Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 74

February II, 1966. The petitioners request a hearing before the Commission on these matters, making their petition the equivalent of a motion for re­hearing. Such a motion should have been filed within 30 days after the title decision was issued on October 16, 1962. (Section 33 of the Commission General Eeles of Procedure.) Since October 1962, wren the title pha:.c ef 1 r. this case was completed, the plaintiff and defendant have spent large, amounts of money in having appraisals made of the land and in preparing for other aspects of the valuation proceeding in this docket. The desirability of protecting large expenditures of time and money made in support of adjudi­cations under the Indian Claims Commission Act, in itself, would ordinarily be sufficient reason for not considering a motion for rehearing which is many years late, as this is. Not only is the petitioners' request filed over 11 years late, it fails to meet other requirements of Section 33 of the Rules which provide that motions for rehearing specify errors of fact and law with full reference to evidence and authorities relied upon. The petition is un­supported by any data which would justify reopening or rehearing the question of the quantity of land to which Indian title has been extinguished or the related matters of the evaluation dates. Moreover, Commission rules permit amendment by members of plaintiff tribe, as petitioners are, only in situations where, because of fraud, collusion, or laches by the recognized tribal organization, a claim has not been presented (or has not been included as part of a presented claim). (Sec. 1 (« Rules of Procedure, see note 1, supra) The petitioners try to meet this requirement with the assertion that co^uviol for the. parties have acted collusive!.}- in r* 'i'-'-',!;' to acknowledge that the Wostcrn Ehoskonc aboriginal title is