Here’s an interesting development that may have some impact on the Colorado v. Cash Advance case.
The Sisseton tribal council enacted the following resolution designed to “fix” the Northern Plains Intertribal Court of Appeals decision raised by the Colorado AG in the supplemental pleading referred to here.
MAYETTA, Kan. – Appearances are everything in small communities. This is especially true in Indian country, where close family, social and work relationships may appear to compromise the integrity of tribal judicial systems.
Elizabeth A. Kronk, assistant professor of law at theUniversity of Montana School of Law, urges tribes to adopt a code of ethics for their tribal justices and elected officers, not only as an exercise in sovereignty, but also to avoid even the perception of impropriety.
“Our communities are small, and we know everybody,” said Kronk, who spoke on ethical considerations for tribal courts, practice and governance at the 10th Annual Native Nations Law Symposium, Feb. 12, at Prairie Band Casino & Resort on the Potawatomi reservation.
Kronk presented excerpts from the National Tribal Judicial Center’s Sample Code of Judicial Conduct and theABA’s 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct to discuss the appearance of impropriety, the definition of who a judge is, disqualification, extrajudicial activities, ex parte communication, and the integrity and independence of the tribal judiciary.
From the Navajo Times Online (via Pechanga):
The Navajo Nation Supreme Court has pushed back two high-profile cases by a month in the wake of a new law that the court says could enhance the Navajo Nation Council’s immunity against lawsuits, and may not be valid.
The law in question limits the use of Diné Fundamental Law to Peacemaker Court, and the justices said in two orders issued March 4 that this raises questions in both cases, because both sides rely heavily on Fundamental Law in their briefs.
The cases at hand are Timothy Nelson v. Joe Shirley Jr. and his initiative committee, in which a Western Agency voter is seeking to overturn the Dec. 15 special election that reduced the council from 88 to 24 members; and Office of the President v. Navajo Nation Council, in which the council is appealing a Dec. 14 ruling that reinstated Shirley after the council put him on leave.
Stung by recent rulings that invoked Diné Fundamental Law, the council in January passed a bill to prevent the courts from basing rulings on Fundamental Law. The hastily drawn legislation did not address what would become of cases already in process that cite Fundamental Law, such as the election challenge that most delegates are openly supporting.
The bill to restrict use of Fundamental Law said the courts, including the Supreme Court, are to rely only on statutes, which are the laws passed by the council.
Shirley vetoed the bill, saying it was a blatant attempt to tie the courts’ hands, but the council called a special session Feb. 23 and overrode the veto by a large margin, and the restrictions took effect instantly.
“It appears that the new legislation purports to enhance the immunity of the Navajo Nation Council and all council delegates against lawsuits,” states the court’s order requesting supplemental briefs in the president’s office v. the council. “As a result, a question arises as to what impact does the new legislation have on this lawsuit. Can this lawsuit proceed?”
The opinion is posted here.
Here are the briefs:
Here are the materials so far in Romero v. Goodrich (D. N.M.), case out of the Pueblo of Nambé:
Nambé Pueblo Motion to Dismiss
Romero v Goodrich Magistrate Report
Apparently, this case was dismissed when the Pueblo of Nambé commuted the sentence of Ronald Romero: Motion to Reconsider — Commuted Sentences
Here is a great webpage by the Univ. of Washington law library detailing how to find tribal court decisions from a multitude of tribal courts:
Here is the opinion in United States Azure (or Wind)–US v. Wind
Here is the order denying Alltel’s motion for a TRO to shut down a tribal court proceeding brought by the Oglala Sioux Tribe: Alltel Communications v Oglala Sioux Tribe.
The court wrote:
That under the guidance of Lien and Gaming World, the court recognizes comity and honors the right of the Oglala Sioux Tribal Court, in the first instance, to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider the defendant tribe’s petition for preliminary injunction in tribal court action Civ. # 09-0673.
This case is Lower Sioux Indian Community v. Kraus-Anderson Const. Co. (Minn. App.). Here is the unpublished opinion.
An exceprt:
Because Lower Sioux is not a necessary party to this litigation, we reverse the district court’s order joining Lower Sioux as a party and enjoining it from pursuing parallel tribal court litigation.The determination that Lower Sioux is not a necessary party is dispositive. Thus, we need not reach and do not reach the parties’ dispute over whether Lower Sioux waived its sovereign immunity, either contractually or by initiating the district court action. Nor do we take any position on the jurisdiction of the tribal court over the subcontractor respondents or whether the subcontractors may be joined as parties to the tribal court proceedings. Those determinations are for the tribal court. See Klammer v. Lower Sioux Convenience Store, 535 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Minn.App.1995) (explaining that comity requires allowing tribal court to determine its own jurisdiction); Rule 12(c) of the Lower Sioux Community in the State of Minnesota Judicial Code Rules of Civil Procedure, available at http://maiba.org/pdf/LowerSioux.pdf (addressing standard for joinder in tribal court). We also deny as moot Kraus-Anderson’s motions to modify the record and to strike portions of one respondent’s brief because the disputes raised by the motions are relevant only to the issues that we have declined to reach.
Here are the materials for this case, Jaramillo v. Harrah’s (Rincon Casino & Resort):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.