The Dutch, Munsees, and the Purchase of Manhattan Island
from Opening Statements—Law, Jurisprudence, and the History of Dutch New York
by Paul Otto
Edited by Albert M. Rosenblatt and Julia C. Rosenblatt
PDF here:
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Two New Indian Law Articles in Alaska Law Review
Here:
Fate Control and Human Rights: The Policies and Practices of Local Governance in America’s Arctic
Mara Kimmel
PDF
The loss of territoriality over lands conveyed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act had adverse impacts for Alaskan tribal governance. Despite policy frameworks that emphasize the value of local governance at an international, regional, and statewide level, Alaskan tribes face unique obstacles to exercising their authority, with consequences for both human development and human rights. This Article examines how territoriality was lost and analyzes the four major effects of this loss on tribal governance. It then describes two distinct but complimentary strategies to rebuilding tribal governance authority that rely on both territorial and non-territorial authority.
Traditional Cultural Districts: An Opportunity for Alaska Tribes to Protect Subsistence Rights and Traditional Lands
Elizaveta Barrett Ristroph
PDF
Alaska tribes have limited control over their traditional lands and waters. Tribes may increase their influence through a Traditional Cultural District designation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This designation does not stop development, but requires federal agencies to consult with tribes regarding potential development that may impact the district. The consultation right applies regardless of whether a tribe owns or has formally designated the district. In Alaska, where no Traditional Cultural Districts exist as of 2014, there is potential for designating large areas of land or water that correspond to the range of traditionally important species.
Cornell NALSA Tribal Economic Development Action Summit
Narrangansett Indian Tribe Prevails in $5.7M Contract Dispute
Here is the decision in CGI-NIT, LLC v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (R.I. Super.):
An excerpt:
The Director of the Rhode Island Lottery, Gerald S. Aubin, testified compellingly, credibly and clearly that the Tribe does not participate in the operation of the state lottery in any fashion, he does not know Chief Sachem Thomas personally, the Tribe has no management role at all, nor has any advisory role. (Tr. 23-24.) As Mr. Aubin succinctly observed, “[t]here is no relationship whatsoever.” Id. at 24. Chief Sachem Thomas’s completely credible testimony reinforced this conclusion.
The relevant, material and believable testimonies of Mr. Aubin and Chief Sachem Thomas compel the conclusion that the conferral of the benefit of VLT revenue upon the Tribe was the unilateral act of our State’s legislature. The record is bereft of any evidence that any tribal member or representative initiated the discussion with the then-Governor for same, or lobbied for, or testified in support of such an enactment.
Federal Forfeiture Action over $400,000 of NY Indian Tobacco Retailer
Here is the complaint in United States v. $400,000 (W.D. N.Y.):
Excerpts:
During the investigation, it was determined that the parties involved in the shipping of the contraband cigarettes in interstate commerce also filed false information to the appropriate taxation authorities as required under the Jenkins Act, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 375-378. All cigarette sales made by a stamping agent are required by New York State law to be recorded on a form known as Form CG which had to be sent on a monthly basis to the NYSDT in Albany, New York, with a certificate that the information contained therein was true and correct.
And:
During the time period of September 24, 2012 – January 14, 2013, AARON PIERCE through his corporation, AJ’s Wholesale LLC (“hereafter “AJ’s”) sold 403,413 cartons of cigarettes in a manner designed to make it look on paper as though the untaxed cigarettes were legitimately obtained through Ho-Chunk, Inc. (“HCID”) a tribal cigarette and tobacco distributor, a corporation operated by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, as well as other Native American cigarette and tobacco suppliers.
Finally:
Ho-Chunk, Inc. is the parent company of HCI Logistics (HCIL) which is a commercial transportation company that HCID would use to transport product from the HCID warehouse in Winnebago, Nebraska. Neither HCID nor HCIL are licensed tobacco wholesalers or state stamping agents in Nebraska or New York State.
Oakland County Legal News Interview with Fletcher
Here.
Excerpts:
Pursglove: Is Indigenous Law a good field for law students?
Fletcher: For many Native students, Indian law is the reason they chose law school. Few other students have a chance to take classes where the history of their tribes and families is embedded in the cases and statutes we teach. For any student, it’s a good field, too. Indian gaming is a $30 billion a year business. Indian country natural resources extraction is probably even larger than that, or soon will be. Tribal governments routinely are the largest employers of their regional economies. We never have much trouble placing our alums in Indian law jobs if they want to do that work. It’s a hugely growing field.
Pursglove: Why are attorneys that understand Native American culture, and how it impacts legal issues, in high demand?
Fletcher: Tribal government and enterprise clients usually are American Indian people, and they want to hear the views and advice of people who have shared many of their same experiences. Also, the tribal client differs from the fundamental goals of corporate and state or federal governmental clients. Tribes are not wealth-maximizing entities with pressures from shareholders to prioritize profit; tribes may pass up opportunities for revenues because of the social or environmental costs. And tribes are governments, so their goals are similar to those of other governments, to maximize governmental revenue and services. But tribal governmental constituencies are more narrow than other governmental constituencies. In other words, there is no Citizens United-inspired relationship between tribes and business entities, and no Tea Party-inspired efforts to gut government services. And tribes must do all of this without a tax base similar to that enjoyed by states and the federal government.
Pursglove: What were the main issues in this field in the past year?
Fletcher: The main issues always involve tribal efforts to expand their governmental revenue. This past year saw the beginnings of a backlash against tribal efforts to engage in what they’re calling e-commerce, which includes things like payday lending, internet gaming, and other electronic business activities. Tribes usually try to avoid state regulation by asserting their immunity from state authority, and the Supreme Court decided a case affirming tribal immunity this year captioned Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community.
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Seek Gaming Commission Executive Director
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians — Whether Removal To Federal Court Waives Immunity
Another Fight over Attorneys Fees in Cobell Settlement
Here are the materials in Boyd v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (D. D.C.):
11 Kilpatrick Townsend Motion to Dismiss
21 Boyd Opposition to Gingold Motion
22 Boyd Opposition to Kilpatrick Motion
25 Gingold Opposition to Motion for Remand
27 Kilpatrick Opposition to Motion for Remand
30 Boyd Reply to Gingold Opposition
31 Boyd Reply to Kilpatrick Opposition
32 DCT Order Remanding Case to D.C. Court
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association, fought for more than two decades to remedy discrimination against minority farmers. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10 [Dkt. #1], The facts of this particular case stem from his lobbying efforts on behalf of Native American class members in their discrimination suit against the federal government, Cobell v. Salazar, Civil Action No. 1:96-cv-01285-TFH (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2009) (“Cobell“). See Compl. ¶ 25. The class members in Cobell were represented by, among others, defendants Gingold and Kilpatrick. Compl. ¶¶ 12-14. In March 2010, plaintiff was asked by John Loving, a government relationship advisor at defendant Kilpatrick, to lobby in support of legislative funding for the Cobell settlement. Compl. ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff agreed and continued his lobbying efforts. See Compl. ¶ 31. Later that same month, the House of Representatives passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (“CRA”), an appropriations bill that, if enacted, would provide settlement funds for Cobell class members. Compl. ¶ 30. In June 2010, plaintiff informed defendant Gingold “that he expected to be paid for his efforts to secure funding.” Compl. [3] ¶ 43. Defendant Gingold promised that “Mr. Boyd would be compensated,” but did not specify “how much and when” plaintiff would be paid. Compl. ¶ 43. The CRA became law in December 2010. Compl. ¶ 4.
On May 6, 2014, plaintiff, a Virginia resident, filed suit against defendants in the D.C. Superior Court alleging unjust enrichment, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and quantum meruit. See generally Compl. On May 27, 2014, defendant Gingold, a Maryland resident, removed the action to this Court, claiming that defendant Kilpatrick, a Virginia resident, had been fraudulently joined to destroy diversity jurisdiction. See generally Notice of Removal [Dkt. #1]
NCAI Releases Analysis of President’s FY 2016 Budget Request
NCAI Releases Analysis of President’s FY 2016 Budget Request
Washington, DC- On Wednesday, February 4th, NCAI released an analysis of the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget, which highlighted the impact on funding for Indian programs. The budget proposes an overall an increase of 12 percent for BIA over the FY 2015 enacted level, the largest increase in more than a decade (excluding Recovery Act funding) and a 9 percent increase for the Indian Health Service.
Overall, several proposals in the FY 2016 budget request would improve the federal government’s fulfillment of treaty and trust responsibilities in the federal budget, proposals which should benefit from bipartisan support. NCAI and tribal leaders will continue to work with Appropriators and members in both the House and Senate to underscore the importance of strengthened investments in direct services to tribes and funding for programs administered by tribes.
President Brian Cladoosby responded to the fiscal year 2016 budget release with, “Indian Country strongly supports the several increases that recognize the treaty and trust responsibilities, with the goal of parity in governmental resources for tribes. Tribes also strongly support the proposal to make BIA and IHS contract support costs mandatory, which tribes have called for in tribal consultation over many years.”
Highlights of FY 2016 President’s budget include:
- Mandatory Contract Support Costs: The FY2016 budget includes a legislative proposal to reclassify contract support costs as permanent funding beginning in FY 2017.
- Native Youth: The creation of Generation Indigenous, which is a comprehensive multi-agency initiative to help improve the lives of and opportunities for Native youth in multiple areas such as broadband access and college and career-readiness.
- Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, a comprehensive and integrated approach to address the inter-related problems of poverty, violence, and substance abuse faced by Indian communities, The FY16 budget would provide $15 million to expand the Tiwahe Initiative, $6 million more for Social Services, $4 million more for law enforcement for alternatives to incarceration, and $5 million more for aid to tribal family courts.
- Public Safety: The budget includes $417.4 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ) public safety initiatives in Indian Country, which is a $102 million increase.
- Tribal Behavioral Health Grant (TBHG) increases. The TBHG would receive an additional $25 million as part of Generation Indigenous. With the expansion of the TBHG program, SAMHSA aims to reduce substance use and the suicide among Native youth and address conditions which impact learning in BIE schools.
- Indian Education funding would increase for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), expanding broadband for BIE schools, and scholarships and higher education.
As Congress makes decisions as a part of the appropriations process in the coming weeks and months, NCAI urges law-makers to support parity in governmental and program funding as well as promote Indian self-determination to achieve the vision of broader progress in Indian Country. Read the full budget analysis here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.