Here are the materials in Pablo v. United States (Ct. Cl.):
treaty rights
State v. Joseph: Washington Cannot Prosecute Tribal Members for Illegally Harvesting Geoducks
Here is the opinion from King County District Court:
Thanks to M.T. for sending this along.
Federal Court Filings to Stop State Prosecution of Sault Tribe Members for Treaty Fishing Violations
As usual, Friday is the most exciting time of the week for Indian law events.
Here are the materials in the most recent proceedings in United States v. Michigan, an effort to enjoin State v. Jensen in Delta County court (John Petoskey doing the heavy lifting in state court for Jensen and Bruce Greene in federal court for the Sault Tribe):
Doc. No. 1819 (Motion for Relief)
Doc. No. 1820 Memo in Support of Motion for Relief
Doc. No. 1820-3 (Certif of Compliance with 2000 Consent Decree
Tax Court Determination on Nooksack Tribal Council Members Federal Income Tax Liability for Treaty Fishing-Related Income
Here is Tax Court Memo 2011-82:
“Bad Men” Treaty Claim against U.S. re: Personal Injury Case Dismissed
Interesting argument, which in a nutshell is that the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie requires the United States to be responsible for “bad men” on the reservation, and therefore the federal government is liable for torts of bad white men on the reservation. The district court dismissed the action. Here are the materials in Richard v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
DCT Order Dismissing Richard Complaint
Ojibwe Treaty Rights Article in American Indian Quarterly
“After the Storm: Ojibwe Treaty Rights Twenty Five Years after the Voigt Decision” by Patty Loew and James Thannum was published in the American Indian Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2 (Spring, 2011). Here’s an excerpt/abstract:
This article examines the socioeconomic, political, and cultural fac- tors that contributed to the spearfishing crisis twenty-five years ago and the state of relations between Native and non-Native residents in the ceded territory today. It focuses on Wisconsin, where the most virulent protests occurred. Because most residents learned about the controversy through newspaper and television news accounts, the article pays special attention to media coverage of the boat landing struggles. It argues that the relative calm that exists today is attributable to increased public awareness about treaty rights and sovereignty, largely due to education efforts and better reporting by the media. It also argues that the contributions of the Ojibwe bands themselves over the past twenty-five years to maintain and improve the natural resources within the ceded territory has also had a positive effect.
Yakama v. Holder/FBI — Amended Complaint
Here: FILED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – YAKAMA v HOLDER
The original complaint is here.
Dog Eat Dog World In Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Norman Bevis Many Fingers, of the Blood Reserve in southern Alberta, shot and killed two dogs engaged in a dogfight. Witnesses estimate that there were 15-30 people, mostly children, in the immediate vicinity of the shooting. Interestingly, Many Fingers attempted to claim that his aboriginal and treaty rights were violated after he was charged with unsafe use of a firearm under ss. 86(1) and 88(1) of the Criminal Code and failure to register a firearm under s. 91(1). He was found guilty under s. 91(1) and appealed.
New Scholarship on McCarren Amendment and Groundwater
Aubri Golsbury has published “The McCarren Amendment and Groundwater: Why Washington State Should Require Inclusion of Groundwater in General Stream Adjudications Involving Federal Reserved Water Rights” in the Washington Law Review.
Here is the abstract:
All water is connected through the hydrologic cycle.1 When a farmer pumps water from an underground aquifer to irrigate crops, that act may affect a family relying on a nearby surface water stream for its water supply. Despite the scientific link between surface and groundwater, 2 the law often treats the two separately.3 The legal choice to ignore the interaction of surface and groundwater is particularly notable in “general stream adjudications.” States file these large-scale lawsuits against users in a particular stream or waterbody to determine, in a single lawsuit, all the rights existing in that water source.4 In 1952, Congress passed the McCarran Amendment, which allows states to adjudicate federal reserved water rights in state court in general stream adjudications.5 The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Amendment as requiring that adjudications be “comprehensive” of all of the rights in a given water source, but has not yet ruled as to whether this requires inclusion of groundwater users.6 The Amendment itself is equally vague on this point. This Comment argues against Ninth Circuit precedent and asserts that for a general stream adjudication to be “comprehensive” under the McCarran Amendment, it must include users of hydrologically connected surface and groundwater.
Yakama Indian Nation Sues FBI for “Invasion” of Tribal Lands without Consultation in Violation of Treaty
Intriguing case, here is the complaint:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.