tribal membership

Judge Orders Judicial Notice in Nooksack Disbarrment

Sarah 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“

News Profile of Nooksack Disbarment Issue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Nooksack leaders disbar lawyer fighting tribal disenrollments” from the Seattle Times.

And another pleading in Belmont v. Kelly:

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

Update in Nooksack Disbarment Drama

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Fifth Declaration of Michelle Roberts

Belmont v. Kelly Reply to Response to Motion for Judicial Notice by Pro Se Plaintiff

News Coverage of Nooksack Tribal Council Disbarment of Galanda Broadman

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is “Nooksack Tribe bars lawyer for ‘306’ facing disenrollment.”

 

 

Update in Nooksack Disenrollment; Tribe’s Reconsideration Motion Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Preliminary Injunction Motion

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Reconsideration

Belmont v. Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

Belmont v. Kelly Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Reconsideration

Prior proceedings in this matter here.

Al Jazeera Show on Disenrollments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Without a tribe: Fighting to stay Native American — The contentious practice of disenrollment in some tribes sparks a discussion about Indigenous identity.”

Nooksack 306 Allowed to Vote in Elections While IBIA Review is Pending

Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Belmont v Kelly Defendants’ Reply on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Belmont v Kelly Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injuction

Link to decision coverage in The Bellingham Herald here.

Nooksack Tribal Court has upheld the voting rights of over 300 Nooksack members facing disenrollment over a controversial ordinance passed in 2014.  While the federal review of that ordinance drags along, the Tribe requested that contested members be prevented from voting in Tribal elections.

Judge Susan Alexander wrote that the marked members were allowed to vote in 2014 when their enrollment was in doubt, but now the Tribe has unilaterally changed their minds to protect open seats in this year’s general election.

New Complaint in Nooksack Disenrollment Saga

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v Kelly II Complaint

Disenrollee Suit to Recover Children’s Trust Funds

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Rash v. Jeff Davis Bancshares Inc. (W.D. La.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

Defendant, Jeff Davis Bancshares, Inc., d/b/a under the tradename Jeff Davis Bank and Trust Company (“Jeff Davis Bank”) accepted in 2000 and 2001 the trusteeship over substantial funds placed in trust by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (the “Coushatta Tribe”) for the benefit of certain minor children, to be held in trust until such then-minor beneficiaries attained the age of twenty-one (21) years. Each trust is an irrevocable trust with the Coushatta Tribe as Settlor and one child, who was a minor at the time the trust was established, as the sole income and principal beneficiary (the “Beneficiary”) of said trust, which trust bears the name of said Beneficiary (each a “Children’s Trust” and collectively the “Children’s Trusts”). At the time each Children’s Trust was established and Jeff Davis Bank accepted the trusteeship, the minor child Beneficiaries were legally members of the Coushatta Tribe,

Zepeda v. United States Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Zepeda Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, makes it a federal crime for an “Indian” to commit any one of thirteen enumerated acts in “Indian country.” In this case, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that an element of the offense in prosecutions under this statute is proof that the defendant has “Indian blood,” whether or not that blood tie is to a federally recognized tribe. The question presented is:
Whether, as construed by the Ninth Circuit, Section 1153 impermissibly discriminates on the basis of race.
Opinion here. En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.