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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.