trustee’s] duties and powers is determined by the trust instrument and the rules of law which are applicable.” Restatement (Second) Of TRüsts § 201 (1959). Accordingly, even though the IIM trust is a trust, as that term is used in Mitchell II, plaintiffs must point to rights granted by statute if they are to be enforced against the government. There is simply no persuasive basis for doing so on a purely common-law basis. In summary, it does not matter whether plaintiffs rely upon a traditional statutory analysis of their rights against the government through APA and non-statutory review or, on the other hand, whether they claim to be beneficiaries of a trust created under the terms of Mitchell II (which must be enforced through one of these other mechanisms in . 252, 257 (D.D.C.1972) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the court is compelled to follow
holding that the secretary of the interior breached the united states duty of loyalty despite the absence of any applicable treaty or statutory provision recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that the united states was a statutory employer under kansas law holding that despite plaintiffs allegations of a conspiracy they did not suggest that any of the acts committed by individual defendants occurred in the united states holding that the substantial relationship test also concerns the duty of loyalty to a former client