Montana 2 Case at Rincon Band Dismissed under Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine

Here is the opinion in Rincon Mushroom Corp. v. Mazzetti (S.D. Cal.):

2010-09-22 Order Dismissing

And this pleading, which seems to say it all: Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss

Painter-Thorne Article Criticizing Federal Jurisdiction over Sexual Assault on American Indian Women

Suzianne Painter-Thorne has posted her article “Tangled Up in Knots: How Continued Federal Jurisdiction Over Sexual Predators on Indian Reservations Hobbles Effective Law Enforcement to the Detriment of Indian Women” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

An Indian woman is two-and-a-half times more likely than any other American woman to be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Nevertheless, because of a confusing tangle of jurisdictional rules, she is four times less likely to see her assailant arrested. She is even less likely to see him stand trial. Because jurisdiction over most sexual assaults is vested in the federal government, Indian tribes are not allowed to arrest or prosecute most of the suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. Consequently, tribal lands have become safe havens for sexual predators, who can commit their offenses with impunity and with little fear of prosecution.

This article proposes that federal jurisdiction prevents effective law enforcement on Indian reservations and leaves Indian women at a greater risk of sexual assault. While the recently passed Tribal Law and Order Act seeks to improve reservation law enforcement, it fails to provide meaningful reform because it perpetuates the current law enforcement scheme that leaves Indian women vulnerable to sexual assault. Remote federal officials are not in the best position – geographically, politically, or culturally – to police reservation lands. Instead, Congress needs to reassess tribal jurisdiction, permitting tribes to arrest and prosecute suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. For too long, tribes have been left powerless to defend their own people against predators who enter reservation lands and commit unspeakable violence against tribal citizens. At the heart of sovereignty is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. It is time to permit tribes to rise to this responsibility.

Blackfeet Tribe Amicus Brief in State Court Probate Jurisdiction Case

The case is captioned In re Estate of Big Spring (Mont. S. Ct.). Here is the brief: Blackfeet Amicus Brief.

An excerpt from the brief:

This case comes before this Court on the appeal of the Appellants from the decision of the Ninth Judicial District of Glacier County which ruled against a Motion to Dismiss by the Appellants based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the estate of William Big Spring, II, an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe, who, at the time of his death was a resident of the Blackfeet Reservation and whose estate consisted of both trust and fee land solely within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation. The District Court stated that there was concurrent jurisdiction over this property and that the District Court was therefore the proper forum for the probate of this Indian-owned fee land.

Appellants argue that the State District Court is without jurisdiction over the probates of resident enrolled members of the Blackfeet Tribe. Appellants further state that the probate of the trust land of such persons is vested in the Administrative Courts of the United States and that the probate of the fee land is vested, exclusively in the Blackfeet Tribal Court. That is also the view of the Blackfeet Tribe as seen in this Amicus Brief.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Choctaw Tribal Court Indian Child Adoption Matter

Here are the materials in Alexander v. Salazar (E.D. Okla.):

DCT Order in Alexander

Tribal Court Judge Jurisdictional Brief

Alexander Jurisdictional Brief

Hammons’ Jurisdictional Brief

LVD Sorta Back to Normal

From TV via Pechanga:

WATERSMEET — After nearly a week of courtrooms, protests, and imprisonment the Lac Vieux Desert Tribal Council plans to return to their reservation in Watersmeet.

According to their attorney, the nine-member council plans to return home and conduct business as usual until the tribal appellate court hears the case.

Monday dozens of council and tribal members protested outside of the Marquette Federal Courthouse saying they are political prisoners upholding the tribe’s constitution.

All nine members of the tribal council were jailed last week after refusing to swear in the new executive council due to alleged election problems.

GTB Election Challenge

Here: Mary Shomin v Election Board_Sep 2010.

Supplemental Pleading in LVD Case

Sounds like the federal habeas case is dead for now, as the LVD council is out of jail.

LVD Council Supplemental Brief

LVD Appellate Decision(s) Ordering Release of LVD Council

Note the dates of the orders (Sept. 9 and Sept. 11), and the actual release of the council (Sept. 11): Order Granting Habeas Corpus.

LVD Council Released from Jail

From tv:

WATERSMEET — The Lac Vieux Desert tribal council is back in Watersmeet after an appellate court ruled they should be released from jail.

According to the tribal council’s attorney, Zeke Fletcher, the appellate court made the ruling two days ago but Judge Bradley Dakota did not recognize the ruling.

The nine member council has been in the Iron County jail since Wednesday because they refuse to swear in two new tribal council members despite the court order.

They were held in contempt of court and jailed.

Opening Brief in Second Ninth Circuit Tribal Court Consecutive Sentencing Case

The case is Bustamante v. Valenzuela. And the brief: Appellant’s Opening Brief 9th Cir.100910

Lower court materials are here.