  1972 through 19 -- I'm sorry -- 2001, Dollars in Millions  15  Q. And he started, I believe, with the 1915 report on  
16  Current Dollars.  16  page 23.  
17  Q. Now, footnote 99, the reference to the FMS Study, was  17  A. Yes, I believe that's accurate.  
18  that a review of disbursements?  18  Q. You had never read that report before; is that  
19  A. Would you repeat the question? Footnote 99 refers to  19  correct?  
20  two documents.  20  A. No, I have not read it in its entirety. It's very  
21  Q. Right. And referring to the FMS Study, was that a  21  voluminous, from my understanding. But I have not raed it,  
22  review of disbursements?  22  no.  
23  A. No. It was, I believe, entitled correctly -- or  23  Q. Well, have you read the section that was quoted -- I  
24  indicatively Study of Check Negotiation Practices for the  24  mean aside from yesterday, had you previously reviewed the  
25  Office of Trust Fund Management - Issued Checks. So it is a  25  section quoted in plaintiffs' plan?  

3 (Pages 6 to 9)  
For The District of Columbia United States District Court  202-273-0745 Official Court Reporter theresams@erols.com Theresa M. Sorensen, CVR-CMEXHIBIT A Defendants Notice of Record Citation in Response to Plaintiffs Notice of June 19, 2007, Regarding Disbursements from the Individual Indian Money Trust Page 2 of 2  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) on their own behalf and on ) 
behalf of all persons  )  
similarly situated,  )  
)  
Plaintiffs,  )  
)  
vs.  )  Case No.1:96CV01285  
)  
)  (Judge Lamberth)  

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary ) 
of the Interior, et al., ) 
) 
Defendants. ) 
) 
___________________________________ ) 

PLAINTIFFS PLAN FOR DETERMINING ACCURATE 

BALANCES IN THE INDIVIDUAL INDIAN TRUST 
EXHIBIT B Defendants Notice of Record Citation in Response to1 Plaintiffs Notice of June 19, 2007, Regarding Disbursements from the Individual Indian Money Trust Page 1 of 2 
Plaintiffs Plan quantifies Other revenues as the difference between the Department of Interiors estimate of total monies generated from Allotted Lands as presented in the Departments July 2, 2002 Report to Congress and Plaintiffs quantification of monies generated from Allotted Lands in the above categories. 
G. Disbursements 
The trustee-delegate has provided gross disbursement (recorded disbursements from the Individual Indian Trust without regard to validity of amount or receipt by the correct beneficiary) information covering various periods from various sources. However, the gross disbursement data is contradictory and inconsistent.99 Even if Defendants can establish gross disbursements, the fiduciary duty extends to establishing valid disbursements to individual Indian trust beneficiaries. 

H. Interest 
The United States Government was required to pay interest on all monies generated from Allotted Lands and held for trust beneficiaries.100 Plaintiffs have determined that the most appropriate index to compute interest on the monies generated from Allotted Lands was the long term corporate bond index. 
99 The Study of Check Negotiation Practices for Office of Trust Funds Management-Issued Checks, prepared by Financial Management Service on May 31, 2000, studied all IIM U.S. Treasury checks issued for payments by OTFM from 9/1/1998  8/31/1999, which found such checks totaled approximately $177 million. Notwithstanding time period differences, the figure is grossly inconsistent with the July 2002, Department of Interior Historical Accounting Plan which reports $336.6 million of disbursements from 1/1/1999  12/31/1999 and would imply that only a fraction of the receipts of the Individual Indian Trust were disbursed in 1999. 100 All funds held in trust by the United States and carried in principal accounts on the books of the United States Treasury to the credit of individual Indians shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, in public debt securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the fund involved, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable securities. (Feb. 12, 1929, ch. 178, Sec. 1, 45 Stat. 1164; June 13, 1930, ch. 483, 46 Stat. 584; Pub. L.98-451, Oct. 4, 1984, 98 Stat. 1729; Pub. L.103-412, title I, Sec. 103(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4241.). 
EXHIBIT B Defendants Notice of Record Citation in Response to51 Plaintiffs Notice of June 19, 2007, Regarding Disbursements from the Individual Indian Money Trust Page 2 of 2