Indian Country Today Profile of Amy Coney Barrett

Here.

Alex Skibine on the Tribal Right to Exclude Nonmembers

Alexander Tallchief Skibine has posted “The Tribal Right to Exclude Non-Tribal Members from Indian-Owned Lands,” forthcoming from the American Indian Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In 1981, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Montana v. United States, severely restricting the ability of Indian Tribes to assume civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over non-tribal members for activities taking place on non-Indian lands within Indian reservations. The Court in Montana stated that “it could readily agree” with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the tribe could regulate the conduct of non-member on tribal lands. Yet, twenty years later, the Court issued its opinion in Nevada v. Hicks holding that in certain circumstances, the jurisdiction of Indian tribes could also be limited even if the activities of the non-members took place on Indian-owned lands.

It has been almost twenty years since Hicks and because of the cryptic and fractured nature of that decision, the federal circuits are divided and still trying to figure out under what circumstances tribal civil jurisdiction over non-members should be restricted when these activities take place on Indian-owned lands.

In this Article, I argue that among all the possible interpretations of Hicks, the one adopted by the Ninth Circuit makes the most sense. Under that interpretation, the so-called Montana framework used to divest tribes of jurisdiction is not applicable to cases where a tribe has retained the right to exclude. I argue that Hicks can be reasonably conceptualized as endorsing the 9th Circuit methodology. However, I also argue that Hicks should have been decided as a state jurisdiction cases and not a tribal divestiture of inherent sovereignty case. Re-imagining Hicks as a state jurisdiction case would not have changed the outcome but would have avoided the last twenty years of confusion surrounding how Hicks should be interpreted.

Highly recommended!

Black Hills St. U. Talk on Indigenous Suffrage (10/23)

Here is a link to register for the larger conference on the same day.

The panel:

2:30 PM    Breakout Sessions (Choose one; we will have a separate Zoom link for each breakout session) 

  1.  Indigenous Suffrage, Intersectionality, and Barriers Faced by Indigenous Women Voters
        Dr. Ann Tweedy, Assoc. Professor of Law, University of South Dakota
    1. This session will explore the history of indigenous suffrage in the U.S. and some of the Current challenges. It will highlight the stories of Native female voters and examine some of the barriers that they face to voting.

Seattle Times: “A victory for Native children’s rights to remain with family and tribe”

Op-ed by Kitty-Ann van Doorninck, Helen Halpert and Ron J. Whitener, here, profiling the recent watershed ICWA decision by the Washington Supreme Court, authored by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis.

Second Circuit Restores Guilty Verdict for Co-Conspirator in Wakpamni Lake Community Corp. TED Bond Fraud

Here is the opinion in United States v. Archer.

Here are the briefs:

Federal Brief

Archer Brief

US Reply

From the opinion:

This case concerns a scheme engineered by Jason Galanis (“Galanis”) and others to defraud a tribal entity, the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe (the “Wakpamni”), of the proceeds of a series of bond offerings worth approximately $60 million. In doing so, the conspirators harmed not only the Wakpamni but also several investors upon whom they foisted the Wakpamni bonds – which had no secondary market – in order to generate cash for their own personal use.
 
In early 2014, Jason Galanis, Archer, Bevan Cooney, and others were working together to acquire financial services companies that they could “roll up” into a large financial conglomerate with Archer at the helm. They began by investing in Burnham Financial Group (“Burnham”), a well-established financial services company with a prominent name that they sought to leverage in building their own conglomerate. But to purchase additional so-called “roll-up” companies, they needed capital.
 
So, in February 2014, Galanis informed Archer and Cooney that he had been “brought a deal” for tax-free bonds from the Ogala Sioux Tribe, to which the Wakpamni belonged. App’x 848. The next month, John Galanis, Jason Galanis’s father, met with a representative from the Sioux Tribe and convinced the Wakpamni to issue a series of bonds, promising that the proceeds from the sale of these bonds would be placed into an annuity. The Wakpamni understood that the annuity “would be like an insurance wrapper that would protect the principal investment and generate annual income to cover the interest on the bonds as well as generate income for” the Wakpamni’s economic development projects. Tr. 1836; see also Tr. 1850. The scheme had an air of legitimacy: John Galanis represented to the Wakpamni that Wealth Assurance-AG, a legitimate insurance company that Archer, Cooney, Jason Galanis, and others had acquired, would be the annuity provider. The transaction documents, however, listed Wealth Assurance Private Client Corp. (“WAPC”), a shell entity that John Galanis falsely represented to be a subsidiary of Wealth Assurance-AG, as the annuity provider. In June 2014, one of Archer’s co-defendants opened a bank account in the name of WAPC (the “WAPC account”) and designated Hugh Dunkerley, another of Archer’s eventual co-defendants, as a signatory of that account. Finally, John Galanis represented to the Wakpamni that Burnham Securities Inc., a legitimate registered broker-dealer, would serve as the “placement agent” responsible for “undertak[ing] due diligence on the bonds, do[ing] a lot of legal [work] putting together … the contracts[,] and then finally find[ing] investors for the bonds.” Tr. 1005.
 
Once John Galanis set up the Wakpamni scheme, Jason Galanis, Archer, and others went about finding buyers for the bonds. A company with which Archer was affiliated financed the purchase of an investment adviser, Hughes Asset Management (“Hughes”), and Galanis installed another one of the co-defendants, Michelle Morton, as Hughes’s CEO. In August 2014, based on John Galanis’s promise that the proceeds would be invested in an annuity, the Wakpamni issued their first set of bonds. Morton purchased the entire issue, worth $28 million, on behalf of Hughes’s unsuspecting clients – without disclosing that the same individuals who induced the Wakpamni to issue the bonds also controlled Hughes and the purported placement agent. Placing the bonds in this manner, without investor knowledge or permission, also violated several of Hughes’s clients’ investor agreements. Most importantly, the bond proceeds were then placed into the WAPC account – not an annuity.
Unaware that the proceeds from the first bond offering had been diverted to the WAPC account and not invested in an annuity, the Wakpamni launched a second issuance the following month. 

 

This time around, Archer and Cooney collectively purchased $20 million worth of bonds from the Wakpamni – with Archer doing so through his real estate company, Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC (“RSB”) – using proceeds from the first offering that had been diverted to the WAPC account. After buying the bonds, Archer and Cooney used them to satisfy the net capital requirements of two other Archer-controlled companies, without disclosing that the bonds were purchased with the proceeds of an earlier bond issuance. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) would later condemn Archer’s use of the bonds in this way because the Wakpamni bonds had “no active market.” Tr. 2097.

 
In April 2015, the Wakpamni issued their third and final set of bonds for $16 million. As with the first bond offering, Burnham Securities was selected as the supposed placement agent for the bonds. At around that same time, Archer and Cooney acquired a second investment adviser company, Atlantic Asset Management (“Atlantic”), which (like Hughes) was led by Morton. Ultimately, Morton and Atlantic arranged for the purchase of the entire $16 million in bonds by a single client of Atlantic, the Omaha School Employees Retirement System (“OSERS”). As with the first bond offering, Morton did not seek or receive approval from OSERS for the transaction, which did not align with its investment goals, nor did she inform OSERS of the inherent conflicts of interest that permeated the transaction.
 
Once again, instead of being used to purchase an annuity for the Wakpamni, as John Galanis had promised, the proceeds from the third bond issuance were diverted to the WAPC account, where they were used by various conspirators for their own personal benefit and interests. Some, like Jason Galanis and his father, used the bond proceeds to purchase “jewelry and luxury cars,” Tr. 58, and a new condo in New York City; others, like Archer and Cooney, used the bonds and the proceeds “to further their [own] schemes,” Tr. 59, which included building “a big financial services company” that Archer was to control, Tr. 59–60.
 
In the fall of 2015, the Wakpamni scheme began to unravel when the first set of interest payments on the Wakpamni bonds became due. In September 2015, Archer transferred $250,000 from one of his companies to the WAPC account, which was then used to help pay the interest on the bonds from the first offering. Soon thereafter, Galanis was arrested on unrelated charges. In October 2015, some of the conspirators created a new entity named Calvert Capital (“Calvert”) to cover up the scheme. As part of this effort, they fabricated backdated documents suggesting that WAPC invested in Calvert and that Calvert lent Cooney and Archer the $20 million to purchase the bonds from the second offering.
 
In the end, the Wakpamni were left with $60 million in debt, and the fund investors lost over $40 million.
 
 

Our most recent post on the Wakpamni Lake Community Corp. fraud is here.

NYTs: “Alarmed by Scope of Wildfires, Officials Turn to Native Americans for Help”

Here.

WaPo: “Canada’s Supreme Court to consider whether Native Americans in U.S. have rights north of the border”

Here.

The Supreme Court of Canada materials on Her Majesty the Queen v. Richard Lee Desautel are here.

Governor Newsom’s Order Regarding Tribal Lands

Here is the order:

9.25.20-Native-Ancestral-Lands-Policy

David Sandino commentary on this order here:

The first people of California occupied the state tens of thousands of years before European contact. The entire state of California was Tribal lands. Slowly but surely, the lands were taken away from the Tribes, first by the Spanish government, next by the Mexican government, next by the U.S. after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and finally by California after it became a state in 1850. In the 1850’s, the U.S. negotiated 18 treaties with some of the Tribes, reserving about 9 percent of the state for these Tribal nations. However, the treaties were opposed by California senators, never ratified by the Senate, and hidden from public view by the Senate for 50 years. In recognition of these past injustices, on September 25, Governor Newsom issued a Statement of Administration Policy giving Native Americans the opportunity to access, co-manage, and acquire lands now owned by the state. The state has substantial land holdings under the jurisdiction of the State Lands Commission and other state agencies. California’s largest landowner by far is the federal government, owning 46% of the state.

CalTribe-precontact

Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims by Water Protectors against State and County over NoDAPL Protests

Here are the materials in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton (D.N.D.):

38 TigerSwan Answer + Counterclaim

44 Amended Complaint

45-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan Counterclaim

49 County Motion to Dismiss

52 State Motion to Dismiss

56 TigerSwam Answer + 2d Counterclaim

57 TigerSwan Opposition to 45

58 Reply in Support of 45

61 Response to County MTD

62 Response to State MTD

67-1 Motion to Dismiss TigerSwan 2d Counterclaim

71 County Reply in Support of 49

73 TigerSwan Opposition to 67

76 State Reply in Support of 52

82 TigerSwan MSJ

84 Response to TigerSwan MSJ

85 TigerSwan Reply in Support of 82

87 DCT Order Dismissing TigerSwan Counterclaim

88 DCT Order