The court’s unpublished opinion in Bank of America v. Swanson is here.
Here are the materials:
An excerpt:
tribal courts
Navajo Times: Navajo SCT in Navajo Council’s “Crosshairs”
Additional documents:
NN Pres Press Release onElection of NN Judges
From the Navajo Times:
The Navajo Nation Supreme Court is under attack.
Legislation to amend the rules for the Council’s Judiciary Committee governing removal of Supreme Court justices and district court judges is targeting Chief Justice Herb Yazzie, according to a “confidential” memo on the bill.
On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee voted against the permanent appointment of Associate Justice Louise Grant, although she had resigned Oct. 8 and did not attend the hearing.
A day earlier, the committee voted against permanent appointment of Associate Justice Eleanor Shirley, despite a hearing in which no negative comments or information about her were presented.
According to Navajo law, the president cannot reappoint people to the bench once the Judiciary Committee has voted not to confirm them in a permanent appointment.
Leonard Tsosie (Pueblo Pintado/Torreon/Whitehorse Lake), the only lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that the committee’s 4-3 vote against Justice Shirley was “revenge” for the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of President Joe Shirley Jr. (no relation) and against the Council’s position in recent cases.
“The evidence before us didn’t support voting against Justice Shirley,” said Tsosie, one of three committee members who voted to confirm her. “In fact, it was unanimously satisfactory.”
On Wednesday, committee Chairman Kee Allen Begay (May Farms/Round Rock) denied Tsosie’s claim.
“The actions of the committee are not to retaliate against the Supreme Court like honorable Leonard Tsosie claims. The committee acted in the best interest of the Navajo people by upholding trust and being an accountable government,” Begay said. “Honorable Tsosie has a history of instigating arguments if a decision does not benefit his values, belief systems or himself.”
In May, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of voter Tim Nelson’s complaint seeking to overturn a Dec. 15 election that reduced the 88-member Council to 24.
The high court also ordered the Navajo Election Administration to immediately conduct an election for 24 delegates and not 88, derailing efforts by current Council leaders to postpone the downsizing for four years.
The justices also upheld the lower court decision that the Council illegally placed President Joe Shirley Jr. on leave pending a special prosecutor’s investigation of two business deals that cost the tribe millions.
The high court’s ruling is now being recognized as a landmark decision that addresses the role of Diné Fundamental Law, the encroachment of the Council into the judicial branch, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and the primary role of the Navajo people in shaping their government.
According to Sept. 13, 2010, memo labeled “confidential” and addressed to Chief Legislative Counsel Frank Seanez from Delegate Lorenzo Curley (Houck/Lupton/Nahata Dziil), proposed legislation to amend the Judiciary Committee’s hearing rules is intended “to remove the Navajo Nation Chief Justice.”
Minnesota Public Radio: White Earth Pushes for More Law Enforcement
From Minn. Public Radio:
White Earth Indian Reservation, Minn. — Unhappy with the way criminal cases are handled on the White Earth Indian Reservation, tribal officials are seeking more control over law enforcement and the courts.
Tribal officials say local counties don’t prosecute crimes on the reservation aggressively enough.
AN UNEASY RELATIONSHIP
Rape cases particularly are going unpunished on the White Earth reservation, Tribal Attorney Joe Plummer said. Tribal officials want those cases prosecuted to help break the cycle of teen pregnancy and poverty on the reservation.
“These are young girls, 14, 15, 16 years old being impregnated by older men, 21 and older,” Plummer said. “And these are not being prosecuted. I can’t remember when one was prosecuted.”
But county officials strongly disagree. They contend tribal members don’t cooperate with investigators.
The tribe’s dissatisfaction over how criminal cases are handled on the reservation is just one example of the tension between White Earth and Mahnomen County over land, taxes and crime.
“I can’t remember when [a rape case] was prosecuted.”
– Tribal Attorney Joe Plummer
A review of Mahnomen County court records from 2008 to 2009 appears to confirm Plummer’s complaint about the lack of prosecution for criminal sexual conduct cases. But it’s unclear if all of the records from those years are entered in the public database.
When it comes to fighting crime on the White Earth Reservation, counties control the system. The tribe can investigate crimes, but county prosecutors decide who gets charged with a crime.
The two sides often disagree on how cases are handled. It’s one of many areas where the tribe and the county don’t see eye to eye.
COUNTY ATTORNEY: VICTIMS DON’T COOPERATE
Mahnomen County Attorney Julie Bruggeman said she’s not the problem. She said crime victims don’t cooperate with her office.
She also questions whether tribal officials really want justice for all the people accused of a crime. Bruggeman accused tribal officials of wanting to pick and choose who is prosecuted based on tribal connections.
Sault Tribe Members Excluded by State Court Judge from Serving on Jury in Suit against Former Sault Chairman
We’ve been following Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Bouschor for many years, and now the claim against Bernard Bouschor may go before a jury next week. But in a very interesting pre-trial order, Judge Johnson (from Emmet County, since the local judge recused himself) ordered that no Sault Tribe members may sit on the jury due to their “financial interest in the litigation.” Order here: Judge Johnson Order Excluding SSM Members from Jury.
Anyone aware of this happening elsewhere in Indian country? I’d imagine it wouldn’t happen often, since there aren’t many of these kinds of claims against former tribal officials in state courts. What I want to know is why the tribe brought suit in state court, when it had a perfectly good tribal court at its disposal. [Now I’m told it was contractual. Now I understand.]
Here is the amended complaint: Amd-Complaint-Fifth[1].
NAICJA Annual Meeting Agenda — Oct. 26-28, 2010
The 2010 National American Indian Court Judges Association Annual Meeting agenda here: NAICJA Agenda
On-line registration is here.
News Coverage of Shomin v. GTB Election Board
From Indianz:
The tribal court of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan disqualified a winning candidate from holding public office.
The court said Alvin Pedwaydon violated election law because he sits on a committee that determines the salaries of tribal council members. “I am simply shocked,” told The Leelanau Enterprise in response to the decision.
Pedwaydon was the top vote-getter in the last three elections. He indicated he might pursue an appeal.
Federal Court Rejects Navajo Jurisdiction over Arizona School District — UPDATED
Here is the opinion in Red Mesa USD v. Yellowhair (D. Ariz.): Red Mesa USD Opinion.
Here are the materials:
Red Mesa Motion for Summary Judgment
Podcast with Fletcher on Tribal Law and Order Act
Here.
New Cert Petition re: Tribal Court Jurisdiction (Sorta)
Here is the petition in Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. The Estate of Scott Sherburne: Glacier Electric Cert Petition.
Questions presented:
[T]he question presented is whether preclusion of the issue of tribal subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case bars the federal courts from considering whether Respondents may enforce in tribal court the relief they were granted there – a substantial money judgment – despite the lack of due process at the trial.
The Ninth Circuit’s summary disposition is here.
Navajo S.Ct. Asserts Jurisdiction over Nonmember Tortfeasor; Rejects Montana Analysis
Very interesting case, and since a prominent anti-tribal jurisdiction legal foundation filed an amicus brief in the matter, one suspects it will go to federal court. In EXC, Inc. v. Keyenta District Court (opinion here), the Navajo Supreme Court held that it would allow the Navajo trial court to hear a wrongful death action against a non-Indian owned tour bus that allegedly killed a Navajo man and an unborn Navajo fetus.
An excerpt:
We find that under the proposition in Strate, U.S. Highway 160 is not “equivalent to non-Indian alienated land for non-member governance purposes.” U.S. Highway 160 is part of the territory of the Navajo Nation for governance purposes over reservation matters as defined by 7 N.N.C. § 254(A) and 18 U.C.S. § 1151 and Montana-Strate is inapplicable.
here is no question that the events giving rise to this claim affected the health, safety and welfare of the Navajo Nation as well as members of the Navajo Nation, satisfying the Long-Arm Statute. The fatalities in this case were a Navajo father and fetus. We take judicial notice that the child, even the unborn child, occupies a space in Navajo culture that can best be described as holy or sacred, although neither of these words convey the child’s status accurately. The child is awę́ę́ t’áá’íídą́ą́’hiną́, alive at conception, and develops perfectly in the care of the mother. The umbilical cord, ííná bita’ nanít’í’, is the life line between the mother and unborn child. The mother, and now the surviving grandmother and aunts (RPIs) have the maternal role of Iíná Yę́sdá hi, which encompasses bearing, raising and teaching a child, as established by White Shell Woman in our journey narratives. See Riggs v. Estate of Tom Attakai, No. SC-CV-39-04, slip op. at 3 (Nav. Sup.Ct. June 13, 2007). It is in the interest of the Navajo Nation government that family members may bring action concerning their children in a Navajo Nation court that fully comprehends how such concerns should be treated on the basis of k’é.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.