of requests for proper funding until the institution of this lawsuit. More importantly, however, claims of lack of funding cannot be allowed to legally impair the United States’ trustee-delegates’ exacting fiduciary duties toward management of this trust. As Chief Judge Arnold of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has stated: [T]he government may not avoid its trust duties on the grounds that the budget and staff of the Department of Interior are inadequate. This circumstance may well excuse any delay on the part of individual employees of the [BIA]. But the United States may not evade the law simply by failing to appropriate enough money to comply with it. See Loudner v. United States, 108 F.3d 896, 903 n. 7 (8th Cir.1997); see also Forest Guardians, 174 F.3d at 1188 & n. 14 (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the court gives little
holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense holding unclean hands defense unavailable against the government holding that it would not accept defendant babbitts argument regarding unreasonable delay due to budgetary constraints in terms of breach of statutory duty but that instead the agency defense of unavailable resources must be reserved as a defense against contempt if an injunction issues holding that a laches defense must be premised on an unreasonable delay that has somehow prejudiced the party asserting the defense holding that alleged choice not to present a conceivable defense when following an unreasonable investigation that failed to discover basis for that defense is itself unreasonable