Here:
NACDL and NAFD VAWA Letter 4 23 12
I find it odd that there’s such a heavy reliance on the testimony from the 1960s in the years leading to the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act in this letter. Barbara Creel’s work is much more formidable and persuasive, probably because it’s not such a direct assault on all tribal courts using such broad (and now largely inaccurate) generalizations. Later this week, I’ll be presenting a paper about the 1977-79 NAICJA study on tribal courts where David Getches pointed out the direct analogy between tribal and rural justices systems — that analogy is still present, with all its plusses and minuses. I am persuaded that that’s a much more direct analysis (see also here). Most tribal courts aren’t going to be like federal courts; neither are magistrates and JOPs in rural New York or Iowa or Arizona.
Tova Indritz’s efforts to criticize the Tribal Law and Order Act a few years back are in this hearing:
Turtle Talk 
I find it disengenuous that the criminal defense attorneys continue to refer to the ICRA “sentencing cap” when the Ninth Circuit held otherwise in Miranda v. Anchando, No. 10-15167 (Aug. 17, 2011). What they refer to as “aggressively exploiting” the sentencing cap, many tribes would probably call exercising sovereignty.
As to the comment that parts of the VAWA imply tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, I thought the cutting edge view under Federal Indian Law was tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians may be possible if consent (real or perhaps, implied?) has been given. Of course, this leaning toward “consent” was a developing mainstream judicial interpretation in cases predominately involving business relationships (e.g. doing business with a tribe) or so, as I recall. However, a future argument in which to make as an effort to broaden this is if a non-Indian comes on Indian lands (i.e. federal reserve and less of a distinguishment for tribes in Oklahoma lacking consecutive land base) to commit a crime (preferably, defined already as a crime under federal code) against a member of a tribe, the non-Indian has consented to tribal jurisdiction by that tribe. Standardardization and harmonization between federal and tribal courts are not mere demonizing points, since they make redundancy arguments less import (“tribal court and its jurisdiction can stand alone” and for constitutional concerns, equivalent justice is found). There are other issues to be addressed in developing such an system / argument in my opinion but the only limitation should be based in the U.S. Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of Federal Indian Law. Unfortunately, under the Bush packed courts, it is unlikely to see any expansion but rather, retraction of tribal sovereign powers in the years to come.
Finally, as to the letter’s comment that the main perpetrators of violence against Indian women are Indians…while this may be true, I heard that the more egregious crimes against women (and even children) occur by non-Indians who use the reservations as a means to victimize people perceived to be ‘land-locked’ and available (this may be especially so for those who would prey upon children). More importantly, the real or perceived lack of authority and slow action by law enforcement (not necessarily, just at the federal level) to address crimes against women (and children), many of the crimes regardless as to who perpetuates them, further assures that Indian women and children will remain the focus of predatory crimes. Therefore, tribes must strengthen their own systems to the full extent currently possible and demand federal provisions are used to fill the gaps. In documented situations where the federal assistance is not acting as a gap filler for whatever reason(s), tribes consistently are preparing for the day to reinforce the argument that ‘tribal court and its jurisdiction should stand alone.”
It looks like its the same group that attacked “stacking” in Tribal Courts and lost every step of the way. Its a few defenders and their friends at the federal defenders office. How the national association of criminal defenders got involved is anyone’s guess.
I’m wondering how many tribes, tribal Court Judges, Tribal members, and tribal defenders they interviewed before getting involved?
These are strange bedfellows. Looks like defense attorneys and republicans in the house might be sucking each others faces in the halls of congress.
When will Tribes be able to develop their systems without interference from outsiders, weather it be defenders, prosecutors, or Washington?