Praktik
23rd June 2009, 01:09 PM
or so we're told... One of the most woo-prone individuals I have EVER encountered posted this (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.reimer22jun22,0,4725758.column)on another board:
US seeks to stop Geronimo lawsuit
US officials are seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against the government by descendants of Apache leader Geronimo to recover his remains.
The descendants want to rebury Geronimo, who was buried in Oklahoma in 1909, in his native land in New Mexico.
They are also seeking the return of body parts they say were stolen in 1918 or 1919 by a secret society at Yale University known as Skull and Bones.
But justice officials say the law cited by the plaintiffs is not applicable.Then he asks:
anyone wonder why this is being blocked by "officials"?
Of course, the inference we're supposed to be gathering is that since Geronimo's skull *may* be at Skull + Bones at Yale, and since they are a masonic organization that have given us a few presidents and countless "officials", that the government is seeking to block this lawsuit based on their loyalty to the Skull + Bones (ie Masons).
Well I did some research. There's some good background here (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/legalpost/archive/2009/02/18/geronimo-s-descendants-sue-yale-president-barack-obama-and-bush-family-s-favorite-fraternity-order-of-skull-and-bones-over-geronimo-s-remains.aspx), here (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/27792) and here. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-big-question-who-was-geronimo-and-why-is--there-controversy-over-his-remains-1714167.html)
There's still some controversy over whether or not the bones are really at Skull + Bones, (quotes quoted in order of links provided):
Not everyone believes that Skull and Bones actually has Geronimo's skull and bones. A 2005 item from Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2623/is-geronimos-skull-residing-at-yales-skull-and-bones) says the bones never left Oklamoha.
On the other hand, a CNN piece broadcast in 2006 quotes from an author who found some documentary evidence that suggest the story could be true (see below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq5CP2iFmXk
..............
Rumors that Bonesmen stole Geronimo’s remains have never been authoritatively confirmed or debunked. Experts remain split on whether the grave robbery ever took place. In an interview, Towana Spivey, director of the Fort Sill National Historic Landmark and Museum, said he has never believed the story.
Some of the details of Bush’s story were also inconsistent with Geronimo’s tomb, Spivey said. For example, Bush described a stone vault with an iron door, Spivey said, but Geronimo’s grave would have been marked by a simple wooden headstone at the time when the robbery allegedly took place.
But Alexandra Robbins ’98, author of the 2002 Bones exposé, “Secrets of the Tomb,” is not so quick to discount the idea that Geronimo’s skull may have spent most of the last century at Yale.
“Of all of the pilfered items rumored to be in the Bones tomb, Geronimo’s skull is the most plausible,” Robbins said in an e-mail to the News. “The society’s documented description of the grave-robbing is in standard Skull and Bones lingo, and Bonesmen I spoke to told me that there is a skull in the building that they call Geronimo.”
..............
Does the Skull and Bones society really have Geronimo's skull?
Yes
*The Skull and Bones has repeatedly refused to discuss the skull, still less surrender it for DNA testing
*A letter written in 1918 by a society member says it gained possession of it
*A history of the society written in 1933 claimed that Prescott Bush 'engaged in a mad expedition' at Fort Sill to obtain Geronimo's skull
No
*Geronimo's grave was miles from where Prescott Bush was stationed
*The exact location of Geronimo's grave was unmarked at the time of the alleged theft
*Historians say that, while the Skull and Bones may very well have a Native Indian's skull, it is unlikely to be that of GeronimoBut I wanted to know more about NAGPRA and the specific motion filed by the DOJ to dismiss the lawsuit. Most of the stuff I found so far didn't go into detail. You can read the actual act here. (http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM)
I ended up finding this: (http://chronicle.com/news/article/6678/justice-department-seeks-dismissal-of-obama-as-defendant-in-suit-over-geronimos-skull)
The Justice Department’s motion, which was filed this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks dismissal of the claims against the federal government only. Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general who is representing the plaintiffs, said the government’s arguments lacked merit and vowed to continue pressing the suit.Didn't realize Ramsey Clark was involved!
And both that article and this one (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29095) seem to indicate the suit is asking to dismiss ONLY against the federal government:
The motion seeks dismissal of the claims against only the federal government, not the University or Skull and Bones. So it would seem the government doesn't give two poops about Skull + Bones! In any case, the reason for dismissal was that according to a strict reading of the act: it applies "only to remains or artifacts that are ‘excavated or discovered’ — not to remains that may still be buried."
More good info @ the last link on the actual motion: "The motion also claims that the lawsuit, filed Feb. 17, fails to present the claim as one upon which relief may be granted because it does not include a statement “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
And more from Clark: "In a telephone interview Friday, Clark said he and his clients would not take legal action against Yale or Skull and Bones until after they have opened the grave at Fort Sill and determined whether any of the remains are, in fact, missing."
So looks like Skull + Bones and Yale are not really at issue right now: this is all about Fort Sill, the technical language of the act and whether it applies to things "still buried" and whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they are "entitled to relief".
I do have one nagging question though: NAGPRA applies to museums and federal agencies/lands. How does Yale fit in there? Could it even be considered as falling under the act?
We'll see. Ramsey Clark is taking it one step at a time. His answer to my friend's question, why would "officials" try to block the lawsuit? (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29095)
He said the important question is why the federal government wants to keep Geronimo buried at Fort Sill.
“They’re still fighting the Indian wars, and they want to retain the remains of Geronimo to show that they won,” he said.
Clark added that he believes the federal government has a “humanitarian and legal” obligation to surrender the remains, citing the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act as one reason why. “What is the purpose of Congress enacting [the act] if the military is going to stand in the way of its use?” he asked. And another bit of woo easily debunked with a little inter-googling. Nothing to do with masons, a lot to do with a strict reading of the act and a government's fear of precedent. Not sure how many other remains/artifacts are "still buried" but likely quite a few. For curiousity's sake, here is what has been repatriated so far under the act (from the FAQ linked above):
Human remains: 31,995 individuals
Associated funerary objects: 669,554 (includes many small items, such as beads)
Unassociated funerary objects: 118,227 (includes many small items, such as beads)
Sacred objects: 3,584
Objects of cultural patrimony: 281
Objects that are both sacred and patrimonial: 764
US seeks to stop Geronimo lawsuit
US officials are seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against the government by descendants of Apache leader Geronimo to recover his remains.
The descendants want to rebury Geronimo, who was buried in Oklahoma in 1909, in his native land in New Mexico.
They are also seeking the return of body parts they say were stolen in 1918 or 1919 by a secret society at Yale University known as Skull and Bones.
But justice officials say the law cited by the plaintiffs is not applicable.Then he asks:
anyone wonder why this is being blocked by "officials"?
Of course, the inference we're supposed to be gathering is that since Geronimo's skull *may* be at Skull + Bones at Yale, and since they are a masonic organization that have given us a few presidents and countless "officials", that the government is seeking to block this lawsuit based on their loyalty to the Skull + Bones (ie Masons).
Well I did some research. There's some good background here (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/legalpost/archive/2009/02/18/geronimo-s-descendants-sue-yale-president-barack-obama-and-bush-family-s-favorite-fraternity-order-of-skull-and-bones-over-geronimo-s-remains.aspx), here (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/27792) and here. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-big-question-who-was-geronimo-and-why-is--there-controversy-over-his-remains-1714167.html)
There's still some controversy over whether or not the bones are really at Skull + Bones, (quotes quoted in order of links provided):
Not everyone believes that Skull and Bones actually has Geronimo's skull and bones. A 2005 item from Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2623/is-geronimos-skull-residing-at-yales-skull-and-bones) says the bones never left Oklamoha.
On the other hand, a CNN piece broadcast in 2006 quotes from an author who found some documentary evidence that suggest the story could be true (see below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq5CP2iFmXk
..............
Rumors that Bonesmen stole Geronimo’s remains have never been authoritatively confirmed or debunked. Experts remain split on whether the grave robbery ever took place. In an interview, Towana Spivey, director of the Fort Sill National Historic Landmark and Museum, said he has never believed the story.
Some of the details of Bush’s story were also inconsistent with Geronimo’s tomb, Spivey said. For example, Bush described a stone vault with an iron door, Spivey said, but Geronimo’s grave would have been marked by a simple wooden headstone at the time when the robbery allegedly took place.
But Alexandra Robbins ’98, author of the 2002 Bones exposé, “Secrets of the Tomb,” is not so quick to discount the idea that Geronimo’s skull may have spent most of the last century at Yale.
“Of all of the pilfered items rumored to be in the Bones tomb, Geronimo’s skull is the most plausible,” Robbins said in an e-mail to the News. “The society’s documented description of the grave-robbing is in standard Skull and Bones lingo, and Bonesmen I spoke to told me that there is a skull in the building that they call Geronimo.”
..............
Does the Skull and Bones society really have Geronimo's skull?
Yes
*The Skull and Bones has repeatedly refused to discuss the skull, still less surrender it for DNA testing
*A letter written in 1918 by a society member says it gained possession of it
*A history of the society written in 1933 claimed that Prescott Bush 'engaged in a mad expedition' at Fort Sill to obtain Geronimo's skull
No
*Geronimo's grave was miles from where Prescott Bush was stationed
*The exact location of Geronimo's grave was unmarked at the time of the alleged theft
*Historians say that, while the Skull and Bones may very well have a Native Indian's skull, it is unlikely to be that of GeronimoBut I wanted to know more about NAGPRA and the specific motion filed by the DOJ to dismiss the lawsuit. Most of the stuff I found so far didn't go into detail. You can read the actual act here. (http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM)
I ended up finding this: (http://chronicle.com/news/article/6678/justice-department-seeks-dismissal-of-obama-as-defendant-in-suit-over-geronimos-skull)
The Justice Department’s motion, which was filed this month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks dismissal of the claims against the federal government only. Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general who is representing the plaintiffs, said the government’s arguments lacked merit and vowed to continue pressing the suit.Didn't realize Ramsey Clark was involved!
And both that article and this one (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29095) seem to indicate the suit is asking to dismiss ONLY against the federal government:
The motion seeks dismissal of the claims against only the federal government, not the University or Skull and Bones. So it would seem the government doesn't give two poops about Skull + Bones! In any case, the reason for dismissal was that according to a strict reading of the act: it applies "only to remains or artifacts that are ‘excavated or discovered’ — not to remains that may still be buried."
More good info @ the last link on the actual motion: "The motion also claims that the lawsuit, filed Feb. 17, fails to present the claim as one upon which relief may be granted because it does not include a statement “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
And more from Clark: "In a telephone interview Friday, Clark said he and his clients would not take legal action against Yale or Skull and Bones until after they have opened the grave at Fort Sill and determined whether any of the remains are, in fact, missing."
So looks like Skull + Bones and Yale are not really at issue right now: this is all about Fort Sill, the technical language of the act and whether it applies to things "still buried" and whether the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they are "entitled to relief".
I do have one nagging question though: NAGPRA applies to museums and federal agencies/lands. How does Yale fit in there? Could it even be considered as falling under the act?
We'll see. Ramsey Clark is taking it one step at a time. His answer to my friend's question, why would "officials" try to block the lawsuit? (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29095)
He said the important question is why the federal government wants to keep Geronimo buried at Fort Sill.
“They’re still fighting the Indian wars, and they want to retain the remains of Geronimo to show that they won,” he said.
Clark added that he believes the federal government has a “humanitarian and legal” obligation to surrender the remains, citing the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act as one reason why. “What is the purpose of Congress enacting [the act] if the military is going to stand in the way of its use?” he asked. And another bit of woo easily debunked with a little inter-googling. Nothing to do with masons, a lot to do with a strict reading of the act and a government's fear of precedent. Not sure how many other remains/artifacts are "still buried" but likely quite a few. For curiousity's sake, here is what has been repatriated so far under the act (from the FAQ linked above):
Human remains: 31,995 individuals
Associated funerary objects: 669,554 (includes many small items, such as beads)
Unassociated funerary objects: 118,227 (includes many small items, such as beads)
Sacred objects: 3,584
Objects of cultural patrimony: 281
Objects that are both sacred and patrimonial: 764