Here:
FMC – Opinion Order Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (2014)
35-3 Tribal Appellate Court Decision June 2012 Part 1
35-4 Tribal Appellate Court Decision June 2012 Part 2
Prior post here.
tribal courts
NAICJA Training: Holistic Approach to Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance in Tribal Justice Systems — May 27-28, 2014
Here:
NAICJA Training Event in Marysville WA-Remaining Space
Description:
This training, which NAICJA developed with a BJA grant, will highlight successful models that illustrate that various components of a justice system (e.g., codes, court rules, court procedures, legal assistance, corrections, probation, etc.) must be considered as a whole rather than as stand-alone services. The goal of this training is to bring together teams of tribal justice stakeholders from various communities in order to examine and strategize on how criminal and civil legal assistance and access to these services can be provided and improved through a collaborative, holistic approach. The training will also highlight the Tulalip Tribe’s justice system and the Salish and Kootenai’s Office of Public Defense, and key players from various components of the justice system will serve as panelists. Each jurisdictional team will ideally consist of a tribal judge, prosecutor, tribal attorney general, public defender/legal aid advocate, probation officer, and/or a tribal leader working with the same tribe. Individuals without a jurisdictional team are also encouraged to attend.
The training is free, but invitees must cover the cost of their travel, food, and lodging. Please contact Nikki Borchardt Campbell if you would like to register, nikki@naicja.org. NAICJA will continue registering attendees on a first come, first serve basis until all the remaining space is filled. Hotel accommodations are available at the Tulalip Resort and Casino for $139 per night, plus tax. Call 1-866-716-7162 for reservations. Participants must identify themselves with being with the National American Indian Court Judges Association.
Opening Eighth Circuit Brief in Smith v. Parker — Formerly a Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter, Now a Reservation Boundaries Matter
Appeal Filed against Shingle Springs Disenrollment Action
Here is the appeal brief in May Cook Keola Family Descendants v. Shingle Springs Tribal Council (Shingle Springs Tribe Court):
Article on the use of banishment in the rural Alaska Native village of Tanana
After the recent shooting deaths of two Alaska state troopers, the village of Tanana has turned to banishment as a way of protecting the community. The use of banishment is very controversial, raising a host of legal questions, but the circumstances of this village demonstrate how few options community members feel that they have under current jurisdictional conditions.
Full article here.
The Tanana Village Council, the Athabascan Indian tribal authority in the village of 250, is taking steps to expel two men whose actions contributed to the homicides and who have threatened other community members, council Chairman Curtis Sommer said.
“This is the only way we have to remove individuals who are — how do we say it? — who are dangerous to members of the community,” Sommer said.
The action is infrequent in Alaska, and when it is used, some question whether a tribal entity has the right to limit access to a community otherwise governed by state law. Those who are banished rarely contest the action publicly, and it isn’t clear if banished residents go on to cause problems in other communities because no one tracks them. . . .
The state can’t afford to pay for law enforcement in small villages like this but they also refuse to let tribes have full authority over law enforcement, beyond an unarmed public safety officer, Kendall-Miller said. State troopers are flown in to deal with violence, but they can sometimes take days to arrive. . . .
Sommer concedes banishment is a “slippery slope.”
“It’s got to be very significant circumstances that would warrant this, either violent assaults or murder,” he said. “At what point do we draw the line on this? I do not know. I do know it’s not going to be used frivolously just to get back at someone.”
The village council will ask the state to enforce banishments. The Alaska Department of Law said it would carefully evaluate a banishment order. Kendall-Miller has seen unofficial support in the past.
“We have seen state police officers that have attempted to accommodate the tribal council’s blue ticket orders by helping to prevent individuals from coming back,” Kendall-Miller said. “It has been an informal arrangement that was done out of necessity.”
“If they do not enforce it, we will enforce it ourselves. We will get a group of men together and go to that person and tell him to leave and to not come back.”
H/T to SW.
TRO Granted in Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians v. Swearinger et al
Complaint: 2014 05 16 Complaint FINAL 2
Ex parte application for TRO: 2014 05 15 PASKENTA Ex Parte App for TRO and PI FINAL
Rosette Affidavit: 2014 05 16 Affidavit of RAR in support of Ex Parte TRO FINAL
Freeman Declaration: 2014 05 16 Freeman Dec FINAL w Exs
Memorandum in Support of Ex parte application 2014 05 16 Paskenta MPA FINAL
TRO: 4001_001 (1)
Blast from the (Recent) Past: Lummi COA Assumes Jurisdiction over Business Dispute involving Nonmember LLC
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
We reverse the trial court’s decision. Any challenge to tribal court jurisdiction raises two questions. First, does the Lummi Nation Code of Laws empower the court to hear the subject mailer of the suit and exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties? Second, does federal law restrict what the Lummi Code authorizes? We conclude that the Lummi Code authorizes the court to exercise personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit and that federal law does not forbid it. Because the internal disagreement in MyTribe TV involves a Lummi Tribal member, a LLC registered to do business on the Reservation, and proceeds from Lummi contracts, Lummi Nation courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims.
Federal Court Hold Turtle Mountain Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction over Indian Claims against Insurance Company
Here are the materials in State Farm Insurance Companies v. Turtle Mountain Fleet Farm LLC (D.N.D.):
25 Greenwoods Motion for Summary J + Tribal Appellate Court Decision
27 State Farm Motion for Summary J
27-3 State Farm Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
In summary, the court concludes that the tribal court does have jurisdiction over the Greenwoods’ claims against State Farm. In reaching this conclusion, the status of the title of the land is not a significant consideration. Rather, the important factors for purposes of this case, given the nature of the activity at issue, are that the insurance policy was issued to members of the Tribe and is for a residence located on the reservation. Consequently, the court would reach the same conclusion if the Greenwoods’ residence was situated on non-Indian owned fee land.
Nooksack Tribal Language Teacher Sues Tribal Officials for Wrongful Termination
Here are the materials in Adams v. Canete (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Adams v Canete Complaint for Declaratory Injunctive Equitable Relief
Adams v Canete Declaration of George Adams
And the press release (5/5/2014):
NOOKSACK TRIBAL MEMBER AND “306” SUPPORTER FILES TRIBAL COURT SUIT AGAINST BOB KELLY ADMINISTRATION FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION
GEORGE ADAMS, TRIBAL LANGUAGE TEACHER AND ONE OF NEARLY 50 TRIBAL MEMBERS FIRED BY THE KELLY ADMINISTRATION SINCE MID-2013, FILES TRIBAL AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION
Deming, WA – Today George Adams, who was fired a few days before he challenged Bob Kelly for the Nooksack Tribal Chairmanship in the Tribe’s General Election on March 15, 2014, initiated a Tribal Court wrongful termination lawsuit against various Tribal Councilperson and General Manager Catherine Kanete and other Tribal officials. Continue reading
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.