Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Slate: Worst Argument Ever against Gay Marriage — Pocahontas and John Rolfe?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Hubba wha?

Here, “The Worst Argument Ever Made Against Gay Marriage” by David S. Cohen.

An excerpt:

I won’t hide the ball here, so here it is: Gay people should not be able to get married because Pocahontas married John Rolfe.

This argument was actually made in federal court Tuesday, before the judges of the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. They were hearing a challenge to Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The argument is hands-down the worst argument ever offered against same-sex marriage.

A link to the oral argument is here.

Johnson Barnhouse & Keegan Job Posting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Indian Law Attorney

Johnson Barnhouse & Keegan LLP is seeking an associate attorney with 4+ years’ experience to work in its Albuquerque, New Mexico office. Applicants must be licensed in a state jurisdiction, preferably in New Mexico or California. Position requires experience in federal Indian law, tribal law, commercial transactions and litigation. Applicants must be motivated, hard-working, able to work independently and as part of a team, and must be passionate about serving Native American individuals, tribes, pueblos and their business enterprises. To apply, submit a cover letter, resume, three references and a writing sample to kgriego@indiancountrylaw.com.

UCLA Symposium on Indian Law and Order Commission Video Available

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Video is now available from the full day UCLA Symposium on Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) Report (held Jan. 24, 2014) which features 6 of the 9 ILOC Commissioners:

Video: A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer, January 24, 2014 http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/events/iloc_symposium_video.aspx

Thanks to Jerry Gardner for sending this my way.

Federal Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration in Miccosukee v. Cypress

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the order in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):

299 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Reconsideration materials are here.

Dismissal materials are here.

Little Traverse Bay Bands Odawa Special/Assistant Prosecutor Posting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

SPECIAL/ASSISTANT TRIBAL PROSECUTOR POSITION (PDF)

Waganakising Odawak, known in English as Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, is a nation of citizens with inherent sovereignty and right to self-governance. The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (“LTBB”) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe under Public Law 103-324, and is a party to numerous Treaties with the United States, the most recent of which are the Treaty of Washington of March 28, 1836 (7 Stat. 491) and the Treaty of Detroit of 1855 (11 Stat. 621).

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of this posting is to invite proposals from persons interested in providing services as a Special / Assistant Tribal Prosecutor

QUALIFICATIONS: Applicants must be an attorney in good standing licensed to practice law in LTBB Tribal Court and any State in the United States. Indian Tribal Preference laws apply to this position.

PERIOD OF PREFORMANCE: Two year appointment to handle cases that involve a conflict of interest for Tribes current Prosecutor, or a vacancy in the Prosecutor position during the Two- year appointment.

COMPENSATION: As negotiated

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Each application should include a letter of interest, letter of reference, a resume and proof of member in state bar association (Copy of Bar Membership or Certificate of Good Standing) Applications are accepted by email Chairman@ltbbodawa-nsn.gov , fax 231-242-1411 or Mail to: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Attn. Tribal Chairman’s Office, 7500 Odawa Circle, Harbor Springs, MI 49740

Native American Rights Fund on Humetewa Confirmation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Today the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Diane Humetewa as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Arizona.  Humetewa is a member of the Hopi Tribe and is now the first American Indian woman federal judge.  She was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona from 2006 to 2009.

NARF Executive Director John E. Echohawk congratulated Judge Humetewa on her confirmation:  “She is well-qualified for this position and the Federal Judicial Selection Project, staffed by NARF and NCAI attorneys, has long-supported her nomination and confirmation.  With today’s historic vote, she will be the only Native American federal judge currently sitting and the first Native American woman in the federal judiciary. With this important milestone, we acknowledge that there are still a lot of judicial vacancies and accomplished, well-qualified Native American attorneys who are ready to serve.  We look forward to supporting more nominees like Judge Humetewa in the future.”

 

Guest Post — Anthony Jones on the Federal Circuit’s Recent Trademark Decision and Its Import for the Washington Football Team’s Nickname

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Patently-O commentator Mark Bartholomew points to this Federal Circuit case. The issue is when a trademark may be denied for containing “matter which may disparage” a group of persons. At issue in this case is a proposed mark of STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA which was denied for violation of this disparagement provision. The Federal Circuit approved a two-prong test. Bartholomew further states:

  • “Under the first prong of that test, a court must determine the likely meaning of the mark in question. Under the test’s second prong, the court examines whether the likely meaning refers to an identifiable group and, if so, whether that meaning is disparaging to a substantial composite of that group.”
  • “The stakes are high here because the Federal Circuit is the typical route for appeals of [Trademark Trial and Appeal Board] decisions, and a highly anticipated decision from the TTAB on disparagement involving the WASHINGTON REDSKINS mark is due soon.”

There ought to be little doubt that the term “Redskins” refers to an identifiable group – i.e., American Indians.  As to the issue of disparagement, the Federal Circuit has endorsed a rather permissive evidentiary standard, which allowed for consideration of anonymous blog posts to show public perception and reaction to a proposed mark, and statements from members of the disparaged group stating concern over such disparagement.  One key issue that the Court did not address is what constitutes a “substantial composite” of the referenced group.

Blast from the (Recent) Past: Lummi COA Assumes Jurisdiction over Business Dispute involving Nonmember LLC

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion:

MYTRIBETV LLC v Swanson

An excerpt:

We reverse the trial court’s decision. Any challenge to tribal court jurisdiction raises two questions. First, does the Lummi Nation Code of Laws empower the court to hear the subject mailer of the suit and exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties? Second, does federal law restrict what the Lummi Code authorizes? We conclude that the Lummi Code authorizes the court to exercise personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit and that federal law does not forbid it. Because the internal disagreement in MyTribe TV involves a Lummi Tribal member, a LLC registered to do business on the Reservation, and proceeds from Lummi contracts, Lummi Nation courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims.

Dakota Plains Legal Services (Mission Office) Job Posting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Mission Staff Atty Advertisement

Federal Court Hold Turtle Mountain Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction over Indian Claims against Insurance Company

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State Farm Insurance Companies v. Turtle Mountain Fleet Farm LLC (D.N.D.):

25 Greenwoods Motion for Summary J + Tribal Appellate Court Decision

27 State Farm Motion for Summary J

27-1 Tribal Court Complaint

27-3 State Farm Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss

37 Greenwood Response

38 State Farm Response

39 State Farm Reply

42 MJ Order

An excerpt:

In summary, the court concludes that the tribal court does have jurisdiction over the Greenwoods’ claims against State Farm. In reaching this conclusion, the status of the title of the land is not a significant consideration. Rather, the important factors for purposes of this case, given the nature of the activity at issue, are that the insurance policy was issued to members of the Tribe and is for a residence located on the reservation. Consequently, the court would reach the same conclusion if the Greenwoods’ residence was situated on non-Indian owned fee land.