Here:
Executive Director-Gaming Commission
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
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:
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.
Here:
Native Peacemaking: A Traditional Approach to Conflict Resolution
Friday, February 20, 2015 at 5:15-6:45pm
Yale Law School
Peacemaking is a traditional Native approach to resolving conflict that focuses on healing and restoration rather than punishment. Although peacemaking varies across tribes, it generally brings together the disputants, along with family members, friends, and other members of the community to speak about how the event, crime, or crisis affected each person. Panelists will discuss the goals of peacemaking and how tribal courts are using this strategy to tackle Indian justice issues.
Panelists:
Registration: https://www.cvent.com/events/21st-annual-rebellious-lawyering-conference/registration-8556edb1831842159e12e9a427930a69.aspx
This panel is part of Yale Law School’s 2015 Rebellious Lawyering Conference. To learn more about the conference, please visit: http://www.yale.edu/reblaw.
Here.
Here are the materials:
Here are the materials:
You must be logged in to post a comment.