Here are the updated materials in Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Park Service (W.D. Wash.):
126 -ORDER GRANTING TRIBAL MTN TO DISMISS
114 – Tribal Mtn to Dsm – Subject Matter
116 – US Response Tribe Motion Dismiss
117- WFC Response Tribal Motion Dismiss
Texas Tech has the following position that you may be interested in.
Title: Unit Coordinator
Department: G00001-Institutional Diversity
Posting Number: 87832
Provides support in the coordination and supervision of programs in the area to which the job is assigned. May supervise subordinate staff, student employees and/or volunteers.
Major/Essential Functions: Manage and develop programs for Native American students. Recruit Native American high school students to participate in college-readiness programs such as the Native American Summer Bridge Institute. Work with appropriate departments and organizations to aid in the recruitment and retention of current Native American undergraduate students. Develop and implement programs, resources, and services for students. Establish and maintain relationships with Native American students, tribal communities, schools, and families to encourage and engage in college-readiness activities. Plan on-campus special events.
If you are interested in learning more about this specific position, please click on the following link: http://jobs.texastech.edu/postings/51187
To review all positions available with Texas Tech, please visit our employment site at jobs.texastech.com.
Fascinating! I like this guy’s effort to rename large portions of the west, midwest, and southeast after tribal nations. I’d change Menominee to Anishinaabe, though. 🙂
Here.
Also: 2013-14 Venue RFP_NAICJA
Here are the materials in King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (E.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion
Yakama Motion for Partial Summary J
An excerpt:
This Court already has held that King Mountain does not enjoy an exemption from the federal excise tax on tobacco products under Capoeman because the tax is not imposed on products directly derived from the land. Therefore, to the degree that Article II contains express exemptive language, the exemption to taxation created by Article II would not apply to the facts of this case. Id. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish an exemption to the excise tax under the Treaty.
The court also rejected claims that the General Allotment Act forbid the federal taxes as well:
In this case, Mr. Wheeler is the allottee, but King Mountain is the tax payer. The tax lien statute applies to the property of the “person liable to pay” the unpaid tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6321. Although the Court is aware that Mr. Wheeler’s assets could be subject to lien if King Mountain were found to be Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego, see G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 350–51, 97 S.Ct. 619, 50 L.Ed.2d 530 (1977), the record is devoid of any evidence that King Mountain is Mr. Wheeler’s alter ego. Accordingly, any lien would be imposed on King Mountain’s property. As the trust property is held for the benefit of Mr. Wheeler, it is not an asset of King Mountain. Therefore, under the reasoning of Anderson, the Capoeman exception to taxation would not apply to income earned by King Mountain.
Materials in a related case are here.
Here is the opinion in Williams v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
An excerpt:
Fredrick Williams appeals the superior court’s decision affirming the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s ruling that the house at 511 Stedman Street is not exempt from Ketchikan Gateway Borough taxation. In March 2002 Williams received a grant to rebuild his house from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program. Under the grant, Williams would have been required to repay the full amount of the grant if he had transferred the house within ten years of ownership. Because Williams has owned the home for ten years, the repayment amount will annually decrease by ten percent of the original amount, resulting in no repayment for a transfer occurring 20 years or more after Williams received the grant. Williams executed a deed of trust securing the federal government’s right to repayment under the grant with the Stedman Street property. Williams claims that under the grant and the deed of trust, “[t]he federal government owns … the $115,000 it took to build the home,” and that Williams was therefore exempt from paying property taxes on it. On appeal, the superior court heard this argument and rejected it, upholding the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s view that the deed of trust securing the grant did not divest Williams, the record owner, of the ownership interest in his real property. Because we agree with the superior court that substantial evidence supports the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s factual determinations and that the Borough’s decision was correct as a matter of law, we AFFIRM the superior court and adopt its decision, which is attached as an appendix.
Here are the materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration
Cashcall Motion to Compel Arbitration or Dismiss
Inetianbor State Court Complaint
Inetianbor State Court Complaint Amendment
An excerpt:
Here, Defendant argues that the arbitration agreement, by its plain language, covers Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees. The terms of the agreement are clear: all disputes between the borrower and the holder of the Note or the holder’s servicer must be settled through arbitration. See Loan Agreement at 5-6. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks damages from Cashcall, the servicer of the note, for actions related to Cashcall’s servicing and collecting on the note. See Amended Complaint at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.
Here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.