The complaint is here.
Additional materials here:
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for PI and TRO
Declaration of Robert Odawi Porter
Declaration of Jonathan Taylor w Exhibits
Declaration of James Driscoll-Maceachron
Driscoll-Maceachron Decl. Ex. A
Driscoll-Maceachron Decl. Ex. B
Driscoll-Maceachron Decl. Ex. C
Driscoll-Maceachron Decl. Ex. D
Updated 8/24: Order Granting Motion to Expedite
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.”
Referenced in this press release here.
From CPRBlog, h/t to Seattle Law’s Cases and Controversies Blog:
[An excerpt]
EPA is to be commended for declining to let the polluters call the shots at the Portland Harbor site. Their response to the LWG risk assessment sets an appropriate tone. And it gives reason for hope that the agency will continue to take seriously its responsibilities to oversee this and other cleanups.
There is, however, a long way to go in the process and many issues yet to be addressed. For example, there is the point – not directly addressed in EPA’s comments – that it is not only contemporary tribal consumption rates that are relevant to cleanup at the Portland Harbor site but also historical tribal consumption rates and practices. The fishing tribes in the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere have rights – secured, in many instances, by treaty – to take and eat fish as they did prior to the arrival of European settlers to this region. These rights have not always been honored by the United States and its citizens, however. As a result, contemporary tribal fish consumption rates can be said to be artificially “suppressed” from historical rates – due to denial of access to fishing places; inundation of tribal fishing places; tribal members being arrested and their gear confiscated; and depletion and contamination of the fishery resource, often at the hands of non-Indians. Cleanup at places such as Portland Harbor, where tribes and their rights are affected, ought not be gauged against what tribal members today consume, but by what tribal members would consume, were the fishery resource not depleted and contaminated, and were they able to exercise fully their rights to take and eat fish.
The United States today has an obligation to ensure that tribes’ fishing rights are honored. Among other things, the federal government has the duty to see that these rights are not undermined by environmental degradation. A right to take and eat fish is obviously made hollow if the fish are permitted to be too contaminated for human consumption. As it seeks now to clean up that contamination, the United States, through its EPA, needs to keep its treaty promises in mind. This means that EPA needs to redouble its efforts to work with the tribes, on a government-to-government basis, to determine the relevant measures of risk and goals for remediation at the Portland Harbor site. Ultimately, this means that EPA needs to assure restoration that will support tribes’ rights to fish as they once did – and as they seek to do in the future.
From Indianz. Big win for Indian Country, especially Yakama!
Litigation continues apparently, but here are the injunction materials.
From the Syracuse Post-Standard, via Indianz:
Carrie Garrow
Earlier this month, the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team couldn’t participate in the World Lacrosse Championship because British authorities would not accept the team’s Haudenosaunee passports. In news stories and letters to the editor of The Post-Standard, many have focused on one question: Why do the Iroquois care which passport they use? Carrie Garrow, executive director of The Center for Indigenous Law, Governance & Citizenship, at Syracuse University’s College of Law, and a member of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, spoke with staff writer Hart Seely.
One news account described the players’ view of being forced to use U.S. passports as “an attack on their identity.” What do they mean by that?
No one would ask a Canadian to travel under a passport from Switzerland or the United States. We have a right as a nation to have our own citizenship laws. We have a right to travel under our own documents.
We’ve been recognized as nations under treaties with the United States and with Great Britain, and we’re simply asking that they continue to recognize that we are nations, and that we can identify our own citizens.
How far back does this go?
Even before the forming of the U.S. Constitution, there were treaties with Great Britain and the United States. … We predate the forming of the Constitution, which is why we are outside of its scope.
Aren’t there counter-arguments that these laws no longer apply?Under international law, treaties are still upheld. We uphold our end of the treaties and we expect the United States to do the same. I think the U.S. would certainly articulate that they’ve broken some treaties and have a right to do so, but under international law, they are bound to uphold their word.
Published in the UNM Natural Resources Journal….
Indian Treaty Fishing Rights and Habitat Protection: The Martinez Decision Supplies a Resounding Judicial Reaffirmation
Michael C. Blumm & Jane G. Steadman
Here is the petition in Suquamish Tribe v. Upper Skagit Tribe: Suquamish Cert Petition.
Here is the question presented:
Whether a court implementing an unambiguous court order is bound to apply that order according to its plain terms, or whether the court should instead determine whether the judge who initially issued the order “intended something other than its apparent meaning,” as the Ninth Circuit held in this case.
Lower court materials here.
Here is that order: 2010-07-02 Order transferring Oklahoma case to DC
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.