Washington Supreme Court Affirms State Authority to Search Tribal Trust Lands for Criminal Violations

Here is the opinion in State v. Clark. State v Clark (PDF)

Briefs and other materials here.

Second Circuit Appeal in Wire Fraud Case: Conspirators Claimed Banks Held “Trillions” in Yamasee Tribal Dollars

Here is the opinion in United States v. Corsey:

US v Corsey

Excerpts:

Over the next few months, Re recorded the defendants as they baited him with an escalating series of lies: Corsey explained that MIBT was the central bank for scores of Native American governments, including the Yamasee Indian tribe, a nation with trillions of dollars in assets.

And:

And in this case, appellants posit, no reasonable investment professional would have bought the conspirators’ absurd story; any broker would have laughed in disbelief the moment he opened an email from a wealthy bank sent from an AOL email address, found doctored copies of T-notes, and learned that a long-disbanded Native American tribe owned them. Thus, the argument goes, because no potential victim of this particular fraud would have ever fallen for it, the appellants’ lies were not “capable of influencing the decision of [any] decisionmaking body.”

Finally:

The twenty-year sentences imposed on appellants are not merely harsh, they are dramatically more severe than can be justified by the crime the appellants committed. This was a clumsy, almost comical, conspiracy to defraud a non-existent investor of three billion dollars. That scheme never came close to fruition. During his first meeting with Thomas Re, Emerson Corsey described Magnolia International Bank and Trust as the central bank for scores of Native American governments, including the Yamasee Indian tribe, which a Wikipedia search would have revealed as a tribal confederation that was broken up and defeated early in the 18th century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamasee. It took only a brief Google search for Re and his associates to understand that the proposal “smelled”—which is why the appellants were recorded by Re for months before their arrest. At one point, Corsey provided Re with a certificate signed by John Juncal that listed CUSIP numbers for the T-notes; when Re shared the certificate with his colleagues, they responded by bursting into laughter. Even the terms of the proposed deal itself were laughable: the lender of three billion dollars would, according to the appellants, receive fourteen billion dollars in profit over five years. This scheme amounted to a series of absurd lies piled on top of even more absurd lies. Appellants’ conduct was not dangerous because they had absolutely no hope of success.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Embezzlement from Spirit Lake Housing

Here are the materials in United States v. Yankton:

CA8 Unpublished Opinion

Yankton Opening Brief

US Brief

Yankton Reply Brief

From the court’s syllabus:

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization.

North Dakota Rejects Aboriginal Title Challenge to Criminal Conviction

Here is the opinion in State v. Delorme. An excerpt:

Delorme was charged with two counts of guiding or outfitting without a license in Eddy County in violation of N.D.C.C. § 20.1-03-40 after guiding two undercover North Dakota Game and Fish Wardens to multiple hunting sites. The guiding expedition took place both on and off the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Delorme moved to dismiss the charges because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the alleged crime took place on land reserved for the Pembina Band of Chippewa, where his aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, and gather are preserved by an 1863 treaty. The State opposed Delorme’s motion, arguing Delorme was charged with guiding or outfitting only on land outside the reservation and subject matter jurisdiction was not in dispute. The district court denied Delorme’s motion to dismiss, concluding Delorme failed to show how his offense fell outside of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted, “When the veneer is scraped from his argument, what Mr. Delorme seeks is unequal protection of the law based on his race, something inimical to North Dakota law.”

Briefs:

Appellant brief

Appellee brief

South Dakota “Sovereign Citizens”/Fake Indians Indicted by Feds

Here are the indictments of Ted Nelson, Steve Nelson, and Jerome Adrian for tax evasion. All claimed to be members of the fake “Pembina National Little Shell Band of North America.”

Adrian Indictment

Nelson Indictment

News coverage here. Arrested via predator drone…..

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Destroying Nez Perce Pictographs

Here is the unpublished opinion n United States v. Bernal.

News coverage and pics here.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Manslaughter Conviction on Colville for Improper Jury Instruction

Here is the opinion in United States v. Garcia.

UNM Symposium on United States v. Sandoval

Here is the notice:

UNM symposium on United States v Sandoval

The description:

On October 20, 1913, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Sandoval, a case that addressed whether Congress could prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquor into Santa Clara Pueblo lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood. The Court validated Congress’s power by virtue of the “Indian” status of the Pueblo people and their homelands, establishing an immensely important precedent asserting broad federal authority in Indian affairs generally. This symposium highlights three themes tied to Sandoval ’s legacy: Federal Authority in Indian Country, Indian Identity and Status, and the Rights of Defendants in Tribal Court. An additional related theme, Liquor in Indian Country, will be explored in the associated conference for tribal public defenders and Indian law clinicians, which will interweave with the symposium. This symposium is the third in a series of anniversary symposia commemorating landmark Indian law cases and legislation.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Recognizes Authority of Tribal Officers Cross-Deputized under State Law to Enforce State Law Off-Reservation

Here is the summary opinion in State v. Ferguson:

2013-07-15 Summary Opinion-1

An excerpt:

“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, by statute or by this Code.”  12 O.S.2011, § 2402. The appeal record in this case shows that Salkil and Murphy are CLEET certified deputies in Ottawa County. Nothing in the constitution or laws of this  State provides that evidence obtained by deputies is inadmissible. Id. Even if they had  been outside their jurisdiction, information from and observations made by Salkil and Murphy may be used in establishing probable cause to issue a search warrant. See Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ~ 12, 932 P.2d 1136, 1140. Judges Culver and Maxey erred by sustaining the Appellees’ motions to suppress relevant evidence in these cases.

New Study on Impact of Public Law 280 on Umatilla Reservation (+ 160 Other Reservations)

Sarah N. Cline’s study, “Sovereignty Under Arrest? Public Law 280 and its Discontents” is available here (PDF).

The abstract:

Law enforcement in Indian Country has been characterized as a “maze of injustice”—one in which offenders too easily escape and victims are too easily lost (Amnesty International, 2007). Tribal, state, and federal governments have recently sought to amend this through the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) in 2010 and the expansion of cross-deputization agreements. Positioning itself amid these developments, this study seeks to determine the administrative impact of Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), which creates a concurrent jurisdictional regime between states and tribes. Taking a mixed-methodological approach, the law’s effect on the sovereignty and resource capacity of tribal justice systems is first analyzed using existing data for 162 American Indian reservations. Through a series of logistic regressions, hypotheses are tested to determine whether a statistically significant difference emerges between policy treatments under P.L. 280. This quantitative analysis is then grounded in a case study of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who are unique for their 1981 retrocession of criminal jurisdiction in the mandatory P.L. 280 state of Oregon. Both content analysis of archival records and semi-structured interviews with tribal, state, and federal public officials shed light on experiences of the criminal justice system before, during, and after P.L. 280. This research contributes to the overarching objectives of TLOA, which seek to locate best practices and administrative models in reducing crime and victimization on reservations.