Here are updated materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):
85 Motion to Supplement Admin Record
86 North Fork Rancheria Answer
Amended complaint here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Sault Tribe Lansing Casino Trust Application Documents
Here:
SSM Mandatory Trust Filing Lansing final 20140610
An excerpt:
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan (the “Sault Tribe” or “Tribe”) tenders this submission for a mandatory fee-to-trust acquisition of two parcels of land located in Lansing, Michigan:
(1) The “Corner Parcel,” a 0.43 acre parcel acquired by the Tribe on November 1, 2012, and
(2) The “Showcase Parcel,” a nearby 2.26 acre parcel that the Tribe has committed to acquire under an existing contract of purchase with the City of Lansing, Michigan.
The Tribe has acquired the Corner Parcel and will acquire the Showcase Parcel using interest or other income generated by the Tribe’s Self-Sufficiency Fund, established pursuant to section 108 of the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”), Pub. L. No. 105-143, 111 Stat. 2652 (1997). Under Section 108(f) of MILCSA, “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the [Sault] Tribe.” 111 Stat. at 2661-2662. The Secretary is thus required to accept the Parcels in trust.
Ex 1 Warranty Deed to Corner Parcel
Ex 2 Title Policy for Corner Parcel
Ex 3 Comprehensive Development Agrmt
Ex 4 Showcase Title Commitment & Proposed Warranty Deed
Ex 5 Legal Description & ALTA Survery for Corner Parcel
Ex 6 Legal Description & ALTA Survery for Showcase Parcel
Ex 8 ST Bd Resolution 2012-11Auth Lansing CDA
Ex 9 ST Bd Resolution 2012-223 Auth Closing on Corner Parcel
Sault Tribe Huron Township, Wayne County Trust Application Documents
Here:
SSM Mandatory Trust Filing New Boston final 20140610
An excerpt:
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan (the “Sault Tribe” or “Tribe”) tenders this submission for a mandatory fee-to-trust acquisition of a parcel of land located in Huron Charter Township, Wayne County, Michigan (the “Sibley Parcel” or “Parcel”) under an existing contract of purchase. The Parcel is a 71 acre parcel of land located within 2 miles of other land currently owned by the Tribe in Huron Charter Township.
The Tribe will acquire the Parcel using interest or other income generated by the Tribe’s Self-Sufficiency Fund, established pursuant to section 108 of the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (“MILCSA”), Pub. L. No. 105-143, 111 Stat. 2652 (1997). Under Section 108(f) of MILCSA, “[a]ny lands acquired using amounts from interest or other income of the Self-Sufficiency Fund shall be held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the [Sault] Tribe.” 111 Stat. at 2661-2662. The Secretary is thus required to accept the Parcel in trust.
Ex 1 Purchase & Sale – Sibley Final Executed
Ex 2 Title Commitment & Proposed Warranty Deed
Ex 3 Tribal Resolution 2012-250 & 2013-138
Ex 4 Legal Description & Survey
Ex 6 Affidavit of CFO Connolly – Sibley
Sault Tribe Renews Motion to Dismiss Michigan’s Lansing Casino Suit in Federal District Court
Wheat & Penn-Roco on Maxwell v. County of San Diego
Scott Wheat and Amber Penn-Roco have written a short paper, “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Personal Liability Exposure for Tribal Officials in the Wake of Maxwell v. County of San Diego (PDF).
An excerpt:
From firefighting in California, to clearing mudslides in Washington State, tribal governments routinely respond when calamity strikes: both on and off the reservation. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2013), creates personal liability exposure for the tribal officials carrying out these good deeds. The Supreme Court’s suggested “special justification” for allowing off-reservation tort victims to sue tribal governments in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), only complicates matters. This article provides a brief background of the Ninth Circuit’s prior holdings concerning the extension of tribal sovereign immunity to tribal employees, a summary of the Maxwell decision, a discussion of the potential implications of the decision, and an overview of precautionary measures to limit Maxwell personal liability exposure.
Supreme Court Cert Petition in FTCA/Bivens Claims against Federal & Tribal Officers
Here is the petition in Dupris v. Proctor:
Questions presented:
1. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal, created by the Ninth Circuit panel decision in this matter, as to whether federal agents have “discretion” to arrest an individual without probable cause, for purposes of sovereign immunity under the “discretionary function” doctrine of the Federal Tort Claims Act?
2. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether a law enforcement officer’s pre-arrest consultation with a prosecutor, standing alone, entitles the officer to qualified immunity?
3. Given the federal agents’ testimony that there were not any “positive identifications” of Petitioners, contradictory to what the agents told the tribal prosecutor, whether this Court should remand pursuant to this Court’s recent holding in Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. –, 134 S.Ct. 1861 (2014), to ensure that the Court of Appeals properly viewed all evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioners?
Lower court materials here.
Colorado River Indian Tribes Deputy Prosecutor Job Posting
Colville Deputy Prosecutor Job Posting
BIA Issues Administrative Cease and Desist Order in Paskenta Internal Governmental Dispute
Fake Indian Alert: Jabari El v. Redmon’s Towing
Here is the opinion dismissing a motion for writ of replevin Jabari El v. Redmon’s Towing (N.D. Ill.):
An excerpt:
As the basis for the requested writ, Plaintiff first claims that the seizure of his vehicle violated the 1776 Treaty of Watertown. However, Plaintiff does not allege that he is a member of either of the two Native American nations that were parties to the Treaty of Watertown, and thus he fails to state a claim for violation of its terms. U.S. v. $7,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 583 F.Supp.2d 725, 732 (M.D.N.C.2008) (noting that the Treaty of Watertown does not appear to apply to members of any Native American nations other than the St. John’s and Mi’kmaq tribes of Nova Scotia, Canada; nor does it apply to citizens of the United States); see also Trazell v. Wilmers, No. 12–01369, 2013 WL 5593042, at *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2013) (plaintiff failed to state a claim for violation of the Treaty of Watertown where plaintiff alleged he was a member of the Cherokee–Chocktaw nation but did not allege he was a member of either the St. John’s nation or the Mi’kmaq nation).
You must be logged in to post a comment.