Here is the order in United States v. Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.
And we posted the indictment for theft from a tribal organization here.
Criminal
Minnesota Appellate Court Affirm State Jurisdiction over White Earth Ojibwe Member
Here is the unpublished opinion in In re Civil Confinement of Beaulieu.
The holding could be rendered moot if the Minnesota Supreme Court reverses certain aspects of the Johnson case referenced in the excerpt here:
Because Johnson was released by this court less than two months ago, we are constrained to follow it. See State v. Lee, 706 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 2005) (requiring that under the principle of stare decisis, a court must be extremely reluctant to overturn its own precedent and must have “compelling reason” for doing so). However, we are sympathetic to appellant’s arguments regarding the potential for fruitful cooperation between various entities of this state’s government and the White Earth Band of Ojibwe in the future to address mutual interests in protecting the public from SDP and SPP persons and in treating those afflicted with such disorders. While Indian self-governance and self-sufficiency are not encouraged when this state takes control of an Indian sex offender, such action is necessitated at this time because appellant has offered no evidence that the White Earth Band of Ojibwe has a civil commitment law or that it has any structure in place to treat SDP or SPP individuals. Thus, we conclude, as did this court in Johnson, that federal law does not preempt state jurisdiction, and exceptional circumstances exist to permit this state to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the SDP/SPP civil commitment involving appellant.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Crow Creek Sioux Member in SORNA Case
Here is the opinion in United States v. Voice.
An excerpt:
In addition to the due process contention previously discussed, Voice’s motion to dismiss the indictment argued that SORNA (1) does not apply to him because the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe has not implemented it, and (2) is unconstitutional as applied to him because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, the non-delegation doctrine, and exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. On appeal, Voice acknowledges that we have recently decided these issues against him but argues the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss on these grounds to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. We agree these arguments are foreclosed by prior panel decisions.
News Coverage of Sault Tribal Members’ Illegal Treaty Fishing
From the Daily Press, via Pechanga:
MANISTIQUE – The tribal judge who sentenced three members of the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe of Indians for violating their fishing rights, described Friday’s hearing as a “sad day” for the tribe.
Andrew, Kevin and John Schwartz, all brothers from Rapid River, were found in violation of the majority of 105 citations issued against them in connection with an illegal commercial fishing operation in early 2009. The Department of Natural Resources investigated the illegal dealings.
On Friday, the Honorable Chief Judge Jocelyn K. Fabry revoked each of the three defendants’ fishing privileges and ordered each pay thousands of dollars in fines, costs, and restitution. In her concluding statements, the judge commented on the damage done to the environment as well as the tribe’s reputation.
“The effect on the natural resources of the area may not ever be determined,” Fabry said, describing where the violations occurred as one of the best walleye fishing areas in the state.
“This is a sad day for the tribe,” she added. “It gives tribal members a black eye in the community.”
Following the sentencing at the tribal center in Manistique, Special Prosecutor Monica Lubiarz-Quigley, representing the tribe, agreed with the judge.
“I think the judge’s comments were very, very appropriate,” Lubiarz-Quigley said outside the court. “Her comments reflect the majority of the feelings of the tribe and the board. I think she was absolutely right.”
Ninth Circuit Reverses Horsely Sohappy’s Conviction for Violation of Probation Conditions
Here are the materials (unpublished opinion here):
DOJ Tribal Consultation
Save the date!
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) will be holding a government-to-government Tribal Consultation session October 4-5, 2010, at the Northern Quest Resort in Spokane, Washington.
The first day of the consultation will focus on violence against Native women. DOJ will solicit recommendations from tribal leaders on enhancing the safety of Native women and strengthening the federal response to crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.
The second day will be devoted to consultation on DOJ grant funding for tribal governments. DOJ officials would like to hear feedback from tribal leaders about their experiences with the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), the new coordinated tribal grants application process utilized by the Department for Fiscal Year 2010, and solicit recommendations for how the process could be improved for Fiscal Year 2011.
DOJ will be hosting a series of scoping calls with interested tribal leaders to develop the agenda for the upcoming consultation session. The first call will take place on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 4pm EASTERN time. The call-in number is 1-888-450-5996; passcode 2179888.
U.S. v. Lente Resentencing: Weight Given to Prior Tribal Court Convictions as Issue
Previously, a badly divided panel of the Tenth Circuit vacated a sentence of 216 months for an Indian woman convicted of vehicular homicide. On remand, the trial judge lessened the sentence to 192 months — DCT Resentencing Order in Lente.
Prior tribal court convictions are an issue in this case:
First, I find that the Guidelines do not adequately represent Lente’s prior criminal history. As noted above, Lente did not receive any criminal history points for her five prior tribal convictions. In four of the five offenses, tribal records show that Lente was intoxicated. In all four, Lente was charged with disorderly conduct, among other things, for starting fights and/or causing property damage. In the last offense, a conviction for assault and battery in 2005, details of the offense were unavailable. Tribal records also show that Lente was arrested three additional times and charged with assault, assault and battery and/or disorderly conduct. None of those three arrests led to convictions. I find that Lente’s criminal history shows a repeated willingness to abuse alcohol and engage in violent and/or reckless behavior. While tribal convictions are not usually taken into account under the Guidelines (although, as noted above, the Guidelines themselves permit tribal convictions to be used as the basis for an upward departure), Lente’s prior convictions should be taken into account in this case. Five prior convictions (and three prior arrests which did not result in convictions) do not constitute an insignificant criminal record. Furthermore, at least four of her five prior convictions involved the use of alcohol. All of her prior convictions involve violent and/or reckless behavior. These prior convictions show a pattern of alcohol abuse and reckless behavior—a pattern which led to Lente’s decision to drink 13 to 19 beers on December 2, 2005 and drive on State Road 47. I recognize that three of Lente’s prior convictions occurred when she was a juvenile and, accordingly, I do not rely on these convictions to enhance Lente’s sentence. However, I find it entirely appropriate to enhance Lente’s sentence on the basis of her two adult tribal convictions—one for assault and battery and one for disorderly conduct. As discussed above, had Lente’s two adult tribal convictions occurred in state or municipal court, Lente would have been placed in criminal history category III and would be facing a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months—over a year more than the Guidelines range she faces today. Given the patterns in Lente’s offense history, I find it highly unjust that she avoids the consequence of these prior convictions merely because they occurred in tribal court.
One appellate judge before had rejected such an analysis, as the trial judge notes:
Montana Supreme Court Reverses Conviction of CSKT Member
Here are the materials in State v. James:
Interesting double jeopardy case, in that Montana law recognizes tribal court convictions for state double jeopardy purposes.
Federal Court Decision re: Interaction of Indian Country Crimes and State Law
Here are the materials in United States v. Lesmeister (D. S.D.):
Ms. Magazine Blog Profile of Tribal Law and Order Act!!!!
From Ms. blog (thanks to A.T.!):
As a Native feminist without apology, I’m thrilled that the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 has been passed to protect Native women from violence. I have fellow Native woman warrior and feminist to thank for coining that exact phrase, and in fact, the bill itself: my shero Ms. Sarah Deer.
Sarah and I first met through Facebook, then face-to-face at the Tribal Policy and Law Institute of America in St. Paul, MN. It was Indigenous feminist love at first sight.
A Mvskoke (Creek) from Kansas, Sarah is a Tribal Law Professor at William Mitchell College of Law and served on the advisory committee (while undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer) for Amnesty International’s 2007 report “Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Violence“–the fire behind getting the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 passed.
It’s been a whirlwind three years–from the Amnesty report to the bill signing just days ago–but as Sarah says here it’s really been 500+ years in the making. And since women are the life-givers, matriarchs, and center of our communities, we all have a responsibility to keep fighting.
JY: How are you feeling right now?
SD: I’m feeling exhausted and exhilarated. We–the five or six of us women who were connected in making this happen–kept saying to each other outside the White House, “This is so surreal!”
JY: When did it become real for you?
SD: It became very real when Lisa Marie Iyotte–a Lakota woman from the Rosebud Sioux tribe in South Dakota who is a rape survivor–spoke [at the bill’s signing] and said unequivocally, “If the Tribal Law and Order Act had existed 16 years ago, my story would have been very different.”
JY: Watching Lisa Marie I couldn’t help but cry myself. I’m always reminded that when I feel emotional or show my feelings publicly, it’s a sign that I’ve survived the attempts to beat the feelings out of me as an Indigenous person.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.