Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 441

Ninth Circuit Affirms Two Convictions in Tribal Embezzlement/Theft Schemes

September 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Aubrey:

An excerpt:

For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1163, funds paid from an Indian tribal organization to a contractor continue to be “property belonging to any Indian tribal organization,” as long as the tribal organization maintains sufficient supervision and control of disbursed funds and their ultimate use. Accordingly, we reject William Aubrey’s contention that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove that he converted or misused property belonging to an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163. We also deny Aubrey’s other challenges to his conviction and sentencing.

Here are the materials in United States v. Augare:

From the court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed a sentence in a case in which the district court applied a “sophisticated means” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) following the defendant’s guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States, False Claims Act conspiracy, theft from an Indian tribe receiving federal funding, and federal income tax evasion.

The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied the “sophisticated means” enhancement to the defendant’s offense conduct. The panel explained that the coordinated and repetitive steps that the defendant took to transfer money from the Po’Ka project to his personal bank account are comparable in complexity and sophistication to the schemes held to warrant the enhancement in both this court’s precedent and persuasive authority from other circuits.

New Student Scholarship on Understanding Tribal Courts and the Application of Fundamental Law

September 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

April Wilkinson has posted “A Framework for Understanding Tribal Courts and the Application of Fundamental Law: Through the Voices of Scholars in the Field of Tribal Justice,” forthcoming in the Tribal Law Journal, on SSRN.

Sherman Alexie on Disenrollments

Image September 8, 2015September 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Last Minute Suit to Block Conveyance of Kerr Dam Project to Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes Fails

September 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in Keenan v. Bay (D. D.C.):

2 Complaint

19-1 Motion for TRO

20 DCT Order Denying TRO

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs have also failed to adduce any evidence that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm should the Kerr license be transferred to CSKT and EKI. In their Motion, Plaintiffs make general claims of economic harm they will allegedly suffer should CSKT and EKI take control of the Kerr dam. Additionally, Plaintiffs make general allegations regarding the natural security importance of the Kerr Project, as well as somewhat perplexing arguments regarding the Turkish Government’s involvement with Native Americans. However, to the extent such injuries are cognizable, nowhere are those allegations substantiated in the record. Indeed, at hearing, counsel for Plaintiffs conceded that no such evidence has been submitted relating to the Plaintiffs’ alleged economic harm. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden here.

Angela Riley & Kristen Carpenter on a Theory of Indian Cultural Appropriation

September 8, 2015September 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Angela Riley and Kristen Carpenter have posted “Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review, on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In a number of recent controversies, from sports teams’ use of Indian mascots to the federal government’s desecration of sacred sites, American Indians have lodged charges of “cultural appropriation” or the unauthorized use by members of one group the cultural expressions and resources of another. While these and other incidents are currently in the headlines, American Indians often experience these claims within an historical and continuing experience of dispossession. For hundreds of years, the U.S. legal system has sanctioned the taking and destruction of Indian lands and artifacts, bodies and religions, identities and beliefs, all toward the project of conquest and colonization. Indian resources have been devalued by the law and made available for non-Indians to use of their own purposes. Seeking redresses for the losses caused by these actions, tribes have brought claims under a variety of laws, from trademark and copyright, to the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment, and some have been more successful than others. As a matter of property law, courts have compensated – albeit incompletely – the taking of certain Indian lands and has also come to recognize tribal interests in human remains, gravesites, and associated artifacts. When it comes to intangible property, however, the situation is more complicated. It is difficult for legal decision-makers and scholars alike to understand why Indian tribes should be able to regulate the use of Indian names, symbols, and expressions. Indeed, non-Indians often claim interests, sounding in free speech and the public domain, in the very same resources. To advance understanding of this contested area of law, this Article situates intangible cultural property claims in a larger history of the legal dispossession of Indian property – a phenomenon we call “Indian appropriation.” It then evaluates these claims vis à vis prevailing legal doctrine, and offers a normative view of solutions, both legal and extralegal.

Highly, highly recommended! I had a chance to review a draft of this paper and Profs. Riley and Carpenter are changing the way Indian law scholars and property law scholars think about cultural property. A terrific contribution.

Oklahoma + 5 States Amicus Brief Favoring Dollar General

September 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

13-1496 tsac Oklahoma et al Amicus Brief

We are compiling merits briefs and other materials here.

NPR: “Tribal Justice: Prosecuting non-Natives for sexual assault on reservations”

September 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Opening Merits Brief in Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States

September 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Menominee Tribe Brief

7 Grand Ronde Ancestors Posthumously Disenrolled; Appeals Dismissed

September 4, 2015September 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the newest materials in Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde:

At request of counsel for the plaintiffs (see statement below), we have removed these docs:

To Whom It May Concern:

At the behest of the Grand Ronde Tribal Government’s legal counsel, we have removed from our firm’s social media pages any links to certain legal briefs which were sealed under the Grand Ronde Tribal Court’s order issued in September of 2014. We ask that you likewise remove any legal briefs from your pages. We regret the inadvertent disclosure of these legal briefs.