tribal courts – Page 71

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Curtiss Wilson was stopped by a Lummi Tribe police officer while driving on the Lummi Reservation after drinking at the Lummi Casino. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Lummi Tribal Police Officer Grant Austick stopped Plaintiff, searched his 1999 Dodge Ram Pickup, and developed probable cause that Plaintiff was committing a DUI. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2.) Officer Austick then called the Washington State Patrol and Plaintiff was arrested. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s truck was towed by Defendant Horton’s Towing and impounded at the direction of the Washington State Trooper. (Id.)

The following day, Lummi Tribal Police Officer Brandon Gates presented a “Notice of Seizure and Intent to Institute Forfeiture” (“Notice of Seizure”) from the Lummi Tribal Court of the Lummi Tribe to Horton’s Towing. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 3-4, 9.) The seizure and intent to institute forfeiture of Plaintiff’s vehicle was based on violations of the Lummi Nation Code [3] of Laws (“LNCL”) 5.09A.110(d)(2) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Possession of Marijuana over 1 ounce), and authorized by LNCL 5.09B.040(5)(A) (National Indian Law Library 2016) (Civil forfeiture section addressing Property Subject to Forfeiture, specifically motor vehicles used, or intended for use, to facilitate the possession of illegal substances.) (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 9.) Horton’s Towing released the truck to the Lummi Tribe. (Id. at 3-4).

Plaintiff brought suit in Whatcom County Superior Court and the case was removed. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff originally brought claims for outrage, conversion, and relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 7-8.) All of Plaintiff’s claims, save conversion, have been previously dismissed either voluntarily or by Court order. (See Dkt. Nos. 25, 35, and 53.) Plaintiff’s conversion claim against both Horton’s and the United States is based on Horton’s release of the vehicle to the Lummi Tribe pursuant to the order served by Gates. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at 6.)

Defendant Horton’s moves for summary judgment, claiming the release of the vehicle was pursuant to the Notice of Seizure, and [4] therefore with lawful justification. (Dkt. No. 57.) Plaintiff argues in response that the Notice of Seizure is invalid or not enforceable off the reservation. (Dkt. No. 61.) The United States moves for summary judgment based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 65.) In response, Plaintiff regurgitates failed arguments from previous briefing, relying on an overturned, out-of-Circuit case and “maintaining” a line of reasoning with respect to Brandon Gates and the scope of employment that this Court has already ruled against. (Dkt. No. 66.)

Galanda Broadman Lawyers Sue to Challenge Disbarment in Tribal Court

March 28, 2016March 28, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Galanda v. Bernard (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Galanda v. Bernard Complaint

Galanda v. Bernard Motion for Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Tribal NLRB Background Materials

March 24, 2016June 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials relevant to Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Government v. NLRB.

Supreme Court cert stage briefs

Little River Petition and Appendix COMBINED

USET Amicus Brief

Final CO-UMUT Amicus Cert Petition – Saginaw Chippewa and LRB

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

CNIGA Amicus

NCAI Amicus

Michigan Amicus Brief

US Cert Opposition

Little River Reply

Sixth Circuit En Banc Stage Continue reading →

Nooksack Appellate Court Rejects Tribe’s Effort to Bar Proposed Disenrollees’ Voting Rights

March 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Belmont v. Kelly:

Belmont v. Kelly COA Order Denying Permission for Interlocutory Appeal

Relevant materials previously posted:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendant-Appellants’ Notice for Permission to FIle an Interlocutory Appeal

Belmont v Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Judge Orders Judicial Notice in Nooksack Disbarrment

March 22, 2016March 23, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Belmont v. Kelly Order Re Resolution 16-28 and Due Process; Granting Motion for Judicial Notice

Excerpt:

Repeatedly, the Court has observed such tactics by Defendants: They rely upon case law where Defendants and their counsel have access to the full record of the case, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without approval by Tribal Council, a majority of whom are Defendants in this lawsuit. They rely upon statutes where Defendants and their counsel have full access to the statutes, while refusing such access to Plaintiffs without Tribal Council approval. E.g., after Defendants claimed that the recall option is open to Plaintiffs, the Council declined to provide Plaintiffs with a copy of amended Title 60, setting forth recall procedures. And most recently, Defendants delegated to themselves authority for disciplining advocates in the Tribal Court and then, without providing notice and opportunity to be heard, they disbarred attorneys representing their adversaries in litigation.

Update: News coverage here — “Judge rules ‘biased’ tribal council denied disbarred lawyer due process“

NHBP Media Release: Violence Against Women Act’s Jurisdictional Provisions

March 18, 2016March 18, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Asserts Authority to Prosecute All Persons, including Non-Indians, for Domestic Violence

Local Tribe to Implement Violence Against Women Act Jurisdictional Provisions

Pine Creek Indian Reservation, Athens, MI – Today, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi announces implementation of a new tribal government law that enables tribal police and justice officials to investigate and prosecute certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country. Non-Indians who live or work on the reservation or have a marriage or dating relationship with a Native person may now be subject to tribal jurisdiction for domestic and dating violence crimes and criminal violations of certain protection orders. Individuals who commit these crimes in Indian country can be arrested by tribal police, prosecuted in tribal court, and sentenced to prison. Individuals prosecuted under the new tribal law will have a right to an attorney. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided by the tribe.

This is part of the Tribal Council’s larger effort to take a stand against violence in the community—and domestic violence, in particular—because of the huge toll it has taken on Native families and youth.

“Domestic violence is a uniquely local crime that has long deserved a local solution, and now we have one,” said Tribal Council Chair Homer A. Mandoka. “We will no longer stand by and watch our Native women be victimized with no recourse. I’m here to put the community on notice, perpetrators will be held accountable.”

The federal law that authorizes these recent actions by the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013). Signed into law on March 7, 2013, VAWA 2013 marked a victory for Native women, tribal leaders, women’s rights advocates, and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. For the first time since the U.S. Supreme Court stripped tribal governments of their criminal authority over non-Indians in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), VAWA 2013 restored tribal inherent authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence non-Indians who assault their Indian spouses or dating partners in Indian country. This aims to fill a longstanding jurisdictional gap on tribal lands that has for far too long put Native women at risk and kept the hands of tribal law enforcement tied.

Crimes committed outside of Indian country, between two strangers, between two non-Indians, or by a person without sufficient ties to the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi are not covered by this new authority.

This new law is necessary because violence against Native women has reached epidemic proportions*, and the old system of forcing tribes to rely exclusively on far away federal—and in some cases, state—government officials to investigate and prosecute crimes of domestic violence committed by non-Indians against Native women is not working. Prior to VAWA 2013, the Indian woman who was beaten by her non-Indian husband on tribal land had nowhere to turn for protection: tribal law enforcement had no authority to intervene because the perpetrator is a non-Indian; the State had no authority to intervene because the victim was an Indian; and the Federal Government—the body with exclusive jurisdiction—had neither the will nor the resources to intervene in misdemeanor level domestic violence cases. VAWA 2013 is an attempt to remedy this broken system.

As President Obama said when he signed VAWA 2013 into law, “Tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live free from fear.” The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi agrees, and it’s doing its part to ensure the safety of native women and of everyone on the reservation.

About the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi

The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is a federally recognized Tribal government with nearly 1,100 enrolled Tribal members. The Potawatomi name is a derivation of Bodéwadmi, meaning a people of the fire or a people who make or maintain fire, both of which refer to the role of the Potawatomi as the keepers of the Council fire in an earlier alliance with other Tribes in the area. The Tribe’s main offices are located at the Pine Creek Indian Reservation in Athens Township, with additional offices in Grand Rapids, MI, to better serve our Tribal members. The government employs more than 150 employees who work for various departments among the Tribe including Tribal Police, Tribal Court, Housing, Environment, Membership Services, Communications, Human Resources, Finance, Public Works, Planning, Health & Human Services, and the Gaming Commission.