NYTs: “When Cars Assume Ethnic Identities”

Here.

Slide show here.

Scholarship on Using CERCLA to Save the Native Village of Kivalina

Robert J. Martin has published “The Village of Kivalina is Falling Into the Sea: Should CERCLA Section 9626(b) Be Available To Move the Village from Harm’s Way?” in the Barry Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

The Village of Kivalina, and other similarly situated Native Alaska villages, are in danger of falling into the sea. Regional climate change is melting the permafrost that acts as the foundation of their communities. Sea ice that once acted as a barrier during storm season today melts earlier, and erosion rates are increasing. Kivalina’s situation is further worsened by the threat of contamination from a nearby open dump. Without permanent relocation, Kivalina and its residents face imminent harm.
Congress has given the President authority to permanently relocate an Indian tribe or Alaska Native village under CERCLA Section 9626(b). This article proposes that the President exercise such authority to protect the health and welfare of Kivalina and its residents. In view of the longstanding trust obligation of the United States to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages, which is embodied in treaties, statutes, executive orders and court decisions, the President should exercise his clear authority to protect the Village from harm.

Alaska SCT Decision on ICWA Placement Preferences

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

This appeal requires us to reexamine policies that underlie ICWA. Though we have previously held that the preponderance of the evidence standard set forth in Adoption Rule 11 applies, upon closer review we conclude that ICWA implicitly mandates that good cause to deviate from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences be proved by clear and convincing evidence. To the extent our prior cases hold otherwise, they are overruled. We therefore vacate the superior court’s decision and remand for further proceedings in which the superior court shall apply the clear and convincing standard of proof to the good cause determination. We do not reach all the issues raised on appeal because we are remanding, but we address some of the tribe’s arguments regarding the good cause determination to provide guidance to the superior court and the parties on remand. We also clarify the analysis necessary when a party challenges the suitability of a preferred placement.

New NPR Story on Baby Veronica Case

Here.

Nottawaseppi Huron Band Potawatomi Amicus Brief in Michigan v. Sault Tribe

Here:

NHBPIAmicusBrief

NHBPIMotion

NHBPIMotionBrief

Federal Court Denies Motion for TRO to Enjoin Nooksack Disenrollment Election

Here are the materials in St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):

3-Amended Complaint

4-Motion for TRO and Proposed Order

23 Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for a TRO

24 Reply re Motion for TRO

25 Order denying TRO

Yakama Settles Federal Suit with Counties and Out-of-State Jurisdictions over Unauthorized Raid on Tribal Lands

Here is the press release:

YAKAMA-COUNTIES SETTLEMENT PRESS RELEASE

News coverage, where county attorney says “we’re sorry.”

Text from the Yakama press release:

The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have reached out-of-court settlements with Yakima County, Benton County, and local governments from Virginia and Mississippi, to resolve the Nation’s lawsuit against those governments for a February 16, 2011, dawn raid of Yakama Reservation trust lands.  Upon the first of two joint dismissal requests filed with the U.S. District Court, Judge Rosanna Peterson has already dismissed most of the claims between the parties.

“We are pleased and proud that governments from here in the Yakima Valley and Columbia River Basin, to as far away as the east coast, have all agreed to honor the Yakama Treaty of 1855,” said Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman Harry Smiskin.  “Each of them will seek our blessing before every again returning to Yakama lands.  They will also cooperate with our Tribal Police, Tribal Jail and Tribal Court to improve public safety on our reservation.”

Through Article II of the Yakama Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Reservation was set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Yakama Nation.  To that end, the Yakama Treaty makes clear that no “white man” shall be permitted to reside upon Yakama Indian Country without permission from the Yakama Nation.  The federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article II meant that no one would be permitted to step onto Yakama Reservation lands without the Yakamas’ consent. 

In Article VIII of the Yakama Treaty, the United States and Yakama Nation set forth a process for delivering Yakama criminals or suspects who are in Yakama Indian Country to federal authorities.  Federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article VIII meant there would be a consultation process between the Head Chief or all of the Yakama Chiefs, and the United States relative to any Yakama alleged to have committed a wrong, before they might be delivered up to federal authorities.

In March 2011, the Yakama Nation sued federal law enforcement agencies and several local governments for violating these federal Treaty provisions when raiding a Yakama member-owned business on Yakama trust lands without providing any advance notice to Yakama authorities, and in turn barring Yakama Nation cops who arrived at the scene of the raid to help keep the peace. 

Since the spring of 2012, all of the parties to the litigation have engaged in a multi-track mediation process.  The Yakama Nation and Department of Justice defendants remain in settlement negotiations.

Suit materials are here, here, here, and here.

 

Little River Band Ottawa Attorney Job Posting

Position: General Counsel, Executive Legal Department

(Full Time – Contractual)

Summary: This position is responsible for providing legal counsel, guidance, and direction to the office of the Ogema and the Executive Branch of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government. 

Employment Qualifications: A qualified candidate offers the following:

  • J.D. Degree from an ABA accredited law school; and
  • seven (7) years experience with a major law firm or legal department; and
  • demonstrative experience of Constitutional Law and Federal Indian Law practices; and
  • admittance to practice in Michigan or other state bar (shall obtain Michigan Bar within one year of employment); and
  • strong knowledge of litigation, employment and business law.

 “Indian Preference applies in accordance with Ordinance #11-600-02”

  Continue reading →

Update in Inetianbor v. Cash Call (Western Sky Financial) — Arbitrator Alleged Biased — Court Finds Irrelevant

Here are the new materials:

Inetianbor Motion to Reconsider

Cashhcall Opposition

Inetianbor Reply in Support of Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Motion

An excerpt:

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has uncovered two new pieces of evidence that indicate that Mr. Chasing Hawk is biased toward CashCall. First, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Chasing Hawk’s daughter, Shannon Chasing Hawk, is employed by Western Sky. Plaintiff has attached what he claims is a printout of Ms. Chasing Hawk’s Facebook profile page, listing “Western Sky Financial” as her employer. See DE 61 at 9. He further alleges that Mr. Chasing Hawk has “10+ kids and every single one of them has either worked for, currently works at CashCall or one of its subsidiaries . . . or had illegally attempted to conduct an unsuccessful arbitration for the defendant.” DE 67 at 2 n.1. Second, Plaintiff alleges that CashCall and Mr. Chasing Hawk have colluded in the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff attaches what he claims is an email chain between Mr. Chasing Hawk and an employee of Lakota Cash, LLC (“Lakota Cash”), a subsidiary of Western Sky, which purportedly shows that Lakota Cash prepared the letter for Mr. Chasing Hawk. See id. at 7-8. Plaintiff further claims that he called Mr. Chasing Hawk, and that Mr. Chasing Hawk  admitted during the phone call that CashCall had prepared the letter for him. Plaintiff represents that he has tried calling Mr. Chasing Hawk again, but that he told Plaintiff that “I am not able to talk to you because cash call (sic) will get mad. You have to call the  attorney, sorry.” Id. at 3.

Prior order here.

National Indian Gaming Commission Attorney Job Posting

Here.