Here.
Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Betty Weaver is Dead
Here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
NCAI Webinar: VAWA implementation and Jury Requirements
NCAI Webinar: VAWA implementation and Jury Requirements
Tuesday, April 28, 3-4:30pm EDT
25 U.S.C. 1304(d) requires tribes implementing Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction under VAWA 2013 to provide a right to trial by an impartial jury drawn from sources that reflect a fair cross-section of the community, not excluding any distinctive group, including non-Indians.
This webinar will compare how several tribes who have already implemented the new law have structured their jury systems to meet the requirements of the law. Paula Hannaford-Agor, the Director of the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts, will share information and resources about developing a jury plan, constructing a representative jury pool, jury management, and best practices for jury summons enforcement. The webinar will last 90 minutes, with substantial time for question and answer.
Register for the webinar at : https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4425912899787110402.
SCOTUS Holds FTCA’s Time Bars are Subject to Equitable Tolling
Here is the opinion in United States v. Kwai Fun Wong. An excerpt:
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act) provides that a tort claim against the United States “shall be forever barred” unless it is presented to the “appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues” and then brought to federal court “within six months” after the agency acts on the claim. 28 U. S. C. §2401(b). In each of the two cases we resolve here, the claimant missed one of those deadlines, but requested equitable tolling on the ground that she had a good reason for filing late. The Government responded that §2401(b)’s time limits are not subject to tolling because they are jurisdictional restrictions. Today, we reject the Government’s argument and conclude that courts may toll both of the FTCA’s limitations periods.
Congrats to South Dakota NALSA!
From their facebook page:
USD NALSA was presented with the National Native American Law Student Association’s Chapter of the Year award this year at the Federal Bar Association’s 40th Annual Indian Law Conference! Also, Tsyoslake House received the 2L of the year award! NALSA would like to say thank you to all who voted and thank you to all of our members who worked hard to make good things happen in Indian Country! Our goal this year was to bring awareness of current issues that Indian people face, while trying to be positive role models for Indian youth. NALSA would like to say thank you again for this recognition on a national level. Our chapter will continue to strive and work hard for Indian Country! Good work to all the NALSA members who volunteered their time to help better Indian Country!
Defamation Defendants’ Counterclaims against Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Dismissed
Here are the updated materials in the case now captioned Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v Cieslak (D. Nev.):
91 Defendant Motion to File Counterclaims
An excerpt:
Defendants seek to amend their answer to allege a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs. The proposed counterclaim alleges two causes of action: abuse of process and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely, will cause undue prejudice to them and that the proposed counterclaim would be futile because neither cause of action states a legally viable claim for relief.
Prior post in this matter here.
Jessica Shoemaker on Emulsified Property in Indian Country
Jessica Shoemaker has posted “Emulsified Property,” forthcoming in the Pepperdine Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
The typical American Indian reservation is often described as a “checkerboard” of different real property ownership forms. Individual parcels of reservation land may be held in either a special federal Indian trust status or in fee, by either Indian or non-Indian owners. The rights and responsibilities of trust owners are set by federal and tribal law, while fee owners are subject to state or tribal law. Many scholars have analyzed the challenges created by this checkerboard pattern of property and jurisdiction. This article, however, reveals an even more complicated issue that has thus far gone unaddressed in the literature. This article analyzes for the first time how the modern reservation is not merely a checkerboard of fee and trust parcels situated next to each other. Rather, significant numbers of reservation lands are now jointly owned by co-owners who hold undivided interests in the same property in different tenure types. Thus, many individual tracts now contain a mix of trust and fee ownership interests in the same resource.
These “emulsified” properties are made up of theoretically undivided co-ownership interests; however, the fee and trust co-owners have very different rights to the same property, including vastly different use and possession rights. There is no single over-arching set of legal rules that applies equally to all interests in emulsified properties, nor any single dispute resolution tribunal through which co-owners can negotiate a fair and efficient use of the resource. This article explores for the first time how these emulsified properties are created and analyzes the unique obstacles they create for landowners and for governance. While others have argued for a refocus on tribal property regimes in order to support tribal sovereignty more generally, this emulsified property problem tips the scales and makes more robust tribal property systems, with clear authority to govern all interests in emulsified properties, a critical next step.
AIGC Now Accepting Cobell Scholarship Applications
Press release here:
The Ieweras Gray Foundation Auction, Motorcycle Run & Concert: The First Annual Charity Auction, Motorcycle Run & Concert Benefitting Families in Need of Supplementary Health Care Funds
Association on American Indian Affairs Seeking Executive Director
ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOB ANNOUNCEMENT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – The Association on American Indian Affairs, www.indian-affairs.org, a national Indian advocacy nonprofit is seeking a qualified individual for the position of Executive Director. As the chief operating officer, the candidate must possess significant fundraising, administrative and programmatic experience, have excellent writing and public speaking skills and knowledge about American Indian affairs. Salary depends on experience and qualifications. To apply, by May 8 please submit a cover letter of interest and resume, including three references, in confidence to Chair, Board Search Committee at general.aaia@indian-affairs.org or to 966 Hungerford Drive, Ste. 12-B, Rockville, MD 20850. Full job description is available at http://indian-affairs.org/about/docs/AAIAExecDirectorJobDescription.pdf
Minnesota Court of Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Appeal
Here is the unpublished opinion in In re Welfare of Child A.N.T. (Minn. App.):
An excerpt:
The district court properly inquired into whether ICWA applies here. After extensive testimony, the district court’s reopening of the ICWA issue, and dozens of tribal notifications, including one to the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, no evidence was located to suggest that daughter is eligible for membership in any Indian tribe. Mother, through her mother, provided scant information pertaining only to practices and purported Native American heritage, but nothing concerning tribal membership or eligibility for membership. OCCS, despite extensive and documented efforts, was unable to verify that daughter is an Indian Child as defined by ICWA.
We have held that a district court does not err when it declines to apply ICWA where “there is no evidence that the children are eligible for membership in any Indian tribe.” In re Welfare of Children of M.L.A., 730 N.W.2d 54, 59 (Minn.App.2007). Further, in In re Matter of Baby Boy Doe, 849 P.2d 925, 931 (Idaho 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 860, 114 S.Ct. 173 (1993), the Idaho Supreme Court held that “[t]he party asserting the applicability of ICWA has the burden of producing the necessary evidence for the trial court to make” the determination of whether ICWA applies.
Mother failed to meet her burden of production concerning the application of ICWA. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that ICWA does not apply here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.