Effect-of-SCOTUS-ruling-on-Indian-and-non-Indian-titles

QUESTIONS PRESENTED What is the effect of the ruling in this case on the hundreds of Indian and non-Indian titles conveyed by the Orchard Party to, New York State and the subsequent conveyances to the public now that the Treaties of 1838 and Canandaigua are not legal authority for the actions of the State of New York in buying and reselling the Orchard Party reservation reservation? Were the decisions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals an abuse of discretion in that: the 19.6 acres was under the exclusive control of the Orchard Party/Pagans by agreement with the other Oneida Indian Tribes in 1805, by treaty with the State of New York in 1842 under authority from the federal government and exclusively possessed owned and occupied by Orchard Party the for 200 years and it is developed and as a the tribal worship site? Does the Orchard Party on the facts of this case including state ratification by treaty of the ownership of Lot 3 by the Orchard Party under federal authority of the treaties, 200 year delay of Plaintiff in asserting its rights, a partition agreement in which the tribe agreed that the land was the Pagans (the predecessors of the Orchard Party), the development of the parcel, that the parcel was under the exclusive control of the Defendants for 200 years with no action taken by the Plaintiffs, and the rest of the facts of this case create an equitable defense to the claim of ownership by the Plaintiff Oneida Indian Nation? Should the case be remanded for additional discovery rather than a judgment on the pleadings to determine: ii 1. whether there was federal ratification of the of the Treaty of 1838? 2. that Oneida Nation did not think it owned this parcel for the last 200 years. 3. that the Orchard Party the legal successor to its portion of the original partitioned Oneida Nation since the BIA found that they are the only Oneida tribe that has existed and resided on its land (including Lot 3) continually? 4. whether or not the Oneida Indian Nation formerly the Oneida Indian Nation of New York have standing to prosecute this case? 5. the effect of the partition agreement on the court ruling that the Oneida Indian Nation of New York is the successor to the Original Oneida Nation. 6. What is the legal status of the 19.6 acres? 7. that there was federal authority for the State of New York to enter into the Treaty of 1805 creating Lot 3. RULE 60 Did the Defendant appellant satisfy the requirements of Rule 60? Is the Rule 60 motion timely under Rule 60(b)(6) and (4)? Is the Rule 60 motion timely under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), (3)? How does Law of the Case affect the appeal in relation to Rule 60? Is the Norther District of New York Rule 7.1 relevant and how does it relate to Rule 83? Since the Lower Court dismissed on the merits and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed does the iii rule in Lora v O’Heaney, 602 F3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) saying that the court cannot review the merits of what was decided relate to this appeal? Did the Defendant present new evidence under Rule 60? Did the Defendant create a question of fact on subject matter jurisdiction on the issue of State of New York ownership of the parcel on the tax roles? Was an injustice created under Rule 60(b)(6) by taking a reservation from a tribe who had resided on said parcel from time immemorial, had a partition agreement with the rest of the tribe that the 19.6 acres was their land, had a Treaty from the State of New York recognizing the 19.6 acres as their land done under federal authority, and the Oneida Indian Nation claiming it owns said parcel has done no act in 200 years in regard to said parcel? ADDITIONAL ISSUES Does the Oneida Indian Nation formerly the Oneida Indian Nation of New York have standing to sue regarding Lot 3 when said Defendant cannot produce any evidence of an interest, ownership or an act of control after the partition in 1805? Was the court correct in applying general indian law on possessory ownership rather than the