In response to the pre-trial motions that have been filed, the district court will hear these motions on February 19 and 20, 2008. There will be a full evidentiary hearing on these motions. The court also granted the Makah Tribe’s motion for leave to appear as amicus in this case.
treaty rights
Alaska Supreme Court Decision on Cultural Adoption of Children
The Alaska Supreme Court in Starr v. George declined to recognize a notice of cultural adoption by Tlingit grandparents, not because it was invalid, but because it wasn’t served on other interested parties.
Dissent at Little River
From the Ludington Daily News:
Tribal office picketed
Some members voice displeasure with tribal council
Thursday, January 17, 2008
MANISTEE — Several members of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians carried signs and spoke against the tribal council outside the tribe’s offices Wednesday morning.
U.S. v. Gonzales et al. — Makah Whalers — Up to Date Materials
The Makah whaling case in federal court is turning into a very interesting discussion of whaling treaty rights and federal criminal procedure.
Here are the current materials in United States v. Gonzales, et al., No. CR 07-5656 JKA (W.D. Wash.):
Makah Tribe Proposed Amicus Brief in Federal Whaling Prosecution
The Makah Nation has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the United States v. Gonzales whaling prosecution. Here are the materials, including Defendant Noel’s opposition to the motion:
Makah Tribal Court Whaling Trial Delayed
From Indianz:
Makah Nation delays trial for unauthorized hunt
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Makah Nation of Washington has delayed a trial for five members accused of an illegal whale hunt.
The Jay Treaty in U.S. Immigration Court
From the Seattle Times:
Immigration case hinges on degree of Indian blood
BLAINE, Whatcom County — A government attorney told an immigration judge on Friday that a native Canadian man claiming indigenous treaty rights to the U.S. lacks sufficient Indian blood to qualify for those rights.
Winters Centennial Conference — Santa Anna Pueblo — June 9-12, 2008
THE WINTERS CENTENNIAL:
WILL ITS COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE ENDURE?
June 9-12, 2008
Hyatt Regency Tamaya — Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico
The year 2008 marks the centennial of Winters v. United States, in which the Court formulated the reserved water rights doctrine now broadly asserted by Indian tribes and federal agencies. The decision, because of its enduring promise of justice to Native Americans, marks one of the great achievements of American jurisprudence. The decision made possible the continuity of many Indian communities and non-Indian communities alike, along with the protection of important environmental resources. Now, one hundred years later, the question is whether the promise of Winters will be fulfilled. In celebration of the Winters Centennial, the Utton Transboundary Resources Center and the American Indian Law Center will convene a major symposium in June 2008 along the waters of the Rio Grande near Albuquerque. The symposium will review the legal and cultural history of the decision, assess the contemporary consequences of the reserved water rights doctrine (both nationally and internationally), and project the significance of Indian water rights into the 21st Century. The goal of the symposium is to assemble Indian reserved rights policy makers and decision makers at all levels in order to deepen the understanding of the effect of Winters and to advance the dialogue regarding the future role of reserved rights.
Moses v. State of Michigan (Mich. App.) Materials
As we blogged before, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently decided Moses v. State, in which an Indian sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that the land upon which the crime was committed with Indian Country; specifically, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Country.
Here are the briefs:
Individual Aboriginal Title Claim Denied — US v. Lowry (CA9)
From the opening paragraph of the opinion, per Bybee, J.:
In this case we are presented with a question of first impression: Who bears the burden of proof when a defendant is charged with occupation of Forest Service land in violation of 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.10(b) and (k)? Must the prosecution prove that the defendant does not have individual aboriginal title, or is the claim an affirmative defense? We hold that the occupant claiming individual aboriginal title bears the burden of demonstrating such title as an affirmative defense. Applying that standard, we conclude that the defendant in this case failed to meet this burden, and we affirm the judgment of the district court upholding the defendant’s convictions.
Here are the materials:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.