Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 804

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is interested in receiving applications from Native American law students for its volunteer summer internship program. Please find information and links below. To the extent you can disseminate this recruitment information to Native American law students or others that can help us spread the word, it would be much appreciated. We are accepting applications now for the Summer 2013. Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Volunteer Internship Opportunities

The Civil Rights Division offers competitive student volunteer internship positions in Washington, D.C. each academic semester, including the summer, for both law and undergraduate students. Interns gain a unique and exciting view of the work and mission of the Division.

The Division is primarily responsible for enforcing federal statutes and executive orders that prohibit, among other things, unlawful discrimination in voting, education, employment, housing, police services, public accommodations and facilities, and federally funded and conducted programs.

Interns will assist Division attorneys or specialists in legal and factual research, prepare documents and exhibits, interview witnesses, summarize depositions, analyze records, and other case-related work. Some sections may also involve interns in policy-related assignments. Given the nature of the work and the high quality of its staff, the Division expects interns to be able to grasp issues quickly, complete work thoroughly and accurately, and write clearly and concisely. These positions are without compensation or may be used for work-study credit.

Eligibility: Applicants must be U.S. citizens; dual citizens will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The following students are eligible to apply: undergraduate students who are enrolled at least half-time; first-year (second semester), second- and third-year law students; and law school graduates who are enrolled in graduate law programs (e.g., L.L.M. programs) at least half-time. All students must be in good academic standing and will be required to provide official documentation from their school. First-year, first-semester law students may apply after December 1 for internships the following summer.

How to Apply: Interested students should submit a resume, brief writing sample (no more than 5 pages), transcript (unofficial is acceptable) and a cover letter describing your specific qualifications, listing the section where you want to be considered, and providing the time period you are available to work. Applications must be e-mailed to crt.volunteervacancies@usdoj.gov or faxed to (202) 305-9667. Please include Volunteer Internship in the subject line of your communication.

To learn more about individuals sections within the Civil Rights Division: http://www.justice.gov/crt/employment/sec_desc.php

Anderson Indian Law: Oppose the Draft Cantor VAWA Bill

December 19, 2012December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

OPPOSE THE DRAFT CANTOR VAWA BILL (Cantor Draft)

Prepared by Anderson Indian Law

We strongly urge tribes to reject the Cantor draft VAWA bill because it is a diminishment of tribal sovereignty. The bill was drafted last minute, without meaningful input from tribal leaders. The cost of what tribes are giving up in this bill to obtain jurisdiction over non-Natives in domestic violence cases is at too great a cost, and does not work to protect Native women. Additionally, it creates hurdles to enforcement and sets up a two-class system for defendants on the reservation (Natives and non-Natives). It also works to protect the rights of non-Native defendants over the rights of Native women victims. The major problems are: that the bill delegates authority to tribal courts instead of recognizing inherent tribal authority; it allows for automatic removal of cases; it provides a certification process of tribal courts by the federal government; and it provides a private cause of action against tribes.

Problems Outlined:

The bill creates a certification process by the Attorney General for participation (p.2, line 11)
1. There are no standards outlined in the bill as to how the Attorney General and the Department of Interior will review tribal courts
2. This could lead to broad directives from the Feds on how tribes need to change their tribal court systems
3. The Feds can start to analyze tribal codes, jails, court staffing, etc…
It potentially bars PL-280 tribes who are currently not exercising criminal jurisdiction from exercising it over non-Natives in the future (p. 2, line 24)
1. The bill does not define what it means to exercise criminal jurisdiction
2. Does tribal participation in a consortium style court equal an exercise of criminal jurisdiction?
3. What if a tribe has a criminal code but not a tribal court? Is that tribe exercising criminal jurisdiction?
It only allows tribes to prosecute non-Natives for one year whereas Natives can be prosecuted under the TLOA for up to three years (p. 4, line 5)
1. The Tribal Law and Order Act enables tribes who meet the standards outlined in the law to prosecute and jail Natives for up to three years and increase the fines.
2. This bill gives special treatment to non-Natives because they can only be prosecuted for up to one year and a lesser fine.
It does not clarify that tribes can issue protection orders over non-Natives on the reservation (p. 5, line 9)
1. The bill fails to clarify that every tribe has full civil jurisdiction to issue and enforce protection orders against non-Natives
2. Fails to reverse Martinez v. Martinez
It delegates authority to tribal courts instead of recognizing inherent tribal authority over non-Natives (pg. 9, line 6) DEAL BREAKER
1. This section delegates jurisdiction to the tribe instead of recognizing inherent authority
2. Creates double jeopardy issues
3. If a federal prosecutor dismisses a case, can the tribe still prosecute it?
4. If a federal prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, can the tribe still prosecute?
It subjects tribes to the Constitution of the United States even though tribes are viewed as extra-constitutional (p. 9, line 6)
1. This section submits tribes to the Constitution
2. Tribes are considered extra-constitutional
3. Tribes will have to provide grand juries. What are the costs?
4. Will tribes also have to provide juries in civil cases?
5. It is unclear which state laws tribes will have to abide by?
6. How do you form a jury pool with non-Natives?
It allows for automatic removal to federal court without cause and allows Federal and States to take cases out of tribal court (p. 9, line 16) DEAL BREAKER
1. Removal is without cause, all the defendant has to do is allege a violation of his rights
2. Defendant does not have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
3. Ignores tribal exhaustion of remedies
4. Federal and state authorities can remove for any reason
5. The tribe does not have any right to appeal if a case is removed
6. Cases will be removed for political reasons
7. Tribes will have to notify defendants at time of arrest of their right to remove. How will they identify who is Indian and non-Indian?
It does not provide victim notification protections when Defendants are released or transferred from tribal jail (p. 11, line 1)
1. 48 hours to transfer a defendant is not practical for remote tribes
2. Victim notification is missing from this section
3. Creates a dangerous situation for victims if defendant is released or transferred from custody and they are not notified
It provides a private right of action against tribal governments for violating civil rights and subjects tribes to suit (p. 12, line 21) DEAL BREAKER
1. Private right to suit against tribes
2. Qualified immunity. How long will it take to dismiss cases against tribal judges and officials if defendants file against them
3. Overrules Santa Clara v. Martinez case

Robert Bork Dies

December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar Complaint

December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Yet another Carcieri-based complaint. This is one of many reasons why there won’t be a Carcieri fix.

Colusa Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Reopen Hardwick v. United States re: Picayune Rancheria (Chukchansi) Leadership

December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Denying Motion to Enforce

Ramirez Family Motion

USA Response

Picayune Rancheria Response

Ramirez Family Reply

Federal Court Declines to Order Convicted Indian Drug Dealer to Repay Feds’ “Buy Money”

December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in United States v. Lester (D. N.D.):

DCT Order Denying Restitution in Sentence

An excerpt:

Finally, the court could always impose a fine in the amount of the “buy money.” In fact, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) has its own special provisions for fines, which, among other things, provide that, upon conviction “a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense …, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of Title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.”

Federal Court Denies Motions to Dismiss Indictment for Drug Smuggling in Akwesasne

December 19, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in United States v. Cournoyer (E.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Denying Cournoyer Motions to Dismiss