Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Santa Clara v. Singleton (D. N.M.):
Here:
NAICJA Press Release – Judicial Independence
An excerpt:
The Board of Directors of the National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA)—the only membership association of tribal court judges and tribal court personnel in the nation—is concerned by the recent reports that the Nooksack Tribe terminated a tribal court judge because of a decision she rendered in an on-going disenrollment dispute. Although the NAICJA Board takes no position on the underlying controversy, the media coverage suggests that the judge was terminated for ruling against the tribal council. If that proves correct, the action represents a clear threat to judicial independence.
Former Nooksack Judge Susan Alexander released this letter/memorandum to the media a few weeks back:
Fletcher & Singel have posted “Indian Children and the Federal Tribal Trust Relationship” on SSRN.
Here is the abstract:
This article develops the history of the role of Indian children in the formation of the federal-tribal trust relationship and comes as constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are now pending. We conclude the historical record demonstrates the core of the federal-tribal trust relationship is the welfare of Indian children and their relationship to Indian nations. The challenges to ICWA are based on legally and historically false assumptions about federal and state powers in relation to Indian children and the federal government’s trust relationship with Indian children.
Indian children have been a focus of federal Indian affairs at least since the Framing of the Constitution. The Founding Generation initially used Indian children as military and diplomatic pawns, and later undertook a duty of protection to Indian nations and, especially, Indian children. Dozens of Indian treaties memorialize and implement the federal government’s duty to Indian children. Sadly, the United States then catastrophically distorted that duty of protection by deviating from its constitution-based obligations well into the 20th century. It was during this Coercive Period that federal Indian law and policy largely became unmoored from the constitution.
The modern duty of protection, now characterized as a federal general trust relationship, is manifested in federal statutes such as ICWA and various self-determination acts that return self-governance to tribes and acknowledge the United States’ duty of protection to Indian children. The federal duty of protection of internal tribal sovereignty, which has been strongly linked to the welfare of Indian children since the Founding, is now as closely realized as it ever has been throughout American history. In the Self-Determination Era, modern federal laws, including ICWA, constitute a return of federal Indian law and policy to constitutional fidelity.
Download request for proposals here.
Here are filings in a new case captioned Tageant v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Complaint
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Declaration of Carmen Tageant in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injuction
Tageant v Kelly Pro Se Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment
Here are new materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Belmont v Kelly Amended Notice of Appeal
Belmont v Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Motion for Stay
Belmont v Kelly Order Dismissing Defendant-Appellants’ Appeal
Here is the order in Galanda v. Bernard:
Galanda v. Bernard Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus
An excerpt:
Thus, we hereby order (1) that the Court Clerk of the Nooksack Tribal Court shall either accept and file Petitioners complaints and related motions or file an answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court on or before May 16th, 2016, and (2) that the NICS administrator serve a copy of the petition together with this order by mail on the Court Clerk.
The motion for the writ of mandamus is here.
The court clerk’s refusal to accept the complaint is here.
The complaint is here.
Here are the new filings in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):
Belmont v Kelly Michelle Roberts Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Belmont v Kelly Pro Se Declaration of Michelle Roberts in Support of Motion for Writ of Mandamus
Prior filings here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.