Here are the materials so far in Pueblo of Jemez v. United States (D. N.M.):
United States Motion to Dismiss
News coverage here.
Update 9/27/13:
Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher
International Indian Treaty Council Files Action with UN CERD in Conjunction with Chief Theresa Spence and the Mushkegowuk People of Attawapiskat First Nation
Press release here:
Bureau of Indian Affairs – Office of Justice Services — Training Announcement
TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENT:
Training Program: Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Training Program
Training Date: March 19 – 21, 2013
Training Location: Grand Sierra Resort and Casino
Course Description: Through lecture and practical exercises, the course will provide classroom instruction as well as breakout sessions instructing on Trial Preparation, Direct examination, Opening Statements, Exhibits and Evidentiary Foundations, Cross Examination, Impeachment, Closing Arguments, Opposing Strategies, and Sentencing Considerations. This program’s training emphasis will be on: Trafficking of Illegal Narcotics.
The Target Training Audience is: Tribal Court Judges, Tribal Court Prosecutors, and Tribal Court Public Defenders, and other tribal court personnel include: Former Tribal Prosecutors, University of New Mexico Tribal Public Defender experts, BIA Division of Courts, DOJ U.S. Attorney’s Offices, DOJ Access to Justice Initiative, and United States Office of Defender Services with Federal Public Defenders Office.
Cost: TUITION IS FREE. Participant’s Agency is responsible for Travel, Lodging, and per Diem costs associated with attending this program.
Training Registration Process: All applicants must submit a U.S. Indian Police Academy Training Application via Fax (505-563-3090). Applicants will receive a selection letter from the BIA to confirm the applicant has been registered to attend this training program. Scanned applications may be sent via e-mail to: veronica.toersbijns@bia.gov
UN Human Rights Press Release: UN Experts Call for VAWA Reauthorization
USA: UN rights experts call on Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act
GENEVA (19 February 2013) – The United Nations Special Rapporteurs on violence against women, Rashida Manjoo, and on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, urged the United States Government to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Their call follows the recent approval by the US Senate of a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and strengthen VAWA.
“Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has played a crucial role in providing guidance to state and local level governments, and in facilitating their adequate responses to violence against women,” Ms. Manjoo said. “It has steadily expanded funding to address domestic violence and, with each reauthorization, it has included historically underserved groups.”
The new bill includes improvements with regard to the criminal justice system’s response to crimes including sexual assault and homicides resulting from domestic violence. It also foresees enhanced protections for Native American and Alaskan Native women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender victims, as well as immigrant victims and their children.
“Following my visit to the United States in 2011, I highlighted the positive legislative and policy measures undertaken by the US Government to fight violence against women, including the enactment and subsequent reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, and the establishment of a dedicated office on violence against women at the highest level of the Executive,” the expert on violence against women said.
Likewise, Special Rapporteur Anaya expressed concern in his report following his visit to the United States in 2012 that numerous cases of violence against indigenous women are committed by non-indigenous individuals, many of whom are not subject to indigenous prosecutorial authority because of their non-indigenous status.
“Congress should act promptly to pass key reforms to the Violence Against Women Act that bolster indigenous tribes’ ability to prosecute cases involving violence against indigenous women,” emphasized the expert on the rights of indigenous peoples.
“We would like to reiterate the importance of reauthorizing VAWA in order to build upon its accomplishments and continue striving for more adequate responses from the authorities in providing protection to victims and ensuring accountability for perpetrators,” the UN Special Rapporteurs stressed.
ENDS Continue reading
Complaint in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority
California COA Briefs in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok
Interesting and important case. The appeal is from a $30 million judgment against the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians in favor of a developer of a gaming facility that failed in the 1990s, before the Tribe partnered with a new developer and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to open the existing Red Hawk Casino. The case went to trial after the NIGC’s final agency action ruling the main contract at issue was void as an unapproved management agreement.
2012-10-10 Tribe’s Opening Brief
2012-11-26 Sharp’s Respondent’s Brief
From the Tribe’s Opening Brief:
[T]he Superior Court erred in assuming subject matter jurisdiction over this breach of contract lawsuit by purporting to overturn a federal agency’s binding determination that the contract was unenforceable under a preemptive federal statute. It was also error to assume jurisdiction over a sovereign Indian nation after finding the Tribe did not clearly and unequivocally waive its immunity.
. . .
Once the NIGC took final agency action ruling Sharp’s ELA was a management contract that was void for lack of agency approval, this case was effectively over—or at least it should have been. The decision of the NIGC, the federal agency charged with approving and disapproving management contracts under IGRA, is binding on lower courts unless successfully challenged in a United States District Court. AT&T, 295 F.3d 899, 906, 909-10. Sharp opposed the Tribe’s efforts to stay the Superior Court action to permit Sharp to initiate proceedings in the only proper forum: federal district court. . . . Instead, Sharp convinced the Superior Court to reach the merits of the NIGC’s decision and enforce the very revenue sharing provisions the NIGC deemed illegal. . . . Sharp’s election to proceed without first challenging the NIGC’s final agency action is dispositive of the viability of Sharp’s ELA: it is void unless and until Sharp brings a proper federal court challenge, and any claims predicated on the ELA’s validity fail as a matter of law.
. . .
The Superior Court erred by failing to dismiss this case on mandated federal sovereign immunity principles. In ruling on the Tribe’s jurisdictional motion to dismiss, the Court erroneously applied inapposite state law contract interpretation cases when the question is controlled by federal law. . . . The Court also erred, as a matter of law, by failing to treat the defense as a question that needed to be resolved at the outset of the case, as opposed to one appropriate for a jury. . . . Finally, the Superior Court erred when it issued a ruling that should have compelled dismissal, since it found that the Tribe’s reading of the waiver provision in Sharp’s contracts was “reasonable” given the evidence regarding the waiver’s actual scope—i.e., that the waiver of immunity did not reach Sharp’s claims, and was limited to the gaming facility that Sharp and the Tribe had partnered to build, Crystal Mountain Casino.
Navajo Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument at Idaho College of Law
The University of Idaho College of Law is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation will be sitting at the Menard Law Building, Law School Courtroom for oral argument on the morning of Thursday, March 21st from 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The Court, consisting of Chief Justice Herb Yazzie, Associate Justice Eleanor Shirley, and Associate Justice by Designation William Platero, will hear oral argument in the case: Neptune Leasing, Inc. v. Mountain States Petroleum Corporation and Nacogdoches Oil and Gas, Inc., No. SC-CV-24-10. This will be a historic visit by the Navajo Nation Supreme Court which has jurisdiction over the largest tribal land base and population in the United States.
During the afternoon on Thursday, March 21st the Navajo Nation Justices will discuss “The Operations and Principles Guiding the Navajo Nation Supreme Court” in the Law School Courtroom from 1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Both of these sessions are open to the public. The Menard Law Building is located on the University of Idaho Moscow campus at 875 Perimeter Drive.
NYTs “Disunion” Series Profiles Cherokee Nation after the Civil War
Here.
Fascinating. My favorite part:
By 1862, Ross had become disillusioned with the Confederate government. The first major military engagements in Indian Territory proved disastrous for both the Confederacy and the Cherokees. Retreating from Indian Territory, the Confederacy left the Cherokees open to Union advances and without supplies for Cherokee troops and destitute civilians. Although Ross believed the Confederacy was shirking its treaty promises, the Confederate colonel Douglas H. Cooper called upon Ross to fulfill his obligations by ordering all Cherokee men of fighting age to “take up arms to repel invasion.”
Union Capt. Harris S. Greeno was aware of Ross’s dissatisfaction with the Confederacy, and he ordered the arrest of Ross and his family at their plantation home, Rose Cottage, in present-day eastern Oklahoma. They were quickly paroled and escorted to Union territory, and they retreated to his wife’s family home in Philadelphia. Ross would spend the remainder of the war attempting to convince the Lincoln administration of the Cherokee’s loyalty and commitment to the Union cause.
Supreme Court Asks for Views of Solicitor General in Oneida Reservation Case
Today’s order list here.
This is a probably a disappointment for the petitioners — it would be a major surprise if the SG recommends a grant.
The Horrific Story of Printing One’s Own Supreme Court Cert Petition
Funny story, with this serious coda:
In the end, I spent $200 on equipment, around $20 on gas, probably another $20 on electricity (since laser printing is very energy intensive), $300 on the official fee, $95 on fancy paper, $26 on binding, and $24 on postage. Then I sold the LaserJet 5000N for $175 and bought a LaserJet 9050dn (worth nearly $4,000) for $280. My total costs therefore came to about $790, of which $490 was spent preparing the booklets. (I won’t include the expense of Microsoft Word, Adobe InDesign, or the years spent acquiring desktop publishing skills because I already had all of those things, unlike the other ingredients in this crazy soup.) So I basically saved myself up to $1,410, or 75% of the quoted expense.
I also couldn’t help but to use the brief itself to make a point to the Court about their Rule. Despite the strong suggestion that one ask the Court to answer no more than three questions, I added a fourth to my Petition: “WHETHER, this Court’s Rules regarding document submission (e.g. Rule 33.1) and the various conflicting rules of lower courts serve the interests of justice in an age of instantaneous and costless information transmission over the internet.” It’s extremely doubtful that the Court will actually answer it.
Clearly, the Rule begs many questions. How can the Supreme Court reasonably expect people to file if they are not incredibly wealthy or already professional printers? Why are the dimensions required so unusual? Who cut their hand on a staple? How much does it cost the Court to process documents in this manner, and how much would using an electronic process save? And most fundamentally, if this abject nonsense is typical of the justice system at the highest levels, why do we place our trust in it at all?
You must be logged in to post a comment.