Here:
Link here.
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
NPR’s Planet Money on What Happened to Western Sky
Here.
An excerpt:
On TV this summer, you might have seen this ad with a smiling young woman offering help for all those troublesome bills.
“The problem-solver from Western Sky. Get up to $10,000 without collateral. Enough to pay off your payday advances, once and for all,” she says.
There’s a beating drum in , presumably to drive home a point — Western Sky says it’s 100 percent Native-American owned and therefore exempt from state laws banning high-cost loans.
But Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of financial services for New York State, doesn’t buy that argument. “These are companies looking to prey on people who in my opinion are some of the most vulnerable people in our society,” he says.
Update in Bettor Racing v. NIGC — Flandreau Intervenes and Files Counterclaim
Here are the updated materials in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. S.D.):
35 DCT Order Allowing Intervention
36 Flandreau Answer and Counterclaim
Complaint was posted here.
New Scholarship Supporting Reform of 25 U.S.C. § 1500
Emily S. Bremer & Jonathan R. Siegel have published Clearing the Path to Justice: The Need to Reform 28 U.S.C. § 1500, in the Alabama Law Review.
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs suing the United States face a little-known obstacle to justice: 28 U.S.C. § 1500. This statute prohibits the United States Court of Federal Claims from exercising jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has the same claim pending in another court. This apparently sensible rule causes considerable trouble because a “claim” is understood to include all claims based on the same operative facts, and Congress has required that certain types of claims against the United States must go to different courts. Therefore, a plaintiff with multiple claims against the United States may neither be able to bring the claims together in one case nor split them into separate cases. Section 1500 may effectively compel such a plaintiff to pursue only one claim and abandon the others. This unjust result is contrary to fundamental principles of modern civil procedure, which allow a plaintiff to pursue multiple claims against a defendant. Worse, it serves no good purpose. This Article argues that Congress should repeal § 1500 to provide justice to plaintiffs with multiple claims against the United States.
This article is based on a report they co-authored for the United States Administrative Conference.
Red Lake Ojibwe Member Can Be Prosecuted by Feds for Violations of Tribal Hunting/Fishing Regulations
Here are the materials in United States v. Holthusen (D. Minn.):
Winona LaDuke Talk at the Univ. of Michigan on Monday, Nov. 11, 2013
Here:
Minnesota SCT Oral Argument Video in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band Ojibwe
David Wilkins in ICT on the Nooksack Disenrollments
Here.
An excerpt:
To her credit, it appears that the Chief Judge was attempting to console the disenrollees and explain a decision that gravely disappointed them. Unfortunately, she also utilized words that profoundly diminished indigenous sovereignty:
“While the Court recognizes the important entitlements at stake for the proposed disenrollees, this is a fundamentally different proceeding than a loss of United States’ citizenship…. In the case of tribal disenrollees, the disenrollee loses critical and important rights, but they are not equal to the loss of U.S. citizenship. A person who is disenrolled from her tribe loses access to the privileges of tribal membership, but she is not stateless. While she loses the right, for example, to apply for and obtain tribal housing through the Tribe, her ability to obtain housing in general is unaffected. Though she loses the right to vote in tribal elections, she does not lose the right to vote in federal, state, and local elections. While the impact on the disenrollee is serious and detrimental, it is not akin to becoming stateless.” (Emphasis mine.)Whatever one’s views on the way each Native nation chooses to exercise their sovereignty with regard to defining membership, the judge’s view of Native nationhood is chilling. By ruling that the termination of a Native person’s citizenship is “not equal to the loss of U.S. citizenship” and the loss of tribal membership is “not akin to becoming stateless,” she places Native citizenship in a position squarely inferior to U.S. citizenship. The implications are profound. It is not realistic to expect to maintain true government to government relations with states and the federal government if we begin by diminishing our own status as citizens of sovereign nations.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/11/07/disenrollment-disaster-my-citizenship-better-yours
California COA Appeals Decides ICWA Notice Case, Reversing and Remanding for Proper Notice to Karuk Tribe
Here is the opinion in In re Guardianship of D.W.
An excerpt:
The record in the present case discloses that from the outset of these proceedings until respondent was appointed the minor‟s guardian, appellant consistently informed the court that the minor had Indian ancestry, and that his father was an enrolled member of the Yurok or Karuk tribes. “Because „biological descendance‟ is often a prerequisite for tribal membership . . . [a relative‟s] suggestion that [the child] „might‟ be an Indian child [is] enough” to satisfy the minimal showing required to trigger the statutory notice provisions. (Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408, fn. omitted.) In carrying out its obligation under the ICWA to provide notice, the court incorrectly assigned appellant, the party objecting to the guardianship, the responsibility of providing notice to the possible Indian tribes.
Jezebel: Tanning Salon Excited Indians Brought “Sexy Color” to First Thanksgiving
Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.