Mille Lacs Band Wins $5.6M Judgment against Money Centers of America

Here are the materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):

141 MCA Motion to Dismiss

155 Baena Advisors Motion to Dismiss

160 Real Estate Empowered Motion to Dismiss

169 Mille Lacs Motion for Summary J

170 Mille Lacs Exhibits

172 MCA Motion for Summary J

180 Mille Lacs Opposition to 160

181 Mille Lacs Opposition to MCA Motions

182 MCA Opposition to Mille Lacs Motion

184 Mille Lacs Reply

185 MCA Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

186 MCA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J

187 Reply in Support of 160

199 Melanie Banjamin Motion to Quash

205 MCA Opposition to Motion to Quash

211 MJ Order Granting Motion to Quash

240 DCT Order re Motion to Dismiss

239 DCT Order re Summary J

241 MJ Order re Motion to Compel

Prior materials here.

UND Panel Discussion on Native American Sentencing Disparity and the Case of Dana Deegan

Looks like an amazing discussion. Here. We posted on this case here.

The UND School of Law will host a panel discussion featuring Federal Judge Myron H. Bright on October 14, 2013 from 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. UND School of Law Baker Courtroom.  The panelists will discuss the topic of Native American sentencing disparity and specifically the case of Dana Deegan. She is a member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, and is currently serving a 10-year sentence on a charge of second-degree murder.

Schedule of Speakers:

1:30 – 2:00 p.m. – Overview of the Disparity Problem and its Origins
BJ Jones, Director, Tribal Judicial Institute & Chief Justice of the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court of Appeals
Chris Ironroad, Associate Attorney at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP

2:00 – 3:00 p.m. – Impact of Disparity on Native Americans- The Case of Dana Deegan
Judge Myron H. Bright, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Judge David E. Ackerson, St. Louis County, Minnesota
Sarah Deer, Assistant Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law
Marmie Jotter, sister of Dana Deegan and licensed psychotherapist

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit – Appeal of Dana Deegan Case

3:00 – 3:30 p.m. – How the Guidelines Unfairly Treat Domestic Violence Victims
Radmilla Cody- Ms. Navajo Nation 1997-98 and recording artist

Light refreshments will be served during the event

South Carolina Drops Dusten Brown Extradition Request

Here, h/t to How Appealing.

South Carolina Letter

Oklahoma Counsel Letter to Sheriff

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to EPA Decision re: Four Corners Power Plant at Navajo

Here are the briefs in Wildearth Guardians v. EPA:

Wildearth Guardians Opening Brief

Arizona Public Service Co. Brief

EPA Brief

Wildearth Guardians Reply Brief

Fifth Circuit Largely Rules Against American Indian Prisoner in RLUIPA Case

Here are the materials in Chance v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice:

Chance v. TDCJ Decision

Chance – Opening Brief (FILED)

Amicus Brief of Pan-American Indian Association

Texas– Appellee Brief

An excerpt:

Plaintiff-Appellant William Chance, Jr. (“Chance”) is a prisoner currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). Chance filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) alleging that TDCJ has failed to accommodate several tenets of his Native American religion, including: (1) personal participation in a pipe-smoking ceremony, (2) participation in a minimum number of various ceremonies, (3) indoor smoke-wafting, and (4) personal possession of a lock of a deceased relative’s hair. We agree with the district court that the summary judgment record demonstrated that the prison policies associated with Chance’s first three complaints are the least restrictive means of furthering TDCJ’s compelling interests. However, we disagree with the district court that summary judgment was appropriate on Chance’s claim that prohibiting the possession of a lock of a relative’s hair was not the least restrictive means of furthering TDCJ’s compelling interests. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in part, and VACATE and REMAND it in part.

Federal Court Denies Alaska and US Motions for Reconsideration in Akiachak Native Community v. Jewell

Here are the materials:

112-1 Alaska Motion for Reconsideration

113 Akiachak Opposition

116 Akiachak Supplemental Memorandum

118 Interior Supplemental Memorandum

119 Alaska Supplemental Memorandum

120 Interior Motion for Reconsideration + Exhibits

121 Interior Response to Alaska Motion

124 Akiachak Reply

126 Alaska Reply

127 Akiachak Response to Interior Motion

129 Interior Reply

130 Akiachak 09-30-2013 denying motion for reconsideration

The previous posts in this case are here and here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Indictment in Victimless Crime in Indian Country

Here are the materials in United States v. Augare (D. Mont.):

12 Augare Motion to Dismiss

13 US Response

17 Augare Reply

21 MJ Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

News coverage here. An excerpt:

The U.S. government can prosecute misdemeanor driving offenses on Indian reservations, a federal magistrate judge ruled Tuesday in rejecting a request to dismiss charges against a Blackfeet tribal leader and Montana state senator.U.S. Magistrate Judge Keith Strong said the federal government shares jurisdiction with tribal governments. He rebuffed arguments by Shannon Augare’s attorney, who said the federal government’s case against the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council member and Democratic senator was an intrusion of tribal sovereignty.

Nottawaseppi Huron Band Potawatomi Attorney Job Posting

Here:

Revised Staff Attorney JD – Final Approved 082613

Expires October 31, 2013.

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Indictment in Federal Gun Charge Case, with Fort Peck Tribal Court Conviction as Predicate for Offense

Here are the materials in United States v. First:

US Appellant Brief

First Appellee Brief

US Reply Brief

CA9 Opinion

An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

Reversing the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant as a misdemeanant in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), the panel held that a misdemeanor conviction obtained in tribal court may qualify as a predicate offense to a § 922(g)(9) prosecution so long as the defendant was provided whatever right to counsel existed in the underlying misdemeanor proceeding.

The panel concluded that this result does not violate the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Update: Critical commentary on this case by federal defender Jon Sands here.

Federal Court Denies Injunction in Otoe-Missouria Tribe v. New York State Dept. of Financial Services

Here:

NY Order Denying PI Relief

Materials are here.