Here is the complaint in Torgerson v. Wells Fargo South Dakota (D.S.D.) — torgerson-complaint
And here is the opinion dismissing some of the counts on the pleadings — dct-order-torgerson-v-wells-fargo
2 thoughts on “Partial Dismissal of Discrimination Complaint against Wells Fargo South Dakota”
Comments are closed.
Turtle Talk 
Doc Fletcher
News travels fast, ha.
I would appreciate your views in light of my comments.
First, the judge ignored Rosebud Sioux v. sd, 900 F2d 1164 (8. 90) which held 25 usc 1322 barred sd jurisdiction on Res. (abstention brief I submitted jan 2 09). See Mescalero Apache: state could not
impose state licenses to displace tribal licenses and regulatory authority (hunting). I think this
law will require a reversal on appeal.
The judge adopted all ND’s arguments, i.e. the ND
state constitiuoin gives ND authority on the RES.
This is contrary to Rosebud Sioux and other cases.
The order cites the petition, but ignored the pleadings. Rule l2 b 6. E.g. I filed an equal protection claim: white attorneys are not prosecuted for out of state conduct under RUle 4.4
(reciprocal discipline(, while Edison singles me out. See complaint. The jan l4 order does not address this e. protection claim. I will likely seek reconsideration.
Point: Edison misused Rule 4.4 reciprocal discipline, as it requires another jurisdiction (tribal bar bd) to handle a grievance —- then nd can file a petition under Rule 4.4 This is the ND practice, see nd website listing about l5 cases on recip. discipline.
Import: ND cannot regulate attorney conduct on all Ind Reservations and all States, merely because one has a ND license…. The hayseed ruling makes
nd disciplinary counsel into a “super cop” who can
prosecute any attorney, anywhere in, any court.
I would appreciate your insights and any research
available.
vance gillette