tribal election – Page 13

A state supreme court has dismissed the law suit filed by former Cayuga leaders Clint Halftown, Timothy Twoguns, and Gary Wheeler against the Nation’s current government, the Unity Council.
In its May 19th ruling, the Seneca County Supreme Court adopted the Unity Council’s position that “because the underlying allegations in [Halftown’s] law suit are fundamentally founded on the longstanding question of who has the right to lead the Nation, no determination could be made by
this Court without interfering in tribal sovereignty and self-government.” The Court rejected Halftown’s claim that he is recognized as a leader of the Nation by the United States, and
suggested that regardless of Halftown’s position within the nation, the law suit lacked merit. “Notably,” the court ruled, “there is a dearth of allegations regarding any direct involvement by any of the named defendants at any of the incidents.”

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Leadership Dispute

May 12, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Freeman v. Freeman (Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Court):

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-07 – First Amended Tribal Court Complaint

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Declaration of Tribal Secretary Geraldine Freeman

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

PTCV-14-001 – 2014-05-09 – TRO – Temporary Restraining Order

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to 2009 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Election

April 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ramos v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mass.):

1 Complaint

9 Amended Complaint

11 BIA Motion to Dismiss

12 Ramos Response

15 BIA Reply

22 DCT Order Dismissing Claim

An excerpt:

The Plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (“Tribe”), have sued the Defendants, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”); Michael Black, Director of the BIA; Mike Smith, Deputy Director; Franklin Keel, Regional Director; and Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking an injunction requiring the Defendants to conduct an investigation into the Tribe’s 2009 election and to take action to ensure that the Tribe’s elections are properly conducted. D. 9 at 10. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party. D. 10. Because the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss.

Alaska SCT Refuses to Take Jurisdiction over Internal Tribal Governance Matter

April 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Healy Lake Village v. Mt. McKinley Bank. An excerot:

Members of Healy Lake Village Tribe who claim to constitute the newly elected tribal council brought suit in superior court against Mt. McKinley Bank after the Bank refused to change the signatory authority on the Tribe’s accounts to reflect the alleged leadership change. A second group of tribal members, who also claim to represent the Tribe based on a competing election, was granted intervention in order to contest the superior court’s jurisdiction. The superior court determined that the fundamental issue in the case was the determination of the legitimate governing body of the Tribe, which was an internal self-governance matter within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty. The superior court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the group that brought the initial action now appeals. Because determining the real party in interest would have required the superior court to decide matters solely within the Tribe’s retained inherent sovereignty, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.