Church of Latter-Day Saints Challenged

Church of Latter-Day Saints Challenged

Carol Berry

Ruling on a request termed “incomprehensible,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a restraining order or injunction against the Church of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) for alleged violation of the “unspecified rights” of four plaintiffs.

The Corporation of the President of the LDS Church violated their rights in connection with the Ute Partition Act of 1954 (Act), contend Richita Marie Hackford, Nathan S. Collet, Opal S.Hackford and Richard D. Hackford. Other defendants include the state of Utah and city and county law enforcement entities.

Their petition to the federal appeals court December 20 alleges that the Act was fraudulently enacted.  Long a source of contention and litigation, the Act initially terminated nearly 500 members of the Uinta band from the Ute Indian Tribe of Utah.

The Utes of mixed descent were part of planned federal termination of tribes but the program was subsequently abandoned and the disenfranchised former members have sought reinstatement as tribal members.

The four plaintiffs failed to file an affidavit or verified complaint, did not demonstrate “immediate and irreparable” injury was about to occur, and failed to provide facts as required, the court said.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page



nanaiya's picture
Submitted by nanaiya on
Is this how they do away with Indian Child Welfare Act laws? Disenroll the child and they are no longer Indians?!?!? Repulsive!

ppmickey's picture
Submitted by ppmickey on
There was an Act that initially terminated nearly 500 members of the Uinta band from the Ute Indian Tribe of Utah? AND the Utes of mixed descent were part of a PLANNED FEDERAL TERMINATION of the TRIBES but the program was subsequently abandoned...???? I lived and taught school for a year in Utah and never though the Mormon's could do anything so heinous. The FEDERAL government planning termination of tribes makes me sick. Blacks brought over as slaves have been treated better than the Aboriginals in this country from the very beginning. At least Blacks were considered good enough to keep alive, even though they had no civil rights their work was valued and they were bought and sold. Many were treated very poorly, but were kept alive to work. Some had better housing than Indians did. What did the Federal government do to the Aboriginals they stole their land from? They did their best to kill off as many as they could. They are still treated poorly and this HAS to stop. It's sickening in this day and age that the federal government doesn't recognize all the tribes and value and prize the people here before them who took care of the land and knew how to live off the land. They were doing just fine till the first white men arrived and wanted their land. Look at them now? There's in-fighting about blood quantities for those tribes who have gaming rights. If the government finds there is something they want about the land a reservation is on, they are still trying and taking it away from the tribes. When is this madness going to stop? Wake up people!!!! The Aboriginals of this country deserve our respect, gratitude and deserve to be compensated for being the most oppressed of any race in this country.

deepblue's picture
Submitted by deepblue on
6-28-12 If the Reporter, Carol Berry, had read the Briefs submitted to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and not just scanned the contents of the Court's discussion in the Order and Judgment this News Article would be quite different. The Richita Hackford Case presented was actually a jurisdiction issue seeking an injunction against the State of Utah Law Enforcement Officers for abuse of power alleging the State has no jurisdiction on the Uinta Valley & Ouray Reservations. Hackford was denied the injunction on procedural matters the Court stating: "It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value"... which says the so-called mixed-blood Utes are not Utes but Shoshone Indians of Utah. They hold the only treaty rights on the U & O Reservatons and they have never been a part of the Historic Confederated Band of Ute Indians of Colorado who were to be terminated by Act of Congress in 1951. (P.L. 120 (65 Stat. 193)) The Uinta Band of Utah Indians is the only charter members of the Federal Corporation d/b/a the "Ute Indian Tribe" of the Uinta & Ouray Reservation created under the IRA of 1934. It is a separate and distinct entity from the Utes of Colorado including those living in Utah who are only allottees after 1880. The Utes living on the U & O call themselves the Northern Ute Tribe which is not a federally recognized Tribe by IRA standards. The Secretary of the Interior was given authority in the 1951 Ute Termination Act to approve and implement the Ute Ten-Year-Plan for termination. When that Plan was submitted in 1954 it was P.L. 671 (68 Stat. 868) and the Utah Shoshone Indians found themselves administratively recreated and redefined as "Mixed-blood Utes" who would be terminated in 1961 by administrative act of the Secretary of the Interior. Their Treaty Estate was "bootstrapped" to the Confederated Ute Termination Act by implication by Utah Mormon lawyers and politicions in 1951 for self-enrichment. The Mormon Church included itself in this case by complaining that Hackford had their official title wrong which is the "Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", a state incorporated "Corporation Sole" that is the Holding Company for the money collected from the many aggregate community church corporations around the world. It also is an Investment Company for said collections. The Uinta Valley Shoshone Indians of Utah have never been "expressly" terminated by any Act of Congress. Through fraud, the so-called "Mixed-blood Utes" (whoever they are) were administratively terminated but under the pretense and pretext of P.L. 671 in 1954, their assets were not! If anyone wants the details to this travesty they can communicate with the Tribe by going to Sincerely, A concerned citizen

Kevin M's picture
Kevin M
Submitted by Kevin M on
I don't get this? Don't the Unitah Ouray tribe have the ability to simply re-enroll these people who clearly and obviously used to be part of their community? I can understand them giving into pressure by the government in the 1950s, but what is the deal with continuing to keep these people dis-enrolled? I am so so so tired of "status" Indians rejecting, neglecting and putting down their own mixed blood relations based upon internalized European racist ideologies. If you claim to be Indian, then act like it and re-enroll your relatives. Perhaps the Unita Ouray aren't really Indian in their heart anymore, which frankly seems to be the case with most tribes these days. I wish the really old people were still alive. Most of the 70 year old "elders" we have now are just a bunch of tired AIM era racists who used to be put in their place by the old people when they were still alive. Sadly, these racists are the only "elder" voices we have left today. They never learned the culture, drank, drugged, abandoned their kids and now they want to play wise elder to fullfill the same ego centric need that fueled all their attention seeking back during the AIM activist era.