Here is that article.
An excerpt:
A Justice prosecutor, Nathaniel Edmonds, said Scanlon was the first defendant to plead guilty and assist the government. Edmonds said the help Scanlon provided, starting with his guilty plea in 2005, was “critical” in unraveling the scheme. More background on the case here from the Justice Department. Clickhere , here and here for earlier coverage of Abramoff and Scanlon.
Here is that unpublished opinion.
An excerpt:
Mr. Fay asserts that he “is a[n] enrolled member of the Sioux Tribe . . .and has maintained his Traditional standing in the Tribe with TraditionalMembers.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5a. Construing his appellate brief liberally, Mr.Fay raises three grounds in support of his argument that the United States—morespecifically, the Commission—lacked jurisdiction over him because he is anAmerican Indian and the Sioux Nation is a sovereign: (1) the Major Crimes Act isunconstitutional; (2) the Sioux Nation did not relinquish its sovereignty under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851; and (3) the Fourteenth Amendment recognizesAmerican Indian tribes as sovereigns.
Here are the materials in Youckton v. Stinson (W.D. Wash.):
DCT Order Dismissing Stouckton Petition
An excerpt:
Youckton makes the following argument to support his double jeopardy claim: (1) Youckton committed domestic violence under Chehalis Tribal Code (“CTC”) § 15.03.02; (2) domestic violence is defined under CTC §15.03.01, which sets out five possible ways to commit domestic violence; (3) the only way Youckton’s case fits into the domestic violence definition is under the fifth way, stalking; (4) stalking is defined by CTC § 15.04.01, which envisions “repeated” contact; (5) Youckton’s multiple texts/phone calls should be considered “repeated” contact for purposes of sentencing, which would require sentencing him for this conduct as one unit of offense; therefore (6) sentencing him for 205 separate violations rather than as one unit of crime may constitute double jeopardy.
Here is the unpublished opinion in Johnson v. Pottawatomie Tribal Police Dept. See footnote 1 for an explanation of the caption.
Lower court opinion here.
Here is the order in United States v. Jeff Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.
Here is the indictment.
Last summer, federal judicial nominee Arvo Mikkanen published “The Federal Prosecution of Juveniles” in a special issue of the United States Attorneys’ Bulletin on “Indian Tribal Matters.”
Here is that article: 2010 July – Federal Prosecution of Juveniles – Indian Tribal Matters.
Here is the court’s opinion in United States v. Begay.
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Jacobs:
Here is the opinion in Garcia v. United States (D. Ariz.): Garcia v US
The court rejected the government’s motion for summary judgment, on grounds that the Navajo police officer (who struck a killed the plaintiff while driving under the influence) was working in the scope of work of a 638 contract.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.