Here are the materials in Freeman v. Freeman (Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Court):
PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-07 – First Amended Tribal Court Complaint
PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Declaration of Tribal Secretary Geraldine Freeman
PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Temporary Restraining Order
SKOKOMISH RFQ– Judicial and Prosecutorial Services 2014.5.6
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is to contract with applicants (individuals or law firms) to provide the following services to the Skokomish Tribal Court: (1) Pro Tempore Judicial and Appellate; (2) Conflict/Substitute Prosecution and Indian Child Welfare Presenting.
Here.
Section 1914 does not confer jurisdiction upon this court because the guardianship action at issue here was not decided under State law. Rather, Plaintiff is challenging an Indian tribal court’s decision to place an Indian child in foster care. Plaintiff does not allege that the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to make a custody determination or otherwise violated his due process or equal protection rights; rather, he merely alleges that its decision violated the Indian Child Welfare Act. However, the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1963, gives Indian tribes jurisdiction to determine custody of Indian children. See DeMent v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, 874 F.2d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1989). The Indian Child Welfare Act does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to review the propriety of the tribal court’s guardianship decision in this case.
Here is the opinion in State Bar of Arizona v. Lang (Ariz. App.):
An excerpt:
Randy D. Lang, a nonmember of the State Bar of Arizona, was enjoined from practicing law in Arizona based on evidence that he repeatedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We hold that a person who presents himself as an attorney based in an Arizona office engages in the unauthorized practice of law unless he has been admitted to practice before the Arizona Supreme Court, even if he has been admitted to practice in a tribal court within the boundaries of Arizona. The supreme court rules that compel this conclusion violate neither the First Amendment nor principles of tribal sovereignty. We further conclude that the superior court properly granted the State Bar of Arizona’s motion for summary judgment, and that the injunction is reasonable in its scope. We therefore affirm.
Here is the complaint in Grenier v. Delorme (D.N.D.):
An excerpt:
On or about March 18, 2010, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a ten – year Lease of Real Estate (“Lease”) for Defendant’s land located at tract number 324-5065 and described as E/2NE/4, of Section 3, Township 161 N., Range 71 W., Rolette County, North Dakota. This land is not located on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, but is trust land. A copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Prior to entering into the Lease, Plaintiffs had farmed the land subject to the Lease for over thirty years.
Here is the opinion in Billie v. Stier:
An excerpt:
This Petition for a Writ of Prohibition evolves out of a custody dispute between the mother, who is a member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, and the father, who is not a member of the tribe of Native American heritage. The issue is whether the Miccosukee Tribal Court or the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has the jurisdiction to decide the custody dispute. The mother petitions for a writ prohibiting the Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over the custody matter. Based on the facts of this case and the Uniform Child Custody, Jurisdiction, and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), we conclude that the Circuit Court was correct in determining that it, and not the Tribal Court, has jurisdiction to decide the custody issues and we therefore deny the petition.
News coverage includes an overview of the challenges Tribes have faced when non-Indian men batter Indian women on the reservation, a little about the battle to get the VAWA provisions passed, and information about the prosecutor, judge, and public defender who will be involved with this first case. Full article here.
Press Release from Pascua Yaqui regarding the VAWA pilot program here.
From the article:
Tribal police chief Michael Valenzuela drove through darkened desert streets, turned into a Circle K convenience store and pointed to the spot beyond the reservation line where his officers used to take the non-Indian men who battered Indian women.
“We would literally drive them to the end of the reservation and tell them to beat it,” Valenzuela said. “And hope they didn’t come back that night. They almost always did.”
About three weeks ago, at 2:45 a.m., the tribal police were called to the reservation home of an Indian woman who was allegedly being assaulted in front of her two children. They said her 36-year-old non-
Indian husband, Eloy Figueroa Lopez, had pushed her down on the couch and was violently choking her with both hands.This time, the Yaqui police were armed with a new law that allows Indian tribes, which have their own justice system, to prosecute non-Indians. Instead of driving Lopez to the Circle K and telling him to leave the reservation, they arrested him.
Inside a sand-colored tribal courthouse set here amid the saguaro-dotted land of the Pascua Yaqui people, the law backed by the Obama administration and passed by Congress last year is facing its first critical test. . . .
Some members of Congress had fought hard to derail the legislation, arguing that non-Indian men would be unfairly convicted without due process by sovereign nations whose unsophisticated tribal courts were not equal to the American criminal justice system.
“They thought that tribal courts wouldn’t give the non-Indians a fair shake,” said Pascua Yaqui Attorney General Amanda Lomayesva. “Congressmen all were asking, how are non-Indians going to be tried by a group of Indian jurors?”
Against that opposition last year, the Obama administration was able to push through only the narrowest version of a law to prosecute non-Indians. While it covers domestic and dating-violence cases involving Native Americans on the reservation, the law does not give tribes jurisdiction to prosecute child abuse or crimes, including sexual assault, that are committed by non-Indians who are “strangers” to their victims. In addition, the law does not extend to Native American women in Alaska.
“It was a compromise the tribes had to make,” Lomayesva said. “It only partially fixes the problem.”
Still, what will play out over the next months on the Pascua Yaqui reservation is being watched closely by the Justice Department and by all of Indian country. The tribe’s officials are facing intense scrutiny and thorny legal challenges as they prepare for their first prosecution of a non-Indian man.
“Everyone’s feeling pressure about these cases,” said Pascua Yaqui Chief Prosecutor Alfred Urbina. “They’re the first cases. No one wants to screw anything up.”
News coverage via pechanga.
If anyone has the opinion, please send along.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.