|
''Paul v. United States'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990), was a Congressional reference case brought before the United States Claims Court as a result of Senate Resolution 187 of the 100th Congress' 1st Session in 1988, which referred the proposed private bill, S. 966 to the court for a report on whether Frederick Paul's claim was a legal, equitable, or gratuitous claim and what amount was legally or equitably due him by the United States.〔''Paul v. United States'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990).〕 Paul claimed he was due additional money from the government for his work with the native Inuit of Alaska that led to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 and the creation of the modern borough system of local government in Alaska. The hearing officer held that while Paul did not have a legal or equitable claim to the money, if Congress did grant him the money, it would be as payment of an equitable claim and not as a gratuity.〔''Paul v. United States'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 272 (1990).〕 The review panel to the case agreed that there was no legal or equitable claim, but held that any payment would be a gratuity. Subsequently, Congress failed to act on the proposed bill before Mr. Paul's death in 1994.〔''Paul v. United States'', 21 Cl.Ct. 758, 767 (1990).〕 ==Background== In 1966, natives from the Alaskan Arctic Slope villages of Kaktovik, Nooiksat, Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope, Anaktuvuk Pass, Meade River, Wood's Camp and Colville joined together to form the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) to represent their land interests to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 243 (1990).〕 While Frederick Paul was not the organization's initial legal representative, he was appointed as a representative shortly after and sought to negotiate a contract with the BIA for his services on behalf of the natives. However, the Bureau rejected his proposed contract as it was not sure if the ASNA was an actual organization and because it disagreed with Paul receiving a percentage of any eventual recovery. Despite the BIA's rejection, Paul submitted a substantially similar contract to the ASNA, which signed it. The Bureau notified him that the contract was not valid and subsequently he re-executed the same contract with seven of the eight villages comprising the ASNA.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 247 (1990)〕 The Bureau again denied the contracts citing that they were not the same form as the standard contract and that the rate should be three times the usual hourly rate and not a percentage of the eventual recovery. During this time, Paul made substantial efforts on behalf of the ASNA to ensure the natives received money for the land of the Arctic Slope that was being sold to various oil concerns, culminating in the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), which provided over forty-six million dollars and several million acres of land to the natives in compensation for their land claims. It also provided for the attorneys who had assisted the natives in preparing their claims to receive up to 1.9 million dollars if they filed a request for payment within one year of the law's passage.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 257 (1990).〕 Paul claimed he was due over 10 million dollars, later reducing the claim to 5.9 million and then having a court find the amount at 3.6 million.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 238 (1990).〕 However, during the distribution of the 1.9 million dollars, Paul was only paid two-hundred seventy-five thousand dollars and continued to seek further remuneration, filing a suit in 1974 in Alaska against ANSA and the cities he had contracted with. This resulted in a judgment for twenty-thousand dollars to Paul.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 262 (1990).〕 Paul then filed a claim in the Western District of Washington for the same claim in 1976, only to have the court dismiss it in light of the statute of limitations. In 1977 Paul sued the United States in the Court of Claims arguing that the ANCSA had unconstitutionally infringed on his contract. That suit was dismissed by the court for failing to state a claim that the court could render a judgment under.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 263 (1990).〕 Also in 1977, Paul sued the United States, the villages and several associations in Alaska federal court for his own fees and the fees of other attorneys. The court dismissed this claim citing that they were not contracts made under the ANCSA or claims that could be paid otherwise.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 263-264 (1990).〕 Paul re-filed suit against the United States, ASNA, and eight villages for fees in the Western District of Washington during the same year, only to have the court suspend the case in light of the other pending litigation.〔''Paul v. U.S.'', 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 264 (1990).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Paul v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|