Michigan Indian – Page 47

Sault Tribe RFP for Appellate Judge

April 12, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians seeks qualified licensed attorneys and/or non-attorneys for the position of Appellate Judge in the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribal Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has the following vacancies to fill:

Licensed attorney positions –(active & reserve)
Elder position (active & reserve)

The Appellate Court meets monthly. Oral argument is held in Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

Appeals filed vary from year to year, but typically can be anywhere from 1 – 4 per year.

These positions include a $200 per month stipend (if not employed by the tribe). Licensed attorney positions are also paid at the rate of $150 per hour with a maximum billing of $5,000 per year.

Qualifications for Licensed Attorney positions include:

Must be a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Must be a member in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan

Qualifications for Elder (attorney or non-Attorney) position include:

Must be a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Must be age 60 or older
If an attorney, must be a member in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan

To further be considered for these positions, Applicants should be able to demonstrate that they have:

Substantial education and experience working with Tribal, State and Federal law
Extensive knowledge in juvenile, criminal and child welfare proceedings
Knowledge and understanding of the history and traditions of the Sault Tribe

A letter of interest, resume, and application should be submitted to:

Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribal Court Continue reading →

D.C. Circuit Oral Argument in Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell

April 11, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Individual Tribal Member’s Attempt to Invoke Treaty Rights

April 1, 2016April 1, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Turunen v. Creagh (W.D. Mich.):

56 DCT Order to Show Cause re Rule 19

57 Plaintiff’s Brief

58 DNR Brief

61 KBIC Letter

62 Fond du Lac Band Letter

63 Red Cliff Band

64 LCO Brief

66 Plaintiff’s Response to Tribes

67 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, Brenda Turunen, is a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), a federally recognized Indian tribe in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula that is the successor-in-interest to the L’Anse and Ontonagon bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. In 1842, the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians signed a treaty with the United States of America, 7 Stat. 591 (the 1842 Treaty), in which the Indian signatories ceded large portions of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, but reserved “the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy.” 7 Stat. 591.

Plaintiff owns property that is within the “ceded territory” at issue in the 1842 Treaty. Plaintiff asserts that the “the usual privileges of occupancy” reserved by the KBIC on the ceded territory included commercial farming and animal husbandry. Based on that interpretation of the 1842 Treaty, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that she may—as a member of the KBIC—raise animals free from state regulation on her property within the ceded territory.

Plaintiff’s claim rests on the twin propositions that the KBIC retained certain rights in the 1842 Treaty, and that she may exercise such rights based on her membership in the KBIC. Although the Court must determine the scope of the rights retained by the KBIC to resolve Plaintiff’s claim, the KBIC is not a party to this action. Thus, the Court previously sought briefing from the parties regarding whether the KBIC should be joined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and whether the case should be dismissed if the KBIC could not be joined. After the parties responded, the Court—at Plaintiff’s urging—ordered Plaintiff to notify the KBIC of the pending action and the opportunity to intervene. The KBIC followed up to that notification with a letter to the Court stating that it would not intervene in the action, and further urging that the action be dismissed under Rule 19. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the matter should be dismissed.

We have posted on this matter here, here, here, here, and here.